|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| There seems to be a very good chance that they'll take one with the sixth pick of the draft where quarterbacks like Ohio State's Dwayne Haskins, Missouri's Drew Lock, Duke's Daniel Jones and maybe even Oklahoma's Kyler Murray are possible options. Several others, like West Virginia's Will Grier, could be options on Day 2. The Giants could also use their second-round pick to trade back into the first round if one of those top-tier quarterbacks slips farther than they expect. So their options are open, but they do seem more serious about finding Manning's heir apparent than they were at this time last year. Manning, as SNY has been reporting, is expected to return as the starter for the 2019 season. But the Giants are hopeful that right behind him on the depth chart his eventual successor will be on board. |
Quote:
...
From this organization? That's hilarious.
LOL....the ripping of the Giants just isn't given a rest by Terps...........
4) The last thing is history has shown that when it comes to drafting QBs early NFL generally throw the BPA book out the window. You need a QB; you like a QB, you go get him. In the past ten years 7 of the 10 #1 overall picks have been QBs. QBs make up almost half (13) of the 30 players taken with picks 1, 2 or 3 in the past ten years; indeed almost as many QBs have been taken within the first three picks (13) as have been taken in the rest of the opening round (17) over the past ten years. Maybe the most fascinating factoid in this issue (if you can follow) is that the last time the first QB selected was a top 10 pick but was not taken in the first three picks was 1992. Fact is QBs get overdrafted every year. You want one you have to get him.
Absolutely. We needed a QB just as much last year. Instead, all of the eggs at Jints Central were thrown into the Eli basket. And we took a flyer with Lauletta. And then that was further mismanaged by never playing him when the season was clearly over by Halloween.
Which makes this year trickier because this year's QB crop is very hard to evaluate. There is talent there, it's just very unusual - a QB who played in an ideal setting where a lot of QBs would look good (Haskins), a QB who looks like a freak athlete and thrower, but he's likely 5'9"ish (Murray), a QB with ties the Mannings, via Cutcliffe, but his performance versus better ACC competition was modest at best (Jones), and a QB with great gifts to throw the ball, and desired size and athleticism, but he may have some challenges above the shoulders (Lock)...
Very challenging times when we definitely need to get younger and better at the QB position...
And more.........
When would you deem it not a shit show?
Quote:
In comment 14289872 Mr. Bungle said:
Quote:
...
From this organization? That's hilarious.
LOL....the ripping of the Giants just isn't given a rest by Terps...........
It is a daily obligation, I guess.
I think they would have, esp given the point total allowed.
The experience factor in this particular case, is huge.
Quote:
In comment 14289875 Go Terps said:
Quote:
In comment 14289872 Mr. Bungle said:
Quote:
...
From this organization? That's hilarious.
LOL....the ripping of the Giants just isn't given a rest by Terps...........
It is a daily obligation, I guess.
Talk about frustrated fan. Is he even having any fun?
I think I recommended taking 6 months off and returning.....you know, like a hiatus.
Why would they have been anything less than 100% serious about finding Manning's replacement last year when: (1) they had the second pick in the draft; (2) Manning was 37 and coming off an awful season; and (3) there were at least four quarterbacks considered to have first round ability?
The only defensible argument for the Giants selection of Barkley last year is that the organization did the absolute maximum due diligence on each of the quarterback prospects and simply did not like any of them. However, if the record eventually shows that the Giants did not, in fact, have maximally serious interest in trying to find their future quarterback last offseason (the "ehh, Eli might still have it, and plus, look at Barkley's thighs!" mentality), then it is one of the greatest strategic blunders in the franchise's history.
If they follow that up with reaching on a quarterback selection this year to try to overcompensate for last year's blunder, well these are the kinds of scenarios where you look up one day and realize it's been a quarter century since you won a playoff game.
Why would they have been anything less than 100% serious about finding Manning's replacement last year when: (1) they had the second pick in the draft; (2) Manning was 37 and coming off an awful season; and (3) there were at least four quarterbacks considered to have first round ability?
The only defensible argument for the Giants selection of Barkley last year is that the organization did the absolute maximum due diligence on each of the quarterback prospects and simply did not like any of them. However, if the record eventually shows that the Giants did not, in fact, have maximally serious interest in trying to find their future quarterback last offseason (the "ehh, Eli might still have it, and plus, look at Barkley's thighs!" mentality), then it is one of the greatest strategic blunders in the franchise's history.
If they follow that up with reaching on a quarterback selection this year to try to overcompensate for last year's blunder, well these are the kinds of scenarios where you look up one day and realize it's been a quarter century since you won a playoff game.
Maybe they were just content taking the best player in the draft.
Not everything has to be a blunder of epic proportions. Some of you guys are so fucking dramatic and ridiculous with the hyperbole.
They obviously liked Barkley more than the QB's last year and so far, nothing has happened to prove that they were wrong in thinking that. Mayfield wasn't available to us and Barkley was pretty clearly a better rookie than Darnold, Rosen, and Allen. Quite frankly, it wasn't close.
Jackson probably had a more effective rookie campaign than any of those 3 guys, honestly. And he only started half the season.
I think he would have performed better than Goff in that game however that's based more on "Eli Magic". If we're basing it on how they've looked the last couple of seasons and the Rams lack of running game + Pats pass rush? A ton of doubt. We know exactly how this version of Eli looks under those conditions.
Try this on for size:
Does anyone doubt that if Goff had the WRs Nicks, Cruz, and Manningham as his 1,2,3 receivers, instead of Cooks, Woods and Reynolds the outcome would have been different? Goff put balls in guys' hands many more times than they came down with the ball IMO. They weren't separating much, either. Yet you think it's simply Eli vs Goff? That's a very ignorant (or heavily biased) opinion.
What your wrote buffets my prediction that some team will trade up above the Giants to land Haskins.
What do you suspect the Giants will do in that case? I've read rumors that they like Stidham in round 2 if he's on the board then, which seems likely.
Quote:
In comment 14289872 Mr. Bungle said:
Quote:
...
From this organization? That's hilarious.
LOL....the ripping of the Giants just isn't given a rest by Terps...........
In fairness, if you (or any fans) believe that the Giants FO, Gettleman included, are capable of pulling off a smokescreen rather than being completely transparent about their intentions, you're doing so purely out of wishful thinking. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that the Giants have employed that sort of gamesmanship in recent years.
Quote:
but he's had a pretty good track record as far as the draft is concerned IIRC.
Yep, that's why I posted it. He was fairly spot on last year about intentions and hit on a bunch of their picks in previous years too.
This is in addition to what Schwartz said. Last year the top beats pretty much sniffed out the lean towards Barkley and/or at least the non-QB direction. If the top 2 are both saying QB it makes sense. Eli is on his last year of contract and it makes sense to bring in a guy at this point to learn for a year under Eli.
1. Paying an elite player elite money. Whenever it's time for KC to pay Mahomes, just do it and don't think twice.
2. A kid in his rookie deal.
3. A journeyman that can hold the position down at a low cost; Ryan Fitzpatrick and Teddy Bridgewater each had about a $3M cap hit last year. Think about that...a viable starting QB that probably wouldn't have been much worse than what Eli ($22.2M) did for us at the cost of what we paid Jonathan Stewart.
If you're not in one of these three groups with your starting QB, you're doing it wrong.
Right now, the Giants are doing it wrong.
Right on the $$$. You can't expect to win when you pay a guy 20% of your cap and he isn't in the top half at the position, especially the QB spot.
How long has Gettleman been on the job, and how many drafts has he run with the Giants?
Your basing you analysis on....one year?
Quote:
"they do seem more serious about finding Manning's heir apparent than they were at this time last year."
Why would they have been anything less than 100% serious about finding Manning's replacement last year when: (1) they had the second pick in the draft; (2) Manning was 37 and coming off an awful season; and (3) there were at least four quarterbacks considered to have first round ability?
The only defensible argument for the Giants selection of Barkley last year is that the organization did the absolute maximum due diligence on each of the quarterback prospects and simply did not like any of them. However, if the record eventually shows that the Giants did not, in fact, have maximally serious interest in trying to find their future quarterback last offseason (the "ehh, Eli might still have it, and plus, look at Barkley's thighs!" mentality), then it is one of the greatest strategic blunders in the franchise's history.
If they follow that up with reaching on a quarterback selection this year to try to overcompensate for last year's blunder, well these are the kinds of scenarios where you look up one day and realize it's been a quarter century since you won a playoff game.
Maybe they were just content taking the best player in the draft.
Not everything has to be a blunder of epic proportions. Some of you guys are so fucking dramatic and ridiculous with the hyperbole.
They obviously liked Barkley more than the QB's last year and so far, nothing has happened to prove that they were wrong in thinking that. Mayfield wasn't available to us and Barkley was pretty clearly a better rookie than Darnold, Rosen, and Allen. Quite frankly, it wasn't close.
Jackson probably had a more effective rookie campaign than any of those 3 guys, honestly. And he only started half the season.
The argument as to whether the Giants should have taken a qb in 2018 vs. Barkley won't be settled for some time. I cannot put stock in a running backs rookie year vs. a qb, you are comparing apples to oranges. There are a lot of moving parts here, but this will largely depend on how, in my opinion, Darnold (you can look at all three qbs available there in fairness) develops and if the Giants are able to find a legit top 10-12 qb to replace Manning.
This argument will persist and rightfully so, it was a major impactful organizational decision. And that is not, as most BBIs love to say, hyperbole.
Quote:
Does anyone here doubt that the rams might have won the super bowl if Eli Manning is under center instead of Goff? Think about it.
Try this on for size:
Does anyone doubt that if Goff had the WRs Nicks, Cruz, and Manningham as his 1,2,3 receivers, instead of Cooks, Woods and Reynolds the outcome would have been different? Goff put balls in guys' hands many more times than they came down with the ball IMO. They weren't separating much, either. Yet you think it's simply Eli vs Goff? That's a very ignorant (or heavily biased) opinion.
I'm of the opinion Goff couldn't translate what he was looking at.
He had open receivers but chose to go elsewhere.
The third quarter pass to Cooks was the most glaring error....guy was open for seconds, and he didn't recognize it before it was too late.
Quote:
Without a QB on the roster than panic pick an inferior QB prospect in this draft.
So what is your plan to get Tua?
My preference is Fromm.
Quote:
In comment 14290007 eugibs said:
Quote:
"they do seem more serious about finding Manning's heir apparent than they were at this time last year."
Why would they have been anything less than 100% serious about finding Manning's replacement last year when: (1) they had the second pick in the draft; (2) Manning was 37 and coming off an awful season; and (3) there were at least four quarterbacks considered to have first round ability?
The only defensible argument for the Giants selection of Barkley last year is that the organization did the absolute maximum due diligence on each of the quarterback prospects and simply did not like any of them. However, if the record eventually shows that the Giants did not, in fact, have maximally serious interest in trying to find their future quarterback last offseason (the "ehh, Eli might still have it, and plus, look at Barkley's thighs!" mentality), then it is one of the greatest strategic blunders in the franchise's history.
If they follow that up with reaching on a quarterback selection this year to try to overcompensate for last year's blunder, well these are the kinds of scenarios where you look up one day and realize it's been a quarter century since you won a playoff game.
Maybe they were just content taking the best player in the draft.
Not everything has to be a blunder of epic proportions. Some of you guys are so fucking dramatic and ridiculous with the hyperbole.
They obviously liked Barkley more than the QB's last year and so far, nothing has happened to prove that they were wrong in thinking that. Mayfield wasn't available to us and Barkley was pretty clearly a better rookie than Darnold, Rosen, and Allen. Quite frankly, it wasn't close.
Jackson probably had a more effective rookie campaign than any of those 3 guys, honestly. And he only started half the season.
The argument as to whether the Giants should have taken a qb in 2018 vs. Barkley won't be settled for some time. I cannot put stock in a running backs rookie year vs. a qb, you are comparing apples to oranges. There are a lot of moving parts here, but this will largely depend on how, in my opinion, Darnold (you can look at all three qbs available there in fairness) develops and if the Giants are able to find a legit top 10-12 qb to replace Manning.
This argument will persist and rightfully so, it was a major impactful organizational decision. And that is not, as most BBIs love to say, hyperbole.
Acting like we're going to go a "quarter of a century" without winning a playoff game if we pick a QB this year to "overcompensate" for not taking one last year most certainly is hyperbolic thinking.
Pretty much textbook. It's a ridiculous way of posting to try to drive home a point - which is what people here often do, and why BBI'ers often call it out. It's a shitty argumentative tactic that is usually used when actual supporting facts or basis' are lacking.
Quote:
Does anyone here doubt that the rams might have won the super bowl if Eli Manning is under center instead of Goff? Think about it.
Try this on for size:
Does anyone doubt that if Goff had the WRs Nicks, Cruz, and Manningham as his 1,2,3 receivers, instead of Cooks, Woods and Reynolds the outcome would have been different? Goff put balls in guys' hands many more times than they came down with the ball IMO. They weren't separating much, either. Yet you think it's simply Eli vs Goff? That's a very ignorant (or heavily biased) opinion.
It's not Eli v. Goff per say. In this particular case, it's the experience factor.
I think there are other QBs around the league that would have fared better than Goff on Sunday, that Goff would decidedly be ranked ahead of on any list.
Experience really did him in.......and the Patriot experience in particular.
Quote:
In comment 14290015 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
In comment 14290007 eugibs said:
Quote:
"they do seem more serious about finding Manning's heir apparent than they were at this time last year."
Why would they have been anything less than 100% serious about finding Manning's replacement last year when: (1) they had the second pick in the draft; (2) Manning was 37 and coming off an awful season; and (3) there were at least four quarterbacks considered to have first round ability?
The only defensible argument for the Giants selection of Barkley last year is that the organization did the absolute maximum due diligence on each of the quarterback prospects and simply did not like any of them. However, if the record eventually shows that the Giants did not, in fact, have maximally serious interest in trying to find their future quarterback last offseason (the "ehh, Eli might still have it, and plus, look at Barkley's thighs!" mentality), then it is one of the greatest strategic blunders in the franchise's history.
If they follow that up with reaching on a quarterback selection this year to try to overcompensate for last year's blunder, well these are the kinds of scenarios where you look up one day and realize it's been a quarter century since you won a playoff game.
Maybe they were just content taking the best player in the draft.
Not everything has to be a blunder of epic proportions. Some of you guys are so fucking dramatic and ridiculous with the hyperbole.
They obviously liked Barkley more than the QB's last year and so far, nothing has happened to prove that they were wrong in thinking that. Mayfield wasn't available to us and Barkley was pretty clearly a better rookie than Darnold, Rosen, and Allen. Quite frankly, it wasn't close.
Jackson probably had a more effective rookie campaign than any of those 3 guys, honestly. And he only started half the season.
The argument as to whether the Giants should have taken a qb in 2018 vs. Barkley won't be settled for some time. I cannot put stock in a running backs rookie year vs. a qb, you are comparing apples to oranges. There are a lot of moving parts here, but this will largely depend on how, in my opinion, Darnold (you can look at all three qbs available there in fairness) develops and if the Giants are able to find a legit top 10-12 qb to replace Manning.
This argument will persist and rightfully so, it was a major impactful organizational decision. And that is not, as most BBIs love to say, hyperbole.
Acting like we're going to go a "quarter of a century" without winning a playoff game if we pick a QB this year to "overcompensate" for not taking one last year most certainly is hyperbolic thinking.
Pretty much textbook. It's a ridiculous way of posting to try to drive home a point - which is what people here often do, and why BBI'ers often call it out. It's a shitty argumentative tactic that is usually used when actual supporting facts or basis' are lacking.
That's fine, but I think calling 2018 a very impactful offseason for the Giants is fair. It could have had long last impacts, we won't know for some time.
Quote:
"they do seem more serious about finding Manning's heir apparent than they were at this time last year."
Why would they have been anything less than 100% serious about finding Manning's replacement last year when: (1) they had the second pick in the draft; (2) Manning was 37 and coming off an awful season; and (3) there were at least four quarterbacks considered to have first round ability?
The only defensible argument for the Giants selection of Barkley last year is that the organization did the absolute maximum due diligence on each of the quarterback prospects and simply did not like any of them. However, if the record eventually shows that the Giants did not, in fact, have maximally serious interest in trying to find their future quarterback last offseason (the "ehh, Eli might still have it, and plus, look at Barkley's thighs!" mentality), then it is one of the greatest strategic blunders in the franchise's history.
If they follow that up with reaching on a quarterback selection this year to try to overcompensate for last year's blunder, well these are the kinds of scenarios where you look up one day and realize it's been a quarter century since you won a playoff game.
Maybe they were just content taking the best player in the draft.
Not everything has to be a blunder of epic proportions. Some of you guys are so fucking dramatic and ridiculous with the hyperbole.
They obviously liked Barkley more than the QB's last year and so far, nothing has happened to prove that they were wrong in thinking that. Mayfield wasn't available to us and Barkley was pretty clearly a better rookie than Darnold, Rosen, and Allen. Quite frankly, it wasn't close.
Jackson probably had a more effective rookie campaign than any of those 3 guys, honestly. And he only started half the season.
If Darnold, Rosen or Allen are the goods, they will not reach their full potential as players until Barkley is already in the twilight of his career. In the 2001 draft, the Chargers took LaDainian Tomlinson in the first round and Drew Brees in the second round. Tomlinson's last impactful NFL season was 11 years ago. Drew Brees lead his team to the number 1 seed and the NFC Championship Game less than a month ago.
The only thing that is ridiculous is, when hearing that your team wasn't serious about drafting a franchise quarterback when it had the second pick in the draft, just shrugging your shoulders and saying the running back they took with that pick instead had a better rookie season for your 5-11 team. No one knows exactly what the thought process was. But if the thought process that lead to taking Barkley involved the Giants not being serious about trying to find a franchise quarterback, then there is no amount of hyperbole to describe how wrong that thought-process was.
However if you go on you tube and see him go over the all 22 with analysts Haskins seems to know what he’s looking at in the film room.......
Quote:
In comment 14290007 eugibs said:
Quote:
"they do seem more serious about finding Manning's heir apparent than they were at this time last year."
Why would they have been anything less than 100% serious about finding Manning's replacement last year when: (1) they had the second pick in the draft; (2) Manning was 37 and coming off an awful season; and (3) there were at least four quarterbacks considered to have first round ability?
The only defensible argument for the Giants selection of Barkley last year is that the organization did the absolute maximum due diligence on each of the quarterback prospects and simply did not like any of them. However, if the record eventually shows that the Giants did not, in fact, have maximally serious interest in trying to find their future quarterback last offseason (the "ehh, Eli might still have it, and plus, look at Barkley's thighs!" mentality), then it is one of the greatest strategic blunders in the franchise's history.
If they follow that up with reaching on a quarterback selection this year to try to overcompensate for last year's blunder, well these are the kinds of scenarios where you look up one day and realize it's been a quarter century since you won a playoff game.
Maybe they were just content taking the best player in the draft.
Not everything has to be a blunder of epic proportions. Some of you guys are so fucking dramatic and ridiculous with the hyperbole.
They obviously liked Barkley more than the QB's last year and so far, nothing has happened to prove that they were wrong in thinking that. Mayfield wasn't available to us and Barkley was pretty clearly a better rookie than Darnold, Rosen, and Allen. Quite frankly, it wasn't close.
Jackson probably had a more effective rookie campaign than any of those 3 guys, honestly. And he only started half the season.
If Darnold, Rosen or Allen are the goods, they will not reach their full potential as players until Barkley is already in the twilight of his career. In the 2001 draft, the Chargers took LaDainian Tomlinson in the first round and Drew Brees in the second round. Tomlinson's last impactful NFL season was 11 years ago. Drew Brees lead his team to the number 1 seed and the NFC Championship Game less than a month ago.
The only thing that is ridiculous is, when hearing that your team wasn't serious about drafting a franchise quarterback when it had the second pick in the draft, just shrugging your shoulders and saying the running back they took with that pick instead had a better rookie season for your 5-11 team. No one knows exactly what the thought process was. But if the thought process that lead to taking Barkley involved the Giants not being serious about trying to find a franchise quarterback, then there is no amount of hyperbole to describe how wrong that thought-process was.
You've created your own scenario here. There's nothing to suggest the Giants just ignored the 2018 QB class. They preferred Barkley. It's simple.
You're writing your own narrative without actually having facts to back it up. It's a poor argument.
And Drew Brees wound up shining for the team that didn't even draft him. The Chargers gave up on him and opted to draft Rivers instead. Beyond that, Drew Brees is an outlier for many reasons. The odds of there being a Drew Brees in last year's draft are exceptionally small.
Yes, QB's take time to develop. But Mayfield hit the ground running this year and Baltimore was able to find a niche for Jackson as well. None of Darnold, Allen, or Rosen had impactful rookie years at all and still have tons of work to do.
The Giants would have been just as awful with any of those guys - probably worse - and then we'd have the same complaints about a 3-5 win team and whether or not we even took the right guy while Barkley was running wild in another city - maybe even across town.
None of this is going to set the Giants back 25 years. Just stop with the dramatics.
Quote:
In comment 14290015 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
In comment 14290007 eugibs said:
Quote:
"they do seem more serious about finding Manning's heir apparent than they were at this time last year."
Why would they have been anything less than 100% serious about finding Manning's replacement last year when: (1) they had the second pick in the draft; (2) Manning was 37 and coming off an awful season; and (3) there were at least four quarterbacks considered to have first round ability?
The only defensible argument for the Giants selection of Barkley last year is that the organization did the absolute maximum due diligence on each of the quarterback prospects and simply did not like any of them. However, if the record eventually shows that the Giants did not, in fact, have maximally serious interest in trying to find their future quarterback last offseason (the "ehh, Eli might still have it, and plus, look at Barkley's thighs!" mentality), then it is one of the greatest strategic blunders in the franchise's history.
If they follow that up with reaching on a quarterback selection this year to try to overcompensate for last year's blunder, well these are the kinds of scenarios where you look up one day and realize it's been a quarter century since you won a playoff game.
Maybe they were just content taking the best player in the draft.
Not everything has to be a blunder of epic proportions. Some of you guys are so fucking dramatic and ridiculous with the hyperbole.
They obviously liked Barkley more than the QB's last year and so far, nothing has happened to prove that they were wrong in thinking that. Mayfield wasn't available to us and Barkley was pretty clearly a better rookie than Darnold, Rosen, and Allen. Quite frankly, it wasn't close.
Jackson probably had a more effective rookie campaign than any of those 3 guys, honestly. And he only started half the season.
The argument as to whether the Giants should have taken a qb in 2018 vs. Barkley won't be settled for some time. I cannot put stock in a running backs rookie year vs. a qb, you are comparing apples to oranges. There are a lot of moving parts here, but this will largely depend on how, in my opinion, Darnold (you can look at all three qbs available there in fairness) develops and if the Giants are able to find a legit top 10-12 qb to replace Manning.
This argument will persist and rightfully so, it was a major impactful organizational decision. And that is not, as most BBIs love to say, hyperbole.
Acting like we're going to go a "quarter of a century" without winning a playoff game if we pick a QB this year to "overcompensate" for not taking one last year most certainly is hyperbolic thinking.
Pretty much textbook. It's a ridiculous way of posting to try to drive home a point - which is what people here often do, and why BBI'ers often call it out. It's a shitty argumentative tactic that is usually used when actual supporting facts or basis' are lacking.
Also, if it was not clear, I am not saying that reaching for a quarterback this year will cause the Giants to not win a playoff game for 25 years. I am saying it would be indicative of the kind of decision-making process that we have seen from the worst-run organizations in the league, some of whom have actually gone 25 years without winning a playoff game.
You're writing your own narrative without actually having facts to back it up. It's a poor argument.
And Drew Brees wound up shining for the team that didn't even draft him. The Chargers gave up on him and opted to draft Rivers instead. Beyond that, Drew Brees is an outlier for many reasons. The odds of there being a Drew Brees in last year's draft are exceptionally small.
Yes, QB's take time to develop. But Mayfield hit the ground running this year and Baltimore was able to find a niche for Jackson as well. None of Darnold, Allen, or Rosen had impactful rookie years at all and still have tons of work to do.
The Giants would have been just as awful with any of those guys - probably worse - and then we'd have the same complaints about a 3-5 win team and whether or not we even took the right guy while Barkley was running wild in another city - maybe even across town.
None of this is going to set the Giants back 25 years. Just stop with the dramatics.
Go back and look at my initial post. I quoted directly from Vacchiano. He said the Giants are "more serious" about finding their future quarterback this year. If we agree that words have meaning, then that quote means that the Giants were "less serious" last year. My point is, why would they not have been maximally serious last year? Maybe Vacchino is wrong, none of us know. But I am not creating my own narrative out of thin air here.
Also, your counterfactual is pretty laughable. Where would the Giants be without Barkley? I mean, they were out of it before Halloween and won 5 games. Who cares if it had been 3 wins instead of 5?
I think you're a little too quick to say the giants would have been just as bad if they had Darnold. The Jets have garbage for offensive skill players. The expectations for Darnold have to take that into account. And I don't even care much for Darnold, before the morons charge in babbling about 'cultists'.
rocco8112 : 12:40 pm : link : reply
Keeping Eli around to "mentor" will be the mistake. Likely the Giants start slow, pressure will build for Eli to take a seat by week 4.
Haskins comes in week 5 as old Eli is scapegoated and Shurmur pulls the plug. Haskins is mediocre as a rookie QB, takes kill shot and is injured/concussed mid third quarter of week 9. Eli comes off the bench to lead team to victory. Eli leads team to strong finish, make playoffs as a wild card and go on to win it all.
have you been having this dream?
As for those Saying Eli would have had a better game than Goff, after the first sack, Eli would have been dumping the ball off instead of looking downfield.....this is 2018 Eli, not 2011.....
my BEST guess RIGHT NOW before combine/pro days/etc.
someone trades up for haskins (we wanted him but only at 6) we pass on lock and take devin white. daniel jones is the pick at 38....if DG doesnt think he will last, a small move up to lets say 28-34 prob suffices and we get jones who has a ton of links to us.
sooo
d white and jones are first two picks. sign williams to play RT and that isnt a horrible offseason
Quote:
There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that the Giants have employed that sort of gamesmanship in recent years.
How long has Gettleman been on the job, and how many drafts has he run with the Giants?
Your basing you analysis on....one year?
Oh, is last year the only year that Gettleman has been a GM or the only year that he's been a part of the Giants' front office?
I must have been confusing him with someone else.
Quote:
In comment 14290037 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that the Giants have employed that sort of gamesmanship in recent years.
How long has Gettleman been on the job, and how many drafts has he run with the Giants?
Your basing you analysis on....one year?
Oh, is last year the only year that Gettleman has been a GM or the only year that he's been a part of the Giants' front office?
I must have been confusing him with someone else.
In case you thought last year was somehow a break from Gettleman's past, here's an article from his time in Carolina. And while I realize that it's a 24/7 Sports link, it's based on something from PFT.
McCaffrey to Panthers Likely a Smokescreen - ( New Window )
rocco8112 : 12:40 pm : link : reply
Keeping Eli around to "mentor" will be the mistake. Likely the Giants start slow, pressure will build for Eli to take a seat by week 4.
Haskins comes in week 5 as old Eli is scapegoated and Shurmur pulls the plug. Haskins is mediocre as a rookie QB, takes kill shot and is injured/concussed mid third quarter of week 9. Eli comes off the bench to lead team to victory. Eli leads team to strong finish, make playoffs as a wild card and go on to win it all.
have you been having this dream?
As for those Saying Eli would have had a better game than Goff, after the first sack, Eli would have been dumping the ball off instead of looking downfield.....this is 2018 Eli, not 2011.....
What a crock of sh-t.
Manning was sacked a career high 40 plus times this year and was still pushing the ball downfield.
Funny how that works.
1. Paying an elite player elite money. Whenever it's time for KC to pay Mahomes, just do it and don't think twice.
2. A kid in his rookie deal.
3. A journeyman that can hold the position down at a low cost; Ryan Fitzpatrick and Teddy Bridgewater each had about a $3M cap hit last year. Think about that...a viable starting QB that probably wouldn't have been much worse than what Eli ($22.2M) did for us at the cost of what we paid Jonathan Stewart.
If you're not in one of these three groups with your starting QB, you're doing it wrong.
Right now, the Giants are doing it wrong.
I'm already looking forward to how you contradict this post sometime in a week or two.
Quote:
You want to be in one of three places with your starting QB:
1. Paying an elite player elite money. Whenever it's time for KC to pay Mahomes, just do it and don't think twice.
2. A kid in his rookie deal.
3. A journeyman that can hold the position down at a low cost; Ryan Fitzpatrick and Teddy Bridgewater each had about a $3M cap hit last year. Think about that...a viable starting QB that probably wouldn't have been much worse than what Eli ($22.2M) did for us at the cost of what we paid Jonathan Stewart.
If you're not in one of these three groups with your starting QB, you're doing it wrong.
Right now, the Giants are doing it wrong.
I'm already looking forward to how you contradict this post sometime in a week or two.
You can call Go Terps a lot of things, but inconsistent isn't one of them
Completion %: 66% - career high
Interceptions: 11 - career low
Yards/Attempt: 7.5 - 16th in NFL
Yards/Completion: 11.3 - 17th in NFL
Avg. Intended Air Yards: 7.2 - 31st in NFL (out of 39)
#1. Eli's eye level has lowered to the pressure.
#2. Eli is trying to avoid negative plays.
The combination of #1 and #2 result in conservative quarterbacking from Eli. That's why Saquon Barkley was targeted 121 times out of Eli's 576 pass attempts (21%).
When Eli threw to Barkley, his YPA was 5.96. That number is way too low for 21% of all our pass plays.
It's all there in the numbers if you want to look, but you're not going to like what you see.
Funny how that works.
Brady and Brees also take care of themselves with diet and workout routines. I remember seeing Eli in a meeting room with Peyton few years back that was televised and he was munching on fucking potato chips.
NFL Matchup on ESPN 12/18/18 - ( New Window )
Completion %: 66% - career high
Interceptions: 11 - career low
Yards/Attempt: 7.5 - 16th in NFL
Yards/Completion: 11.3 - 17th in NFL
Avg. Intended Air Yards: 7.2 - 31st in NFL (out of 39)
#1. Eli's eye level has lowered to the pressure.
#2. Eli is trying to avoid negative plays.
The combination of #1 and #2 result in conservative quarterbacking from Eli. That's why Saquon Barkley was targeted 121 times out of Eli's 576 pass attempts (21%).
When Eli threw to Barkley, his YPA was 5.96. That number is way too low for 21% of all our pass plays.
It's all there in the numbers if you want to look, but you're not going to like what you see.
and from the eye test, his deep ball has deteriorated. They really seem to hang now.
NFL Matchup on ESPN 12/18/18 - ( New Window )
But I heard Eli can’t throw the deep ball anymore...
I heard it here. On BBI!
the only pick I questioned , so far the draft looks
to be an A or A minus . As bad as Lauletta looked I am
not going to totally write the guy off . I just don't
think we go QB unless Haskins or someone else has a
great combine . I don't want a 5' 8-9 in QB as well as he played he is still a very small player physically .
I think we go Trenches at #6 or move down unless they are
High on and ede rusher I wouldn't be shocked if they took
Williams LT . I will stick with Josh Allen Clelin Ferrell
as my one two favorites .
rocco8112 : 12:40 pm : link : reply
Keeping Eli around to "mentor" will be the mistake. Likely the Giants start slow, pressure will build for Eli to take a seat by week 4.
Haskins comes in week 5 as old Eli is scapegoated and Shurmur pulls the plug. Haskins is mediocre as a rookie QB, takes kill shot and is injured/concussed mid third quarter of week 9. Eli comes off the bench to lead team to victory. Eli leads team to strong finish, make playoffs as a wild card and go on to win it all.
have you been having this dream?
As for those Saying Eli would have had a better game than Goff, after the first sack, Eli would have been dumping the ball off instead of looking downfield.....this is 2018 Eli, not 2011.....
Would be cool wouldn't it? I have no evidence but my gut feeling. Shurmur doesn't really do it for me yet, so my money is the team losing early next season and if the Giants draft the next QB and Eli is here, he will be scapegoated and benched by week five.
Dollars to donuts the o line sucks again, so Haskins comes in with no consistent run game and faces intense pressure and constant long down and distance. He will now be playing against teams better then his mates, the polar opposite of Ohio State.
Haskins will get lit up like a Christmas tree and be hurt within three weeks of being named starter, the old warhorse will come off the bench and win. Maybe the Super Bowl is a stretch, but he will lead to wins.
As for the Rams, I personally believe if the Rams had Eli they would be champions. Goff shit the bed, hard.
All joking aside, in my opinion the worst move for the Giants is drafting a QB high and keeping Eli.
Roll with Eli once more, or draft someone and cut him loose.
That's as simple as it gets above.
You can't say he's not pushing the ball downfield when we're top ten in attempting deep passes.
You're over complicating the numbers and twisting them to fit what you want them to.
Funny how that works.
Now list Eli’s accomplishment the last 2 seasons.. He’s been pedestrian at best while leading his team to 3 and 5 wins. He’s ineffective and expensive terrible combo to have at QB.. When will you people wake up and smell the roses when is this so called HOF QB with the huge cap number gonna start winning games? Should that not be the standard? Our highest paid player needs excuses.. smfh the definition of Insanity is...