It is impossible not to see or hear all of the mock drafts on TV or the radio
For the most part the prognosticators are picking Haskins at number 6 for the Giants
Their justification is that the Giants have a need at the most important possition on the team and Haskins fits that need
Almost universally they like Haskins, but, they never suggest that he is the highest rated player at that point in the draft
As a matter of fact immediately after the Giants pick they are saying how fortunate teams are that White, Hockenson, Sweat, or Oliver has dropped into a teams lap
Their is a consistent argument that if you feel strongly about a QB that you have to draft him at six without regard for other players who are available
They are saying that you cannot take the chance that the QB is not there at 17
There were even two drafts were they had the Giants trading up to pick Haskins
I really do not understand how you can select a player in a vacuum
If the Giants feel that there is a generational talent available at another possition and they are not so impressed with a QB then you have to take that player
What if the Giants have a similar grade on three QBs
Why wouldn’t they take a chance that one of those QBs will fall into their laps at 17.
I also would like the Giants to draft a franchise QB. Who wouldn’t? But I would also be fine if they punted on a QB until next year
I want the best players available
The Giants had arguably the worst defense in the league last year They have lost 3 of their best players Vernon, Harrison, and Collins
The Giants better have a conviction on a QB if they pass on difference making defensive players
I hope that the Giants draft defense with their first three picks
That and Franchise QB
More then likely, another draft without an early draft pick being used on a QB....and msm calling the Giants draft a failure
As far as BPA we'll never know because if the Giants take a QB at #6, any QB, they will go ti their graves insisting he was the best player on the board. So relax, enjoy the next few days as tension and anticipation build. Go Giants!
Quote:
"generational talent" is now the most overused phrase in sports and here at BBI.
That and Franchise QB
LOL Best line ever.
OTOH, every pick a QB, any QB you get seems to be labeled "franchise".
In truth, both terms are pre4tty much useless propagandist rhetorical devices designed to make the person you want picked seem better than he actually is.
OTOH, every pick a QB, any QB you get seems to be labeled "franchise".
In truth, both terms are pre4tty much useless propagandist rhetorical devices designed to make the person you want picked seem better than he actually is.
by what accounts is Barkley a generational talent? It is a meaningless term. He's great. There are other great backs. He will probably run out of juice in five or six years like most RBs, whereas a top QB will be excellent for 15 years.
sure ... keep telling yourself it was a phenomenal pick. And let's revisit in six years.
Quote:
behind one of the worst OL's in football is just like any back.
sure ... keep telling yourself it was a phenomenal pick. And let's revisit in six years.
Waaaaah...the Giants didn't draft a QB last year, so they will never ever be good again.
it's a good question.
Agreed. It never applied to Beckham, and I'm not sure it applies to Barkley.
I'd argue the only generational talent in the league today at any position is Rodgers.
Does anyone doubt that Rosen is a better talent than what will be available at 37?
Does anyone doubt that Rosen is a better talent than what will be available at 37?
I’m sure he is on the table at 37. The NFL is probably not allowing the Cards to complete a trade with any team involving Rosen until next Thursday night.
Quote:
By almost all accounts, Barkley *is* generational.
OTOH, every pick a QB, any QB you get seems to be labeled "franchise".
In truth, both terms are pre4tty much useless propagandist rhetorical devices designed to make the person you want picked seem better than he actually is.
by what accounts is Barkley a generational talent? It is a meaningless term. He's great. There are other great backs. He will probably run out of juice in five or six years like most RBs, whereas a top QB will be excellent for 15 years.
Dude, do you watch the games? Barkley is a phenom, he’s like Bo and Barry Sanders combined and catches like a WR. If he wasn’t in last year’s draft I would have been 100% on the QB wagon, but you can’t pass up on a guy like that, he makes your whole offense better. There is no guarantee Darnold, Allen, or Rosen pan out. So far Mayfield is the only one of that bunch that has seemingly shown he will be a good one. Jury is still out on the rest.
Quote:
In comment 14393529 Bill L said:
Quote:
By almost all accounts, Barkley *is* generational.
OTOH, every pick a QB, any QB you get seems to be labeled "franchise".
In truth, both terms are pre4tty much useless propagandist rhetorical devices designed to make the person you want picked seem better than he actually is.
by what accounts is Barkley a generational talent? It is a meaningless term. He's great. There are other great backs. He will probably run out of juice in five or six years like most RBs, whereas a top QB will be excellent for 15 years.
Dude, do you watch the games? Barkley is a phenom, he’s like Bo and Barry Sanders combined and catches like a WR. If he wasn’t in last year’s draft I would have been 100% on the QB wagon, but you can’t pass up on a guy like that, he makes your whole offense better. There is no guarantee Darnold, Allen, or Rosen pan out. So far Mayfield is the only one of that bunch that has seemingly shown he will be a good one. Jury is still out on the rest.
I said he is great. Is that not enough? I don't know what generational means to be honest. IS he better than AP? Chris Johnson circa 2009? He's not a generation al talent for doing something that was done better 50 times already, mostly in the last 20 years (yards from scrimmage). 50th is not a generational talent, right?
Quote:
In comment 14393556 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
In comment 14393529 Bill L said:
Quote:
By almost all accounts, Barkley *is* generational.
OTOH, every pick a QB, any QB you get seems to be labeled "franchise".
In truth, both terms are pre4tty much useless propagandist rhetorical devices designed to make the person you want picked seem better than he actually is.
by what accounts is Barkley a generational talent? It is a meaningless term. He's great. There are other great backs. He will probably run out of juice in five or six years like most RBs, whereas a top QB will be excellent for 15 years.
Dude, do you watch the games? Barkley is a phenom, he’s like Bo and Barry Sanders combined and catches like a WR. If he wasn’t in last year’s draft I would have been 100% on the QB wagon, but you can’t pass up on a guy like that, he makes your whole offense better. There is no guarantee Darnold, Allen, or Rosen pan out. So far Mayfield is the only one of that bunch that has seemingly shown he will be a good one. Jury is still out on the rest.
I said he is great. Is that not enough? I don't know what generational means to be honest. IS he better than AP? Chris Johnson circa 2009? He's not a generation al talent for doing something that was done better 50 times already, mostly in the last 20 years (yards from scrimmage). 50th is not a generational talent, right?
Generational talent doesn’t mean he’s better than everyone. It means his skill set would make him a great player in any era of football.
Quote:
In comment 14393592 eric2425ny said:
Quote:
In comment 14393556 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
In comment 14393529 Bill L said:
Quote:
By almost all accounts, Barkley *is* generational.
OTOH, every pick a QB, any QB you get seems to be labeled "franchise".
In truth, both terms are pre4tty much useless propagandist rhetorical devices designed to make the person you want picked seem better than he actually is.
by what accounts is Barkley a generational talent? It is a meaningless term. He's great. There are other great backs. He will probably run out of juice in five or six years like most RBs, whereas a top QB will be excellent for 15 years.
Dude, do you watch the games? Barkley is a phenom, he’s like Bo and Barry Sanders combined and catches like a WR. If he wasn’t in last year’s draft I would have been 100% on the QB wagon, but you can’t pass up on a guy like that, he makes your whole offense better. There is no guarantee Darnold, Allen, or Rosen pan out. So far Mayfield is the only one of that bunch that has seemingly shown he will be a good one. Jury is still out on the rest.
I said he is great. Is that not enough? I don't know what generational means to be honest. IS he better than AP? Chris Johnson circa 2009? He's not a generation al talent for doing something that was done better 50 times already, mostly in the last 20 years (yards from scrimmage). 50th is not a generational talent, right?
Generational talent doesn’t mean he’s better than everyone. It means his skill set would make him a great player in any era of football.
oh ok.. so then there are ten generational talents at RB in today's NFL.
Zeke to me is overrated, I thought he had an excellent rookie year but hasn’t really matched that since. The other top backs today I can’t see playing in all eras. Melvin Gordon is too fragile, McCaffrey is pretty small and produces largely as a receiver.
Quote:
In comment 14393556 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
In comment 14393529 Bill L said:
Quote:
By almost all accounts, Barkley *is* generational.
OTOH, every pick a QB, any QB you get seems to be labeled "franchise".
In truth, both terms are pre4tty much useless propagandist rhetorical devices designed to make the person you want picked seem better than he actually is.
by what accounts is Barkley a generational talent? It is a meaningless term. He's great. There are other great backs. He will probably run out of juice in five or six years like most RBs, whereas a top QB will be excellent for 15 years.
Dude, do you watch the games? Barkley is a phenom, he’s like Bo and Barry Sanders combined and catches like a WR. If he wasn’t in last year’s draft I would have been 100% on the QB wagon, but you can’t pass up on a guy like that, he makes your whole offense better. There is no guarantee Darnold, Allen, or Rosen pan out. So far Mayfield is the only one of that bunch that has seemingly shown he will be a good one. Jury is still out on the rest.
I said he is great. Is that not enough? I don't know what generational means to be honest. IS he better than AP? Chris Johnson circa 2009? He's not a generation al talent for doing something that was done better 50 times already, mostly in the last 20 years (yards from scrimmage). 50th is not a generational talent, right?
Do me a favor, of the 50+ instances (post merger) where a RB had 2,000+ yards from scrimmage. How many RB's rushed for 1,300 yards and had 90+ receptions in a single season?
Quote:
In comment 14393592 eric2425ny said:
Quote:
In comment 14393556 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
In comment 14393529 Bill L said:
Quote:
By almost all accounts, Barkley *is* generational.
OTOH, every pick a QB, any QB you get seems to be labeled "franchise".
Do me a favor, of the 50+ instances (post merger) where a RB had 2,000+ yards from scrimmage. How many RB's rushed for 1,300 yards and had 90+ receptions in a single season?
So you want to slice the data set to give you a result that proves your point?
Zeke to me is overrated, I thought he had an excellent rookie year but hasn’t really matched that since. The other top backs today I can’t see playing in all eras. Melvin Gordon is too fragile, McCaffrey is pretty small and produces largely as a receiver.
You don't think Zeke would do well in any era? umm ok.
Here is my list of NFL backs that would do well in any era:
Barkley
Gurley
Bell
Zeke
DJ
Kamara
Hunt
Fournette
Peterson
Mixon
McCaffrey
maybe Chubb
I'm sure there are others..
Generational talent doesn’t mean he’s better than everyone. It means his skill set would make him a great player in any era of football.
Don't debate that but it doesn't mean he is any more valuable to Giants under that definition. So who cares?
I will do one better, take a look at 1,000+ rushing yards and 90+ receptions in a season. I'll give you a hint, it is a lot less than 50.
Can you imagine Barkley playing behind the Rams or Cowboys offensive lines last year, he would have had like 3,000 yards from scrimmage.
If he stays healthy you are talking about a probable hall of fame player with his skill set. I can’t say the same for that huge list of RB’s.
Quote:
By almost all accounts, Barkley *is* generational.
OTOH, every pick a QB, any QB you get seems to be labeled "franchise".
In truth, both terms are pre4tty much useless propagandist rhetorical devices designed to make the person you want picked seem better than he actually is.
by what accounts is Barkley a generational talent? It is a meaningless term. He's great. There are other great backs. He will probably run out of juice in five or six years like most RBs, whereas a top QB will be excellent for 15 years.
There are other great backs. How many of them are 230 pounds, elite options in the passing game, excellent in short yardage/goal line, and also among the most explosive offensive players in the game?
but yes let’s fast forward 6 years from now and assume the QB is a “franchise QB” for a decade.
Barkley was a gift. A gift we were lucky to be in place to select.
Quote:
In comment 14393529 Bill L said:
Quote:
By almost all accounts, Barkley *is* generational.
OTOH, every pick a QB, any QB you get seems to be labeled "franchise".
In truth, both terms are pre4tty much useless propagandist rhetorical devices designed to make the person you want picked seem better than he actually is.
by what accounts is Barkley a generational talent? It is a meaningless term. He's great. There are other great backs. He will probably run out of juice in five or six years like most RBs, whereas a top QB will be excellent for 15 years.
There are other great backs. How many of them are 230 pounds, elite options in the passing game, excellent in short yardage/goal line, and also among the most explosive offensive players in the game?
but yes let’s fast forward 6 years from now and assume the QB is a “franchise QB” for a decade.
Barkley was a gift. A gift we were lucky to be in place to select.
So Chris Johnson was a better selection than Matt Ryan? Cause they went in the same draft and CJ broke that scrimmage yards record, and still holds it. I'm pretty sure in 2009 everyone would say CJ was the better selection, hands down. Today they would say Ryan, hands down. See how time changes perception?
Quote:
In comment 14393556 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
In comment 14393529 Bill L said:
Quote:
By almost all accounts, Barkley *is* generational.
OTOH, every pick a QB, any QB you get seems to be labeled "franchise".
In truth, both terms are pre4tty much useless propagandist rhetorical devices designed to make the person you want picked seem better than he actually is.
by what accounts is Barkley a generational talent? It is a meaningless term. He's great. There are other great backs. He will probably run out of juice in five or six years like most RBs, whereas a top QB will be excellent for 15 years.
There are other great backs. How many of them are 230 pounds, elite options in the passing game, excellent in short yardage/goal line, and also among the most explosive offensive players in the game?
but yes let’s fast forward 6 years from now and assume the QB is a “franchise QB” for a decade.
Barkley was a gift. A gift we were lucky to be in place to select.
So Chris Johnson was a better selection than Matt Ryan? Cause they went in the same draft and CJ broke that scrimmage yards record, and still holds it. I'm pretty sure in 2009 everyone would say CJ was the better selection, hands down. Today they would say Ryan, hands down. See how time changes perception?
Are you seriously comparing CJ to Barkley? Come on now
Quote:
In comment 14393556 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
In comment 14393529 Bill L said:
Quote:
By almost all accounts, Barkley *is* generational.
OTOH, every pick a QB, any QB you get seems to be labeled "franchise".
In truth, both terms are pre4tty much useless propagandist rhetorical devices designed to make the person you want picked seem better than he actually is.
by what accounts is Barkley a generational talent? It is a meaningless term. He's great. There are other great backs. He will probably run out of juice in five or six years like most RBs, whereas a top QB will be excellent for 15 years.
There are other great backs. How many of them are 230 pounds, elite options in the passing game, excellent in short yardage/goal line, and also among the most explosive offensive players in the game?
but yes let’s fast forward 6 years from now and assume the QB is a “franchise QB” for a decade.
Barkley was a gift. A gift we were lucky to be in place to select.
So Chris Johnson was a better selection than Matt Ryan? Cause they went in the same draft and CJ broke that scrimmage yards record, and still holds it. I'm pretty sure in 2009 everyone would say CJ was the better selection, hands down. Today they would say Ryan, hands down. See how time changes perception?
1. Barkley is bigger, better than Johnson ... a lot better.
2. I’m sure the Titans heard the same “face of the franchise” BS when they took Jake Locker. You know, gotta have that franchise QB!
3. What exactly would excite you about having Matt Ryan at QB for a decade? He’s mediocre, above average, at best. I’ll take Matt Ryan, if Julio Jones comes along with him.
Quote:
In comment 14393645 GothamGiants said:
Quote:
In comment 14393556 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
In comment 14393529 Bill L said:
Quote:
By almost all accounts, Barkley *is* generational.
OTOH, every pick a QB, any QB you get seems to be labeled "franchise".
In truth, both terms are pre4tty much useless propagandist rhetorical devices designed to make the person you want picked seem better than he actually is.
by what accounts is Barkley a generational talent? It is a meaningless term. He's great. There are other great backs. He will probably run out of juice in five or six years like most RBs, whereas a top QB will be excellent for 15 years.
There are other great backs. How many of them are 230 pounds, elite options in the passing game, excellent in short yardage/goal line, and also among the most explosive offensive players in the game?
but yes let’s fast forward 6 years from now and assume the QB is a “franchise QB” for a decade.
Barkley was a gift. A gift we were lucky to be in place to select.
So Chris Johnson was a better selection than Matt Ryan? Cause they went in the same draft and CJ broke that scrimmage yards record, and still holds it. I'm pretty sure in 2009 everyone would say CJ was the better selection, hands down. Today they would say Ryan, hands down. See how time changes perception?
Are you seriously comparing CJ to Barkley? Come on now
You must be pretty young and don't remember the CJ hype.. he shattered the combine 40 time and then followed it up with 6 straight 1000 yard seasons including an absolutely phenomenal 2009 where he broke and still holds the all-time combined yards record. And one of only seven backs to rush for 2000 yards all-time. That is a generational resume if ever there was one... and as it turns out he would be a total flame out in six years.
1. Barkley is bigger, better than Johnson ... a lot better.
2. I’m sure the Titans heard the same “face of the franchise” BS when they took Jake Locker. You know, gotta have that franchise QB!
3. What exactly would excite you about having Matt Ryan at QB for a decade? He’s mediocre, above average, at best. I’ll take Matt Ryan, if Julio Jones comes along with him.
Sign me up for Matt Ryan right now if I knew we could have him this draft.
Quote:
In comment 14393673 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
In comment 14393645 GothamGiants said:
Quote:
In comment 14393556 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
In comment 14393529 Bill L said:
Quote:
By almost all accounts, Barkley *is* generational.
OTOH, every pick a QB, any QB you get seems to be labeled "franchise".
In truth, both terms are pre4tty much useless propagandist rhetorical devices designed to make the person you want picked seem better than he actually is.
by what accounts is Barkley a generational talent? It is a meaningless term. He's great. There are other great backs. He will probably run out of juice in five or six years like most RBs, whereas a top QB will be excellent for 15 years.
There are other great backs. How many of them are 230 pounds, elite options in the passing game, excellent in short yardage/goal line, and also among the most explosive offensive players in the game?
but yes let’s fast forward 6 years from now and assume the QB is a “franchise QB” for a decade.
Barkley was a gift. A gift we were lucky to be in place to select.
So Chris Johnson was a better selection than Matt Ryan? Cause they went in the same draft and CJ broke that scrimmage yards record, and still holds it. I'm pretty sure in 2009 everyone would say CJ was the better selection, hands down. Today they would say Ryan, hands down. See how time changes perception?
Are you seriously comparing CJ to Barkley? Come on now
You must be pretty young and don't remember the CJ hype.. he shattered the combine 40 time and then followed it up with 6 straight 1000 yard seasons including an absolutely phenomenal 2009 where he broke and still holds the all-time combined yards record. And one of only seven backs to rush for 2000 yards all-time. That is a generational resume if ever there was one... and as it turns out he would be a total flame out in six years.
Would I rather have the 230 pound version of that caliber a player for 6 years over a mediocre QB like Matt Ryan? Yes, I would.
Oh and Barkley’s much better in the passing game - suggesting his size and more complete skillset should lead to longer relevance / longevity.
I remember the CJ hype well.
Quote:
1. Barkley is bigger, better than Johnson ... a lot better.
2. I’m sure the Titans heard the same “face of the franchise” BS when they took Jake Locker. You know, gotta have that franchise QB!
3. What exactly would excite you about having Matt Ryan at QB for a decade? He’s mediocre, above average, at best. I’ll take Matt Ryan, if Julio Jones comes along with him.
Sign me up for Matt Ryan right now if I knew we could have him this draft.
Cool. I’d rather select actual elite talent and build around another QB over lock myself into mediocrity with a QB who just barely qualifies as “franchise QB”.
Agree to disagree. Hopefully the Giants aim higher than Matt Ryan
Quote:
In comment 14393673 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
In comment 14393645 GothamGiants said:
Quote:
In comment 14393556 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
In comment 14393529 Bill L said:
Quote:
By almost all accounts, Barkley *is* generational.
OTOH, every pick a QB, any QB you get seems to be labeled "franchise".
In truth, both terms are pre4tty much useless propagandist rhetorical devices designed to make the person you want picked seem better than he actually is.
by what accounts is Barkley a generational talent? It is a meaningless term. He's great. There are other great backs. He will probably run out of juice in five or six years like most RBs, whereas a top QB will be excellent for 15 years.
There are other great backs. How many of them are 230 pounds, elite options in the passing game, excellent in short yardage/goal line, and also among the most explosive offensive players in the game?
but yes let’s fast forward 6 years from now and assume the QB is a “franchise QB” for a decade.
Barkley was a gift. A gift we were lucky to be in place to select.
So Chris Johnson was a better selection than Matt Ryan? Cause they went in the same draft and CJ broke that scrimmage yards record, and still holds it. I'm pretty sure in 2009 everyone would say CJ was the better selection, hands down. Today they would say Ryan, hands down. See how time changes perception?
Are you seriously comparing CJ to Barkley? Come on now
You must be pretty young and don't remember the CJ hype.. he shattered the combine 40 time and then followed it up with 6 straight 1000 yard seasons including an absolutely phenomenal 2009 where he broke and still holds the all-time combined yards record. And one of only seven backs to rush for 2000 yards all-time. That is a generational resume if ever there was one... and as it turns out he would be a total flame out in six years.
Thanks for the condescending tone implying that I am some young fan. I’ve actually been a Giants fan for about 35 years now and remember CJ and the hype surrounding him. He never had the skill set of Barkley, and as I expected back when he was hyped up, his productivity didn’t last due to injuries, etc. One of the keys with Barkley is that he knows when to run with power and when to get down or get out of bounds and live to play another down. He’s not just a burner who will run himself out of the league in a few years.
Quote:
In comment 14393697 GothamGiants said:
Quote:
1. Barkley is bigger, better than Johnson ... a lot better.
2. I’m sure the Titans heard the same “face of the franchise” BS when they took Jake Locker. You know, gotta have that franchise QB!
3. What exactly would excite you about having Matt Ryan at QB for a decade? He’s mediocre, above average, at best. I’ll take Matt Ryan, if Julio Jones comes along with him.
Sign me up for Matt Ryan right now if I knew we could have him this draft.
Cool. I’d rather select actual elite talent and build around another QB over lock myself into mediocrity with a QB who just barely qualifies as “franchise QB”.
Agree to disagree. Hopefully the Giants aim higher than Matt Ryan
Matt Ryan is not mediocre.
Luck
Mahomes
Mayfield*
Ben
Brees
Eli**
Rodgers
Rivers
Cam
Wilson
These are the only QBs I consider worthy of the label, with ** for Eli since he’s no longer at that level.
The Stafford/Ryan “franchise QBs” are a liability, not an asset. Good enough to not “let go”, but not good enough to put a team over the top themselves. So, you mire in mediocrity with an overpaid contract limiting the team’s ability to actually build a complete roster - and you do it all to keep that “franchise QB”
*Mayfield has a lot more to prove, but he showed me enough to think he’ll end up in this tier.
Luck
Mahomes
Mayfield*
Ben
Brees
Eli**
Rodgers
Rivers
Cam
Wilson
These are the only QBs I consider worthy of the label, with ** for Eli since he’s no longer at that level.
The Stafford/Ryan “franchise QBs” are a liability, not an asset. Good enough to not “let go”, but not good enough to put a team over the top themselves. So, you mire in mediocrity with an overpaid contract limiting the team’s ability to actually build a complete roster - and you do it all to keep that “franchise QB”
*Mayfield has a lot more to prove, but he showed me enough to think he’ll end up in this tier.
^This. That’s exactly why Accorsi bet the farm on Eli years ago. He saw the coolness under pressure and knew Eli had what it took to win. When I look at guys like Stafford and Ryan I see “good” but not “great” QB’s. They will put up some nice stats but their teams will likely never win a SB with them at QB.
Luck
Mahomes
Mayfield*
Ben
Brees
Eli**
Rodgers
Rivers
Cam
Wilson
These are the only QBs I consider worthy of the label, with ** for Eli since he’s no longer at that level.
The Stafford/Ryan “franchise QBs” are a liability, not an asset. Good enough to not “let go”, but not good enough to put a team over the top themselves. So, you mire in mediocrity with an overpaid contract limiting the team’s ability to actually build a complete roster - and you do it all to keep that “franchise QB”
*Mayfield has a lot more to prove, but he showed me enough to think he’ll end up in this tier.
Of course Ryan belongs on that list. He has been a consistent top-6 to top-8 qb this whole decade. Statistically he is superior to Eli.
Quote:
Brady
Luck
Mahomes
Mayfield*
Ben
Brees
Eli**
Rodgers
Rivers
Cam
Wilson
These are the only QBs I consider worthy of the label, with ** for Eli since he’s no longer at that level.
The Stafford/Ryan “franchise QBs” are a liability, not an asset. Good enough to not “let go”, but not good enough to put a team over the top themselves. So, you mire in mediocrity with an overpaid contract limiting the team’s ability to actually build a complete roster - and you do it all to keep that “franchise QB”
*Mayfield has a lot more to prove, but he showed me enough to think he’ll end up in this tier.
Of course Ryan belongs on that list. He has been a consistent top-6 to top-8 qb this whole decade. Statistically he is superior to Eli.
Key word there, “statistically”. This isn’t fantasy football, you have to step up in the big games which Ryan has not consistently done in his career.
Quote:
Brady
Luck
Mahomes
Mayfield*
Ben
Brees
Eli**
Rodgers
Rivers
Cam
Wilson
These are the only QBs I consider worthy of the label, with ** for Eli since he’s no longer at that level.
The Stafford/Ryan “franchise QBs” are a liability, not an asset. Good enough to not “let go”, but not good enough to put a team over the top themselves. So, you mire in mediocrity with an overpaid contract limiting the team’s ability to actually build a complete roster - and you do it all to keep that “franchise QB”
*Mayfield has a lot more to prove, but he showed me enough to think he’ll end up in this tier.
Of course Ryan belongs on that list. He has been a consistent top-6 to top-8 qb this whole decade. Statistically he is superior to Eli.
How many SBs? I don’t care about the fantasy points he’s put up while playing catch with Julio Jones in a dome. More to the game than stats.
Ryan is not a QB you fear playing. He’s fine, above average even. Nothing to get excited about. I think the idea of a franchise QB is an overrated concept, and your handle is literally Franchise QB, so we’re probably not going to agree.
That’s fine. I hold my “franchise” “generational” labels to a higher standard than most. Nothing about the Giants landing the “next Matt Ryan” should excite fans.
Quote:
In comment 14393529 Bill L said:
Quote:
By almost all accounts, Barkley *is* generational.
OTOH, every pick a QB, any QB you get seems to be labeled "franchise".
In truth, both terms are pre4tty much useless propagandist rhetorical devices designed to make the person you want picked seem better than he actually is.
by what accounts is Barkley a generational talent? It is a meaningless term. He's great. There are other great backs. He will probably run out of juice in five or six years like most RBs, whereas a top QB will be excellent for 15 years.
Dude, do you watch the games? Barkley is a phenom, he’s like Bo and Barry Sanders combined and catches like a WR. If he wasn’t in last year’s draft I would have been 100% on the QB wagon, but you can’t pass up on a guy like that, he makes your whole offense better. There is no guarantee Darnold, Allen, or Rosen pan out. So far Mayfield is the only one of that bunch that has seemingly shown he will be a good one. Jury is still out on the rest.
My favorite BBI thought process, so far "only Mayfield looks good, but jury is still out"...on first year qbs, wow, great, jury is still out on first year qbs. You don't say. Jury is still out on whether Barkley will still be a productive player in this league at 29 years old. See, works both ways.
How about this, Giants picked a great player. Whether he was the right pick will be determined within the next 5 years.
Sorry but this talk of "strength of the draft" is B.S. You take the best player available at positions of need.
Is all of a sudden RT set? And our Center position is subpar. IMO center is 2nd most important but whether it is or not how can you not face that 40% of the OLINE is juts not good enough? If you get one then 80% is okay -- but
YOu really think it okay to nOT give eli a strong OLIne?
And you know soon we need a NEW QB. You want him working with a line not near his best?
And as for Barkley. WHy wouldn't you want to give him the bets you can? This isn't like some "big back" you give him a good line and he can break it for 20+ yards. You give Barkley a terrific OLINE and if he gets by the 1st wave then he's GONE. Barkley is UNLIKE anything we've seen in ages. Give him "more" and he'll "exponentially" "improve."
And Eli NEEDS an OLINE BADLY. The eventual new QB needs it badly.
WHy wouldn;'t you want to give them the best IF there is similar value to me is mind-boggling.
This year we're probably going to lose anyways. But we want to see them win. Restricting Eli and restricting Barkley sure doesn't sound like a sound strategy to me if it can be avoided. Barkley will put extra points on the board with a good OL imo better than any other RB who has come forth in a long time. And ELi is near useless without it. GIVE ELI A CHANCE AS WELL AS THE EVENTUAL NEW QB.
Third, Barkley with a god OL and good QB will become an all-time great player if he remains injury free for a time.
Fourth, the jealousy of the Jets has to stop. Darnold will be a good QB in the future. I did not say "very good"or "Great" or "generational" or "transcendent" as others have tried to twist what I've said. But Darnold is a lock to be "good." IMo if he was on the giants many would change their tune and say he is going to be good.