The morning after the draft, there was plenty of questions/disappointment/outrage with the selection of Jones at 6, especially since Allen was there for the taking. Well, would anyone today trade Jones for Allen straight up? In fact, would you trade him straight up for anyone in the top 10 selections in this years draft? I know it's way to early to know how it will all pan out, but the excitement of having a potential future starting franchise QB is hard to top. As a side note, after rewatching Fridays game, he only had one bad pass. The first incompletion was thrown short. Incomplete pass to TJ Jones was a beautiful pass, but he stumbled coming out of his break. The other was a pure drop.
As to the question, I wanted Jones on draft night, that has not changed
You cannot fake what jones has shown in practice and in the two preseason games. I know folks contend that it’s only preseason, but we’ve seen plenty of Giants qbs not be able to hold their own against practice squad players, let alone a smattering of some other teams starters or backups. Most recently, Davis Webb has that dubious distinction. However, we also don’t know what Josh Allen will be and whether DJ will continue to develop.
You cannot fake what jones has shown in practice and in the two preseason games. I know folks contend that it’s only preseason, but we’ve seen plenty of Giants qbs not be able to hold their own against practice squad players, let alone a smattering of some other teams starters or backups. Most recently, Davis Webb has that dubious distinction. However, we also don’t know what Josh Allen will be and whether DJ will continue to develop.
100% agree. Unfortunately, that same logic should have been applied on draft night. Surely, there must be ONE person that still would select Allen a mere 13 passes later....
Could see his quick get off on the snap but he didn't show much in the way of moves. He matched up often with Andre Dillard and Dillard handled the bull rush pretty easily it seemed.
Allen did get a half sack on a play where he was left unblocked.
Quick take: no "second coming of Von Miller" regrets on passing on Allen.
But Eagles could have a good one in Dillard. He looks prototypical.
Guaranteed you will now that you brought it up. That may go on for years now. LOL
Can't we be happy Jones is looking good without rehashing old debates in order to make a cheap point?
Yes, that point is legit. However, with the skills that Jones has displayed, does it give the idea that he may have been selected by Denver or Cincinnati prior to 17 more credibility?
Can't we be happy Jones is looking good without rehashing old debates in order to make a cheap point?
The point of the thread is not an "I told you so" point. It's a reminder that 99.9% of us know less about draft selection/player evaluation than the football professionals. This year the reactions were so extreme in such a short amount of time, that I think it's a fun discussion.
17 to where? The Broncos were at 10, the Bengals at 11 and Redskins at 15. The Bengals or Broncos might have attempted to trade up themseelves and more importantly at what cost? We certainly wouldn't have Baker if we had to trade up.
If you like a quarterback, you just don't mess around and hope that you might be able to trade up before another team beats you to the punch
Quote:
Like Gettleman (the God) says, you can't look at any one move in a vacuum. Obviously, anyone who didn't want Jones as the pick had other ideas for quarterback that would make picking Josh Allen at 6 irrelevant to the QB question.
Can't we be happy Jones is looking good without rehashing old debates in order to make a cheap point?
The point of the thread is not an "I told you so" point. It's a reminder that 99.9% of us know less about draft selection/player evaluation than the football professionals. This year the reactions were so extreme in such a short amount of time, that I think it's a fun discussion.
Pros more often then not get a QB selection wrong, let alone us fanboys. That's why can't stand bbi blowhards. Can't stand them. HERR DERR SAM DONALD ROSEN
Too soon to tell anything past that, though if Jones continues to improve, then you absolutely would never make that trade.
And yeah, it's obvious Jones vs Darnold is going to be a thing for years to come.
Quote:
They probably could have had both. Sure maybe Jones wouldn’t have made it to 17, but they probably could have drafted Allen and traded up from 17 to land Jones.
17 to where? The Broncos were at 10, the Bengals at 11 and Redskins at 15. The Bengals or Broncos might have attempted to trade up themseelves and more importantly at what cost? We certainly wouldn't have Baker if we had to trade up.
If you like a quarterback, you just don't mess around and hope that you might be able to trade up before another team beats you to the punch
I don't think Giants fans sound insecure. Reading some of your posts since Jones has played certainly make you appear to be the insecure one, though.
The question "would you trade Jones for Allen today?" can absolutely be answered today.....it's a opinion question on a football discussion website that has plenty of opinions, many of which we expressed immediately after the draft.
Quote:
They probably could have had both. Sure maybe Jones wouldn’t have made it to 17, but they probably could have drafted Allen and traded up from 17 to land Jones.
Yes, that point is legit. However, with the skills that Jones has displayed, does it give the idea that he may have been selected by Denver or Cincinnati prior to 17 more credibility?
There is no discussion of credibility on this matter. Cincy already had a deal worked out wit Buffalo to trade ahead of Denver, hinging on Giants pick. DG played the rest of the league like a fiddle.
Quote:
IMO, Giants fans appear very insecure right now. Jones has looked good in the preseason, but they’re scrambling to make more of it than they should. If Jets fans were hyping one of their guys we’d all be pointing to vanilla schemes no game planning, lack of pressure / clean pocket, facing backups etc as reason not to get carried away, and justifiably so. There seems to be a desperate need go back and justify all the moves and manufacture optimism. It’s not a good look, IMO, but I get it. We’ve become one of those fan bases. Losing will do that to you. But truth is, there won’t be any meaningful answer to any of these questions for a couple years. Not until we have meaningful body to assess the QBs. Like it or not, we have to be patient. But the world isn’t patient these days. People have to defend the cause in social media on a daily basis.
I don't think Giants fans sound insecure. Reading some of your posts since Jones has played certainly make you appear to be the insecure one, though.
+3
The more I think about it, the more I'm sure we're seeing something from Jones we really never seen in a Giants QB before. He's like LT.
Quote:
In comment 14534692 adamg said:u
Quote:
Like Gettleman (the God) says, you can't look at any one move in a vacuum. Obviously, anyone who didn't want Jones as the pick had other ideas for quarterback that would make picking Josh Allen at 6 irrelevant to the QB question.
Can't we be happy Jones is looking good without rehashing old debates in order to make a cheap point?
The point of the thread is not an "I told you so" point. It's a reminder that 99.9% of us know less about draft selection/player evaluation than the football professionals. This year the reactions were so extreme in such a short amount of time, that I think it's a fun discussion.
Pros more often then not get a QB selection wrong, let alone us fanboys. That's why can't stand bbi blowhards. Can't stand them. HERR DERR SAM DONALD ROSEN
If the football professionals are right 40% of the time, I'm willing to bet the fan base is right less than that.
Quote:
IMO, Giants fans appear very insecure right now. Jones has looked good in the preseason, but they’re scrambling to make more of it than they should. If Jets fans were hyping one of their guys we’d all be pointing to vanilla schemes no game planning, lack of pressure / clean pocket, facing backups etc as reason not to get carried away, and justifiably so. There seems to be a desperate need go back and justify all the moves and manufacture optimism. It’s not a good look, IMO, but I get it. We’ve become one of those fan bases. Losing will do that to you. But truth is, there won’t be any meaningful answer to any of these questions for a couple years. Not until we have meaningful body to assess the QBs. Like it or not, we have to be patient. But the world isn’t patient these days. People have to defend the cause in social media on a daily basis.
I don't think Giants fans sound insecure. Reading some of your posts since Jones has played certainly make you appear to be the insecure one, though.
Quote:
In comment 14534702 UberAlias said:
Quote:
IMO, Giants fans appear very insecure right now. Jones has looked good in the preseason, but they’re scrambling to make more of it than they should. If Jets fans were hyping one of their guys we’d all be pointing to vanilla schemes no game planning, lack of pressure / clean pocket, facing backups etc as reason not to get carried away, and justifiably so. There seems to be a desperate need go back and justify all the moves and manufacture optimism. It’s not a good look, IMO, but I get it. We’ve become one of those fan bases. Losing will do that to you. But truth is, there won’t be any meaningful answer to any of these questions for a couple years. Not until we have meaningful body to assess the QBs. Like it or not, we have to be patient. But the world isn’t patient these days. People have to defend the cause in social media on a daily basis.
I don't think Giants fans sound insecure. Reading some of your posts since Jones has played certainly make you appear to be the insecure one, though.
+3
The more I think about it, the more I'm sure we're seeing something from Jones we really never seen in a Giants QB before. He's like LT.
How do you know at this point? It's only been a handful of drives thus far.
But I do find it funny that people say QB trumps all in the 2019 draft, then neglect to apply the same logic to the 2018 draft. I know fans tend to be homers, but we simply don't know at this point.
The worst case scenario: Darnold becomes a QB-winning, franchise QB. Barkley is an all-time great, but fails to make a difference (just like LDT, Sanders...so many others.) Josh Allen becomes another Von Miller. The Giants tank again this year but double down on Daniel Jones and not draft a QB next year even with several highly touted ones within their grasp.
If Jones turns out to be the goods, then his draft position would be a moot point. However, if he is less than inspiring, there are a lot of good players in the alternate scenarios who could make us cry into our cereal bowls.
Then they don't get Deandre Baker who might be their starting corner for the next 5-10 years. Baker might end up being a much better player than Josh Allen.
How do you know at this point? It's only been a handful of drives thus far.
But I do find it funny that people say QB trumps all in the 2019 draft, then neglect to apply the same logic to the 2018 draft. I know fans tend to be homers, but we simply don't know at this point.
The worst case scenario: Darnold becomes a QB-winning, franchise QB. Barkley is an all-time great, but fails to make a difference (just like LDT, Sanders...so many others.) Josh Allen becomes another Von Miller. The Giants tank again this year but double down on Daniel Jones and not draft a QB next year even with several highly touted ones within their grasp.
If Jones turns out to be the goods, then his draft position would be a moot point. However, if he is less than inspiring, there are a lot of good players in the alternate scenarios who could make us cry into our cereal bowls.
while this is the true, well thought out, ultimate answer, its not reality. (Unless you have a time machine). The simple question is, "would you trade Allen for Jones today?".
Regardless of the OP’s stated reason for starting this thread it comes across as an “I told you so” thread.
It’s presented as a sincere question for discussion when the true intent is to ask… Are any of you dumb-ass posters who didn’t want Jones ready to admit you were wrong yet?
Similar threads were started last year regarding the Barkley vs. QB choice, but at least then there were plenty of posters who went on record as wanting Barkley. I can’t recall a single BBIer who advocated (prior to the draft) that the Giants should take Jones at 6.
Not to mention the fact that last year posters had the good sense to wait until Barkley acutually accomplished something in games that counted, before starting their "I told you so" threads.
Regardless of the OP’s stated reason for starting this thread it comes across as an “I told you so” thread.
It’s presented as a sincere question for discussion when the true intent is to ask… Are any of you dumb-ass posters who didn’t want Jones ready to admit you were wrong yet?
Similar threads were started last year regarding the Barkley vs. QB choice, but at least then there were plenty of posters who went on record as wanting Barkley. I can’t recall a single BBIer who advocated (prior to the draft) that the Giants should take Jones at 6.
Not to mention the fact that last year posters had the good sense to wait until Barkley acutually accomplished something in games that counted, before starting their "I told you so" threads.
nope...not my intention at all. If someone wants to say, the defenses are vanilla, and Allen still was the better pick, id completely respect that opinion. My point (since I'm the one making it) is that opinions change to such extremes in such a short amount of time, that it gives interesting perspective going forward.
How the Browns doing? And why are you here?
Anyone going to Canton to see induction?
Anyone going to Canton to see induction?
saying you wouldn't trade Allen for Jones today is an over reaction?
Jones has played a total of about 2 quarters of pre-season football and (fumbles aside) has looked pretty good.
How has Josh Allen looked? Beats the hell out of me. Like (I’m guessing) the majority of BBIers who opened this thread, I haven’t seen a single second of a Jags’ pre-season game. So how exactly are we supposed to answer whether we would trade Jones for Allen at this point?
And of course if the Giants had taken Allen at 6, then it’s not like the rest of their draft would have gone exactly the same.
Could they have gotten Jones at 17 or traded up to get him?
If they had to settle for Haskins, Lock or even Rosen would any of those QBs be performing as well in Shurmur’s offense?
Without knowing the answers to these other questions it’s impossible to say whether I would trade Jones for Allen.
And again, it's only been two pre-season games.
Quote:
nope...not my intention at all. If someone wants to say, the defenses are vanilla, and Allen still was the better pick, id completely respect that opinion. My point (since I'm the one making it) is that opinions change to such extremes in such a short amount of time, that it gives interesting perspective going forward.
Jones has played a total of about 2 quarters of pre-season football and (fumbles aside) has looked pretty good.
How has Josh Allen looked? Beats the hell out of me. Like (I’m guessing) the majority of BBIers who opened this thread, I haven’t seen a single second of a Jags’ pre-season game. So how exactly are we supposed to answer whether we would trade Jones for Allen at this point?
And of course if the Giants had taken Allen at 6, then it’s not like the rest of their draft would have gone exactly the same.
Could they have gotten Jones at 17 or traded up to get him?
If they had to settle for Haskins, Lock or even Rosen would any of those QBs be performing as well in Shurmur’s offense?
Without knowing the answers to these other questions it’s impossible to say whether I would trade Jones for Allen.
And again, it's only been two pre-season games.
pretty convoluted answer to the simple question. Im assuming you would have had a more definitive answer on draft night...its a yes or no question.
The worst case scenario: Darnold becomes a QB-winning, franchise QB. Barkley is an all-time great, but fails to make a difference (just like LDT, Sanders...so many others.) Josh Allen becomes another Von Miller. The Giants tank again this year but double down on Daniel Jones and not draft a QB next year even with several highly touted ones within their grasp.
Failed to make a difference? I hate when people make this argument. Barry Sanders failed to make a difference? Those Lions teams are 3/4 win teams without him. Calvin Johnson failed to make a difference? Two guys that retired early due to the ineptitude of the franchise. Football is still a team sport. Switch Eli with Stafford and the results aren't different. That isn't a knock on Eli either. Stafford is a practically an Eli clone, inconsistent gunslinger that turns it up in the 4th. The difference being that Eli only had to deal with a completely inept front office for half his career.
Quote:
In comment 14534748 Jolly Blue Giant said:
Quote:
nope...not my intention at all. If someone wants to say, the defenses are vanilla, and Allen still was the better pick, id completely respect that opinion. My point (since I'm the one making it) is that opinions change to such extremes in such a short amount of time, that it gives interesting perspective going forward.
Jones has played a total of about 2 quarters of pre-season football and (fumbles aside) has looked pretty good.
How has Josh Allen looked? Beats the hell out of me. Like (I’m guessing) the majority of BBIers who opened this thread, I haven’t seen a single second of a Jags’ pre-season game. So how exactly are we supposed to answer whether we would trade Jones for Allen at this point?
And of course if the Giants had taken Allen at 6, then it’s not like the rest of their draft would have gone exactly the same.
Could they have gotten Jones at 17 or traded up to get him?
If they had to settle for Haskins, Lock or even Rosen would any of those QBs be performing as well in Shurmur’s offense?
Without knowing the answers to these other questions it’s impossible to say whether I would trade Jones for Allen.
And again, it's only been two pre-season games.
pretty convoluted answer to the simple question. Im assuming you would have had a more definitive answer on draft night...its a yes or no question.
Then I'm done. Because it's a dumb question.
Obviously few Giants' fans would want to trade Jones for Allen TODAY, because that would leave us without a future QB.
On draft night I would have taken Allen and the Giants then would hopefully have made a move to get their future QB later in the draft.
Darnold
Rosen (TWICE)
The TWO Josh Allen's -- the QB and the pass rusher
or Haskins
They chose Jones (AND Barkley). Time will tell if they're right.
If Jones becomes a top-tier QB and one of the others is maybe a little better, you could argue that having Jones AND Barkley is more valuable. As in, would you rather have had Aikman AND Smith, or just Brett Favre? Or just Steve Young?
I agree....and on draft night I would have taken Allen in a second.
When Gil Brandt Said he saw a mirror of Peyton Manning that meant a lot. Gil has been one of the most successful talent evaluators in NFL history..
People get attached to their guy In The draft and IMO rarely move off of that guy. Even if they don’t develop into a star. And when they are a bust not so often admit it until years later.
Didn’t want Jones but looking back Pretty sure I was tarring him w the Dave Brown Brush. Still Way to early on Jones and Allen. Maybe 2-3 years yearly
(...at least through two exhibition games), he is flicking the ball out like speed darts and changing his throwing platform on the fly. I don't think there's a QB in Blue who can do that, and that is NOT a criticism of either Eli nor Daniel Jones who have both looked very good so far! But don't be shocked (or feel disappointed) if Sam Darnold is playing at or near an All-Pro level this season.
Then I would've selected Andre Dillard
I would've traded for Rosen.
How do you know at this point? It's only been a handful of drives thus far.
But I do find it funny that people say QB trumps all in the 2019 draft, then neglect to apply the same logic to the 2018 draft. I know fans tend to be homers, but we simply don't know at this point.
The worst case scenario: Darnold becomes a QB-winning, franchise QB. Barkley is an all-time great, but fails to make a difference (just like LDT, Sanders...so many others.) Josh Allen becomes another Von Miller. The Giants tank again this year but double down on Daniel Jones and not draft a QB next year even with several highly touted ones within their grasp.
If Jones turns out to be the goods, then his draft position would be a moot point. However, if he is less than inspiring, there are a lot of good players in the alternate scenarios who could make us cry into our cereal bowls.
Re: QB trumps all inconsistency. Not that difficult to explain. If Josh Allen were a Saquon Barkley type talent then QB wouldn't trump all.
Quote:
that micky?
The worst case scenario: Darnold becomes a QB-winning, franchise QB. Barkley is an all-time great, but fails to make a difference (just like LDT, Sanders...so many others.) Josh Allen becomes another Von Miller. The Giants tank again this year but double down on Daniel Jones and not draft a QB next year even with several highly touted ones within their grasp.
Failed to make a difference? I hate when people make this argument. Barry Sanders failed to make a difference? Those Lions teams are 3/4 win teams without him. Calvin Johnson failed to make a difference? Two guys that retired early due to the ineptitude of the franchise. Football is still a team sport. Switch Eli with Stafford and the results aren't different. That isn't a knock on Eli either. Stafford is a practically an Eli clone, inconsistent gunslinger that turns it up in the 4th. The difference being that Eli only had to deal with a completely inept front office for half his career.
Yes Sanders failed to make a difference in terms of winning championships or at least getting close. It's the whole reason why QB's are so highly valued and RB's aren't.
If you don''t believe that then you are just in denial of QB vs RB. When was the lats time you saw a RB win SUB MVP?
Quote:
In comment 14534732 Jim in Hoboken said:
Quote:
that micky?
The worst case scenario: Darnold becomes a QB-winning, franchise QB. Barkley is an all-time great, but fails to make a difference (just like LDT, Sanders...so many others.) Josh Allen becomes another Von Miller. The Giants tank again this year but double down on Daniel Jones and not draft a QB next year even with several highly touted ones within their grasp.
Failed to make a difference? I hate when people make this argument. Barry Sanders failed to make a difference? Those Lions teams are 3/4 win teams without him. Calvin Johnson failed to make a difference? Two guys that retired early due to the ineptitude of the franchise. Football is still a team sport. Switch Eli with Stafford and the results aren't different. That isn't a knock on Eli either. Stafford is a practically an Eli clone, inconsistent gunslinger that turns it up in the 4th. The difference being that Eli only had to deal with a completely inept front office for half his career.
Yes Sanders failed to make a difference in terms of winning championships or at least getting close. It's the whole reason why QB's are so highly valued and RB's aren't.
If you don''t believe that then you are just in denial of QB vs RB. When was the last time you saw a RB win SB MVP?
For the record-- imo Barkley pick is fine as long as they get a QB. Hopefully Jones will be that terrific QB. Then potentially we are awesome.
Because as we all know, the Jets are the gold standard as far as football organizations and talent evaluation goes...
My guess is that people who wanted Allen over Jones still do, and the folks who liked the Jones pick still like it. If they changed their minds completely after two preseason games, they didn’t hold their opinion very strongly to begin with.
It would be awesome if we could look forward with Jones instead of these constant looking backwards threads. But this is BBI and we will likely have these for years to come.
Outside of Sy, virtually everyone on this site is launching uneducated guesses about personnel decisions. Its fun and we all do it. That’s why the site is here. But tooting your own horn about being right on one after two preseason games is odd, strange and sad.
QB is the most important player on the team, no shit, but you just don't take one to take one.
Also the RB position has evolved in the last 5 years or so and there was a talent lag in what the NFL is looking for in RBs and what college was producing. I have this argument about AP all the time with people, I don't think he is as great as people make him out to be because he limits your offense and it telegraphs what you are trying to do. The NFL has been looking for guys like Bell, Gurley, Zeke, McCaffery, Barkley, Kamara for years, but it is a tough skill set to find in RBs.
Guys that can run the ball, run routes, catch the ball, and protect the passer, and handle 350 touches. You can't lable those guys as simple "RBs".
Barkley, McCaffrey, and Zeke are the only three guys that I'd pay elite money to, and with what the RB market is I believe their actual value to winning exceeds their monetary value. Kamara is tough because he is a great player, but he can't be a focal point of your offense. Gurley was an injury risk. This is another place where QBs outshine RBs because if a QB gets hurt unless he fucks up his throwing shoulder will be the same QB a year after injury. Position players usually need two years to return to form.
The point is there hasn't been a ton of RBs in the league that increase the value of winning since the rule change in 2006. They were a replaceable cogs in the machine. But that is changing now that the NFL is receiving elite talent fitting the skills they are looking for. We are lucky to not only have that guy, but the best one of the lot.
1--- You mentioned 2006. Barry Sanders retired in 1998. Barry Sanders led his team nowhere. He is greater than Emmit Smith and OJ Anderson ofc, but the problem with RB;s is that teams rely too much on running/ get conservative. While it’s not the rb’s fault but due to injury and too much reliance on them – they can’t lead their team anywhere. Regarding Detroit they never got him great QB. Sanders style when going against elite defenses – regardless how good his OL might be—could more easily get negated. When you speak of SB as a pass receiver—without a good QB then how effective can he be? The great QB has a greater impact – it seems you agree when you say “QB is the most important player on the team, no shit.” OS if Darnold wins SB’s and wins SB MVP’s and SB is not successful getting to even the NFC Championship how is it that you can say taking the RB was the right move?
2--- You just said Edelman was the right call. So in the last 25 years which RB should’ve gotten SB MVP? I know you say it’s subjective but give me some names over the past 25 years in which the RB got ripped off.
3--- You said “but you just don't take one to take one.” Yes you are right. But Arnold was the 3rd pick overall. This imp is hardly “taking one just to take one.” He is expected to be much more than “taking one just to take one.” That’s the reason why he’ll be compared to SB. See which one will have the impact to win Super Bowls or get there etc. The goal is to win Super Bowls. Accumulating stats is great but if your style leads to championships – how does accumulation of stats trump that? SO for example if Arnold wins multiple championships and multiple SB MVP’s similar to Eli—he has shown his style of play can’t be stopped when it matters most. Unless Barkley is getting to SB and just is so awesome in playoffs leading his team to playoff victories- how can you deny the “winner” of championships and MVP’s his superior performances if he wins and is SB MVP? You say its “subjective” so let’s find a RB over the past 25 years that got robbed.
4--- If we want to talk “excitement” – sure you could go down that road. But for me the ultimate excitement is watching my team win Super Bowls. If Arnold leads his team to championships imp that is far superior to a player who accumulates exciting stats but doesn’t go far in the playoffs.
5--- With respect to your comment regarding RB; s “But that is changing now that the NFL is receiving elite talent fitting the skills they are looking for.” With respect I think you’re wrong. While rB’s get better so do Qb’s and so do WR’s etc. You have a “theory.” I’m looking at 25 years of data.
******BUT IF YOU ARE RIGHT ANd I HOPE YOU ARE -- if the RB's have as much as you think and we have SB who is just so freaking awesome-- then you'll see us win even a lot of playoff games. SO what I'm saying is-- Barkley will win a lot of playoffs games if your theory is right thus meaning the Darnold vs Barkley comparison mute because SB will win so freaking much.
6—I do agree Barkley is the best and I’m damn glad to have him. He will win SB MVP’s and imo can be among the greatest ever-- PROVIDED he gets a good QB to support what he does. Otherwise it would take a freaky defense.
7—Bottom-line is if Daniel Jones turns out be no good and Barkley never gets GMEN far in the playoffs- while Darnold wins championships and SB MVP’s – it is obvious that the style of Arnold would have been proven superior to the style of SB. Sure we know SB has “the greater individual talent” vs Darnold but if it doesn’t turn it into championships while Darnold’s does – imo it’s clear that building through a quality QB is superior that building through supreme RB.
2--- You just said Edelman was the right call. So in the last 25 years which RB should’ve gotten SB MVP? I know you say it’s subjective but give me some names over the past 25 years in which the RB got ripped off.
While none of these guys were "robbed", some names recently that came to mind:
- In the Pats/Sea SB, if Lynch punches it in instead of the RW interception Lynch is very likely the SB MVP. He would've finished with 100+ yards and 2 TD's in that game
- In the Pats/Atl SB, Brady deserved to win but James White's contribution shouldn't be overlooked. 14/110/1 td receiving and 6/29/2 tds rushing is a helluva game for a rb
- Peyton won it in '07 but Rhodes and Addai were both excellent. A case could've been made for Rhodes. Peyton was good in that game, not great
At this early juncture that's all you can ask.
Before criticizing the picks, something to criticize them about needs to actually happen, no?
That is narractive, probably promulgated by Joe Beningo. Actual actions and facts, Darnold killed the coach and GM.
The game has changed a lot in the since 2006 and the problem of just looking at Superbowl is that the Pats completely skew the sample size.
There is also the view of perception. QBs get too much recognition for winning and too much blame for losing. Just the way it is. Lots of good QBs have looked great due to having tremendous RBs. Troy Aikman and Kurt Warner come to mind. The Lions have been a clusterfuck forever. He put them on his back to the playoffs many years. Stafford is a good QB that consistently get shit on because of the Lions overall record. That isn't Stafford's fault, nor was the Lions not winning a superbowl Sanders.
What is a good QB? I'd say good indicates above average. The Eagles won a superbowl with Nick Foles at QB. Kap and Flacco played in a superbowl against each other not to long ago. Rex Grossman and Hassleback both played in superbowls the last fifteen years. Peyton Mannings corpse won a superbowl. Brad Johnson in 2002. There are a lot of way to win, but because of the Pats dominance the last skews the data set.
That was the start of the discussion wasn't it? Someone said
"The worst case scenario: Darnold becomes a QB-winning, franchise QB."
I think you meant Darnold/Allen.
The game has changed a lot in the since 2006 and the problem of just looking at Superbowl is that the Pats completely skew the sample size.
There is also the view of perception. QBs get too much recognition for winning and too much blame for losing. Just the way it is. Lots of good QBs have looked great due to having tremendous RBs. Troy Aikman and Kurt Warner come to mind. The Lions have been a clusterfuck forever. He put them on his back to the playoffs many years. Stafford is a good QB that consistently get shit on because of the Lions overall record. That isn't Stafford's fault, nor was the Lions not winning a superbowl Sanders.
What is a good QB? I'd say good indicates above average. The Eagles won a superbowl with Nick Foles at QB. Kap and Flacco played in a superbowl against each other not to long ago. Rex Grossman and Hassleback both played in superbowls the last fifteen years. Peyton Mannings corpse won a superbowl. Brad Johnson in 2002. There are a lot of way to win, but because of the Pats dominance the last skews the data set.
I don't think Pats skew the data at all. Teams have beaten the Pats in the Super Bowl including the Giants. Guys like Nick Foles have impacted the SB because QB as you even acknowledge is the most important position on the football field.
ANd as we agree that QB is most important it means they impact the game more than any other positions. That';s why in SB the QB's win so often. As far citing Peyton Manning - his corpse-- absolutely he was. But that is why I acknowledged GMEn could win with Barkley and a "freaky defense." Sure go ahead and build a freaky defense. Though they don't seem to come around and remain elite very often.
Maybe you can continually replenish the defense and use Barkley over-and-over because he is so freaky great. Then ofc Barkley would become "transcendent" on such an elite scale above Sanders etc. Maybe he is the "Michael Jordan" and will change the game like Jordan did for how SG's impact basketball.
Other than that-- you speak of "fairness." How is it not fair to give Darnold his due if he is a franchise QB and his style proves to be elite as he wins championships while Barkley gets "eventually stopped" and doesn't advance very far in playoffs? Darnold's style would prove to be unstoppable int he playoffs while we've seen the Sanders led teams get shut down. Individually Barkley and Sanders are superior --- but because of the position-- they can get more easily shutdown vs the premiere teams.
Hey it's shame for many players. It's a shame the Giants couldn't give Fran Tarkenton a better team. It's a shame John Mendenhall didnt play with a better team. It's a shame Phil Simms got hurt. it's a shame in Rodney Hamptons prime he didn't play with better teams. It's a shame the Saints got ripped off last year and had that big gaffe the year before. It's shame Payton didn't play with a better team until near the end. We can go on all day of how "it's a shame. . . " but one thing we see is when it comes to winning it all- the past 25 years noting from the RB's.
As for Freeman-- I say no way. It would have been Matt Ryan. Even at the end of the game he had a QB rating of 144. Ryan imo was a lock to win MVP.
No. A 144 QB rating in the SB is obscene. Freeman is only getting the chance to run because Ryan was so amazing at passing thus spreading the defense. And nay pass starts with Ryan.
Quote:
13 touches. He could have had a ton more if his coach wasn't a fucking moron, definitely would have broke 100 just on the ground.
No. A 144 QB rating in the SB is obscene. Freeman is only getting the chance to run because Ryan was so amazing at passing thus spreading the defense. And nay pass starts with Ryan.
He only threw the ball 23 times. And it should have been closer to 20. Ryan was only able to throw the ball so well because the Pats were worried about the run. See I can do that too. Football is a team sport. Freeman opened up the game in a power set and went for 37, broke 4 tackles on that run. The Falcons had a great back and a good back.
Would Matt Ryan would have won the Superbowl MVP? Probably, but that is just the bias to give it quarterbacks. If it as at all close it always goes to the QB.
No. I'm responding to the initial point a poster made - "What if Darnold is a franchise QB and wins" while Barkley is super great and doesn't?"
It has nothing to do with "how I'm acting." Thsi is a "what if . . " scenario. IF IF IF IF Darnold is a SB winner and Franchise QB and while Barkley is super great but leads his team to playoffs but not much success in the playoffs -- then the move passing on the QB would have been wrong." That's what we are arguing, is it not?
I did not create this scenario another poster did of what if . . . I'm playing along with the "what if . . . " game.
IN SUMMARY: If Darnold does't win championships then stats come into play and more than likely SB will be far superior-- thus Barkley wins. If Barkley wins titles or is successful with many playoff wins then the point is mute about Darnold-- Barkley "wins." BUT BUT BUT -- IF IF IF IF Barkley leads his team nowhere while Darnold is the Franchise Qb with multiple SB Titles and SB MVP's then it was a mistake to have taken the RB over the QB.
Thats the issue you have to face when you take a RB overall with the 2nd pick and if the 3rd pick overall Qb wind sup being a stud winning championships and SB MVP's. How can you counter the reality that the QB influences the game much more than the RB? Barkley's talent is all-time great talent. If he can't be highly successful in the playoffs it shows the RB still can't influence big time playoff games the same way a QB can thus it would have been a huge mistake if Darnold has success winning SB's and Barkley can't drag his team much in the playoffs.
Saquon is clearly a generational RB - 1st ballot HOF. Best in the league for the rest of his career type. The only way that it was mistake is if Darnold becomes an elite QB up there with Rodgers, Brady, Peyton Manning, and looks like Mahomes. I just don't see that happening and the only guy that I think can is Mayfield. After the draft last year I thought if I had the first pick I would have went Mayfield and number 2 I'd go Saquon. Saquon showed so much in his rookie year that gun to head with the first pick I don't know who I'd pick right now honestly, and I still think Mayfield is going to be a top 5 QB.
The rams go to the SB even though Gurley was ineffective. They just simply got another RB and he did the job. ANd Kamara had the big day receiving passing yards because it was Brees throwing him the ball.
Then why did the Saints not have RB's at the top of the league in receiving throughout Brees' career there?
Some of the argument puts forth to try and lessen the impact of RB's is pretty moronic.
Let me guess, Christian McCaffery is a stud because of Cam Newton's precision??
No it would be the wrong pick because championships trumps stats. If Barkley could not lead lead his team to anything but minimal playoff success while Darnold wins championships and is SB MVP it just highlights the fact to us how superior the importance of the QB is vs the RB. It also minimizes your point on the impact of the RB because we can agree Barkley is one of the most talented RB's we've ever seen in a long long long long long long long time. If he can't turn this team to win with your explanation of the importance of the RB it is clear it was a mistake to take the RB.
The argument made by some (outside of bbi faithful) is that the RB is going to depreciate. When you are lousy the RB position can not influence the playoffs because he still needs the good OL and the good QB. By the time the team builds the OL and gets the good QB the RB will begin to decline. With SB being as great as he is-- if GMEn don;t win and the RB is so important as you say -- then why would he have virtually no playoff success? Its because RBs can;t influence games like QB's. A point you agree with. You even said "no shit the QB is most important." If it is-- it seems like that it has no meaning to you that the QB is most important. But it must have some "meaning." ANd if Darnold is winning SB's and SB MVP's it highlights that meaning. Does it not?
They put it in Ryans hands because they knew he was their best chance. That;s why QB's affect games much more than RB's. It;s why even you have said QB is most important position on the football field. You mean don't put the ball in the hands with the 2016 Reg. Season MVP?
Quote:
Take away Kamara from the Saints and they are going to look average. Look at what happened to the Rams when Gurley became ineffective.
The rams go to the SB even though Gurley was ineffective. They just simply got another RB and he did the job. ANd Kamara had the big day receiving passing yards because it was Brees throwing him the ball.
They got there because their defense and running game. Goff had one TD pass all playoff.
Saquon is clearly a generational RB - 1st ballot HOF. Best in the league for the rest of his career type. The only way that it was mistake is if Darnold becomes an elite QB up there with Rodgers, Brady, Peyton Manning, and looks like Mahomes. I just don't see that happening and the only guy that I think can is Mayfield. After the draft last year I thought if I had the first pick I would have went Mayfield and number 2 I'd go Saquon. Saquon showed so much in his rookie year that gun to head with the first pick I don't know who I'd pick right now honestly, and I still think Mayfield is going to be a top 5 QB.
For me all I've said is I beleive Darnodl is a lock ot be a good NFL QB. There is a poster on this veyr thread (not oyu) who has previoulsy lied and misreprsented my tstament Imade about Darnold a long time ago and tried to twist my comens into to parpphrase "I said Darnold is generational or simialr to. I have not.
All I'm saying is our discussion orginated from a point of "WHAT IF DARNOLD IS FRANCHISE QB" and I've added if he is winnign SB's and gettign MVP's WHILE Barkley has teh same bad luck as Sandwers then Darnold would have ben the wiser pick.
In the lats 25 years no RB has won a SB MVP and imo you are wrong to suggets Ryan wouldn't have won it. Its becuase when we say QB is most important - that manfests itself in playoff football.
ANd if Barkley -- as super as he is-- has the same poor success in winning playoffs games as Sander had while Darnold wins even though he doesn't have Barkleys talent - then it means for example you have vastly overrated the impact of the RB position. If it is important as you say then we'll see Barkley win a lot more making this discussion mute.
***But in our "what if . . . " our what if is what if Barkley isn't winning at all while Darnold is and while darnold is getting SB MVP's? It imo clearly shows QB is the way to go.
Quote:
In comment 14535434 Zeke's Alibi said:
Quote:
Take away Kamara from the Saints and they are going to look average. Look at what happened to the Rams when Gurley became ineffective.
The rams go to the SB even though Gurley was ineffective. They just simply got another RB and he did the job. ANd Kamara had the big day receiving passing yards because it was Brees throwing him the ball.
They got there because their defense and running game. Goff had one TD pass all playoff.
Yes and how much did Gurley contribute? They just found someone else. Sure Philly won the year before with a backup QB but he was amazing in SB. What RB's have been SB MVP in the past 25? A backup QB can be. A backup RB cna help the rams to the championship but the QB's are as you say the most important position on the football field impact the game more.
No because if you'll note what I said about Barkley -- I said at least get to the Sb or have some success getting close. But Sanders is an alltime great and had no playoff success. WHile marino-- the most important position on the football field-- had some playoff success. If Barkley has some playoff success and they get beat for example in the SB while he led them there -- that is amazing. But we were talking about Sanders. He didn't come close ot that. SO if SB is like Sanders it just highlights RBs don't have the same impact. Even Marino with a not so strong team could push his team to a SB while Sanders couldn't win one playoff game despite hm being arguably one of the top 3 RB;s ever.
1--- You mentioned 2006. Barry Sanders retired in 1998. Barry Sanders led his team nowhere. He is greater than Emmit Smith and OJ Anderson ofc, but the problem with RB;s is that teams rely too much on running/ get conservative. While it’s not the rb’s fault but due to injury and too much reliance on them – they can’t lead their team anywhere. Regarding Detroit they never got him great QB. Sanders style when going against elite defenses – regardless how good his OL might be—could more easily get negated. When you speak of SB as a pass receiver—without a good QB then how effective can he be? The great QB has a greater impact – it seems you agree when you say “QB is the most important player on the team, no shit.” OS if Darnold wins SB’s and wins SB MVP’s and SB is not successful getting to even the NFC Championship how is it that you can say taking the RB was the right move?
2--- You just said Edelman was the right call. So in the last 25 years which RB should’ve gotten SB MVP? I know you say it’s subjective but give me some names over the past 25 years in which the RB got ripped off.
3--- You said “but you just don't take one to take one.” Yes you are right. But Arnold was the 3rd pick overall. This imp is hardly “taking one just to take one.” He is expected to be much more than “taking one just to take one.” That’s the reason why he’ll be compared to SB. See which one will have the impact to win Super Bowls or get there etc. The goal is to win Super Bowls. Accumulating stats is great but if your style leads to championships – how does accumulation of stats trump that? SO for example if Arnold wins multiple championships and multiple SB MVP’s similar to Eli—he has shown his style of play can’t be stopped when it matters most. Unless Barkley is getting to SB and just is so awesome in playoffs leading his team to playoff victories- how can you deny the “winner” of championships and MVP’s his superior performances if he wins and is SB MVP? You say its “subjective” so let’s find a RB over the past 25 years that got robbed.
4--- If we want to talk “excitement” – sure you could go down that road. But for me the ultimate excitement is watching my team win Super Bowls. If Arnold leads his team to championships imp that is far superior to a player who accumulates exciting stats but doesn’t go far in the playoffs.
5--- With respect to your comment regarding RB; s “But that is changing now that the NFL is receiving elite talent fitting the skills they are looking for.” With respect I think you’re wrong. While rB’s get better so do Qb’s and so do WR’s etc. You have a “theory.” I’m looking at 25 years of data.
******BUT IF YOU ARE RIGHT ANd I HOPE YOU ARE -- if the RB's have as much as you think and we have SB who is just so freaking awesome-- then you'll see us win even a lot of playoff games. SO what I'm saying is-- Barkley will win a lot of playoffs games if your theory is right thus meaning the Darnold vs Barkley comparison mute because SB will win so freaking much.
6—I do agree Barkley is the best and I’m damn glad to have him. He will win SB MVP’s and imo can be among the greatest ever-- PROVIDED he gets a good QB to support what he does. Otherwise it would take a freaky defense.
7—Bottom-line is if Daniel Jones turns out be no good and Barkley never gets GMEN far in the playoffs- while Darnold wins championships and SB MVP’s – it is obvious that the style of Arnold would have been proven superior to the style of SB. Sure we know SB has “the greater individual talent” vs Darnold but if it doesn’t turn it into championships while Darnold’s does – imo it’s clear that building through a quality QB is superior that building through supreme RB.
You’re making a lot of shit up and using a lot of words. Mostly false. Barry Sanders led his team nowhere? Go look at how “bad” that lions era truly was with Barry Sanders in the fold. Those lions teams actually won playoff games. Won division titles. Got to an NFC title game. And they did so with total trash at the qb position. Barry carried that franchise to heights they haven’t seen since.
I know it’s hard to process but maybe if the lions drafted well around Barry they would have won even more. Nice FA signing there Detroit.... Scott fucking Mitchell. Bravo. But yea, let’s use that Detroit model to rip the great RB.
You don; want to seem to seem to give QB the merit it deserves. You say it is important but you brush it under the rug. If RB is important as you say then our discussion is mute.
The EFC. That’s who... ; )
Quote:
.
You don; want to seem to seem to give QB the merit it deserves. You say it is important but you brush it under the rug. If RB is important as you say then our discussion is mute.
It is morons like you why its an accepted truth by those that have played the game that the QB gets more props than they deserve when they win and more blame than they should when they lose. It's moot btw.
Quote:
. Scott fucking Mitchell. Bravo. But yea, let’s use that Detroit model to rip the great RB.
Yeah right, I'm ripping a guy I called arguably the 3rd greatest RB in the history of the NFL. I;m ripping the position of RB vs QB. Otherwise I'll ask you as well- name a SB MVP RB in the past 25 years? How mnay RB's are taken in top 5 vs QB's? WHat is the most important position on the football field?
Unbelievable-- I'm ripping a guy who I say is at least 3rd best ever as a RB and you say I'm ripping him. Okay buddy sure.
My point is it is harder to build with RB;s. If it isn't what does "QB being the most important position mean then? For anyone that believes the QB is most impt - You can't just say a QB is most important then not believe a QB is easier to build a championship team vs a RB.
Quote:
In comment 14535458 Zeke's Alibi said:
Quote:
.
You don; want to seem to seem to give QB the merit it deserves. You say it is important but you brush it under the rug. If RB is important as you say then our discussion is mute.
It is morons like you why its an accepted truth by those that have played the game that the QB gets more props than they deserve when they win and more blame than they should when they lose. It's moot btw.
Great here comes the insults now. I give you stats of Sb MVP's and you throw insults. Way to go. You;ve made up a theory which is basically laughed ta by the NFL by not taking RB;s instead they take QB's and somehow it's some huge conspiracy that over 25 years no RB has been MVP - all because it doesn't fit your theory.
I guess it doesn't matter much to Eli's legacy or getting into the HOF.
Quote:
goes to QBs even if they didn't deserve it.
I guess it doesn't matter much to Eli's legacy or getting into the HOF.
Who gives a shit about legacies or HOF. It is a media talking point. I am talking about winning football games from a practical standpoint.
Quote:
In comment 14535456 Zeke's Alibi said:
Quote:
goes to QBs even if they didn't deserve it.
I guess it doesn't matter much to Eli's legacy or getting into the HOF.
Who gives a shit about legacies or HOF. It is a media talking point. I am talking about winning football games from a practical standpoint.
I can't wait for the next time a thread pops up and some posters make a point to say Eli belongs in the HOF as two time SUper Bowl MVP and you tell them "who gives a shit about he was a SB MVP?"
Noooo- it's your theories that mean jack squat. You are pretending like you are some sort of expert. You are trying to place yourself above the fray. It;s called being delusional and myopic.
"How he played in both 4 quarters" according to your subjective opinion? I agree he played well but hwo decides who plays god enouhg? You? And for example the other 3 quarters don't count?
Quote:
Although the defense as a whole deserved it. Tremendous performance.
"How he played in both 4 quarters" according to your subjective opinion? I agree he played well but hwo decides who plays god enouhg? You? And for example the other 3 quarters don't count?
As opposed to the writers and broadcasters who have never sniffed the football field, let alone at QB. Yeh I trust my opinion a bit more.
Quote:
In comment 14535475 Zeke's Alibi said:
Quote:
Although the defense as a whole deserved it. Tremendous performance.
"How he played in both 4 quarters" according to your subjective opinion? I agree he played well but hwo decides who plays god enouhg? You? And for example the other 3 quarters don't count?
As opposed to the writers and broadcasters who have never sniffed the football field, let alone at QB. Yeh I trust my opinion a bit more.
Yes ofc. You who sits behind a computer anonymously making millions from your expert analysis. Yeah right I'll believe you.
I can't believe you said this after you have thrown insults at me. I've got to go and I don't want to say this but I can't resist so I'll say this lightly--
Ever watch "Married With Children?"
Have a good night.
Quote:
can't know anything about the game? Guess those guys that make 5k coaching high school are completely clueless.
I can't believe you said this after you have thrown insults at me. I've got to go and I don't want to say this but I can't resist so I'll say this lightly--
Ever watch "Married With Children?"
Have a good night.
You asked me why I trusted my opinion as opposed to the writers and broadcasters who vote on Superbowl MVP I answered. A lot of times they don't have more than a superficial understanding of the game, which is fine, but it leads to a lot of QBs that win are good and quarterbacks that lose suck. QB is the most important position, but it isn't the be all and all that people make it out to be.
Here is what was written:
Look at those Lions teams Sanders was on. From 1989 to 1998, it has been the most successful stretch of Lions football in the post-SB Era.
- 3 seasons of 10 wins or more.
- 5 Playoff appearances
- 2 division titles
Prior to Sanders, the Lions finished under .500 the previous 5 years, with a high in wins of 7. From 2000 to 2010 after Sanders, the Lions didn't make the playoffs and never finished higher than 3rd in the division. Finished last in the division 6 times.
Without Sanders, the Lions have gone to the playoffs only 7 other times since 1970.
Led his team nowhere??
Perhaps we can get another 5 paragraphs of dyslexic ramblings to support that?
Without Sanders, the Lions have gone to the playoffs only 7 other times since 1970.
Led his team nowhere??
Perhaps we can get another 5 paragraphs of dyslexic ramblings to support that?
And in those playoff games the Lions were 1-5. Sanders was keyed on and only broke 100 rushing yards once.
Why? Because the Lions' QBs were: Erik Kramer, Rodney Peete, Andre Ware, Scott Mitchell, David Krieg.
Bullshit. Results and to a smaller extent stats don't matter. But just because it's preseason passes don't magically more accurate.
Quote:
Without Sanders, the Lions have gone to the playoffs only 7 other times since 1970.
Led his team nowhere??
Perhaps we can get another 5 paragraphs of dyslexic ramblings to support that?
And in those playoff games the Lions were 1-5. Sanders was keyed on and only broke 100 rushing yards once.
Why? Because the Lions' QBs were: Erik Kramer, Rodney Peete, Andre Ware, Scott Mitchell, David Krieg.
Imagine if they had a halfway competent QB.