First, I want to be clear, I am happy we have Daniel Jones. I was happy we picked a QB at 6 and I am hopeful by what we have seen overall, so far.
But as I said on another post, it is conceivable the Giants could have gotten two firsts for their 2018 #2 and gotten Lamar Jackson and Nick Chubb. And then in 2019 gotten Josh Allen.
Looking in hindsight I think:
Lamar Jackson, Nick Chubb, Josh Allen & gt; Barkley and Jones.
Do you agree? Of course it requires going all-in remaking the team to suit Lamar's strengths. But I think most objective observers would agree with me.
Quote:
Is Jackson leading the most effective rushing attack in the league, or is he not?
I know it's hard to accept that the Barkley pick was a mistake (which is essentially what the thread starter is getting at), but the sooner we all accept the hard truths about the people running this organization, the better for the collective IQ of BBI.
bingo.. look nobody thinks Barkley is a bad player. He is a great and exciting player. But yea.. at #2... in the position the Giants were in? Not a smart pick. Would much rather have Chubb late in the first round and another player like Lamar. There is a significant chance that Chubb winds up with the better career as well.
Agreed with both of you. Some on here still seem reluctant to accept the premise that Barkley could be a great running back and still have been the wrong pick. It was a luxury pick for a team that couldn't afford anything close to it at that point.
i hearya.. i should say i am still hopeful about Jones. There is a chance he can be really good. But he has only flashed moments so far. That's nothing. Marcus Mariota flashed much bigger moments than Jones and that dude is not an NFL QB. Lamar is succeeding. Anybody who wouldn't take Lamar over Jones right now isn't paying attention. I'm pretty sure 90% of gms past and present would take Lamar.
Yes. Drafting excellent players is a mistake. Got it.
If we can just get a bunch of guys on their first contracts to play for cheap we could build a powerhouse, and not even use a RB!!! They are fungible!
But running QB's? Not fungible I, er, guess???
Quote:
is Darnold + Nick Bosa. Not because I think Darnold is better than Jones but Bosa is just that good.
We had no shot at Bosa
If we drafted Darnold last year instead of Barkley, we absolutely would've had a shot at Bosa, because the team would've had a much worse record.
Quote:
I know it's hard to accept that the Barkley pick was a mistake (which is essentially what the thread starter is getting at), but the sooner we all accept the hard truths about the people running this organization, the better for the collective IQ of BBI.
Yes. Drafting excellent players is a mistake. Got it.
If we can just get a bunch of guys on their first contracts to play for cheap we could build a powerhouse, and not even use a RB!!! They are fungible!
But running QB's? Not fungible I, er, guess???
Give it up already, man.
Quote:
I know it's hard to accept that the Barkley pick was a mistake (which is essentially what the thread starter is getting at), but the sooner we all accept the hard truths about the people running this organization, the better for the collective IQ of BBI.
Yes. Drafting excellent players is a mistake. Got it.
If we can just get a bunch of guys on their first contracts to play for cheap we could build a powerhouse, and not even use a RB!!! They are fungible!
But running QB's? Not fungible I, er, guess???
I think their point is "It doesn't matter how talented Barkley is, a running back only has so much impact, so even if Barkley is three times the player Nick Chubb is, both will have similar impact on the game as a whole - so Chubb is the smarter choice as he takes less draft capital to obtain and less money to keep."
But hey, Fordham is an FBS powerhouse that's been known for its power running game since the Seven Blocks of Granite.
Jones and Barkely
But hey, Barkley puts up great fantasy numbers!
(or at least he did last year)
But hey, Fordham is an FBS powerhouse that's been known for its power running game since the Seven Blocks of Granite.
Absolutely. RBs are a fungible resource.
Quote:
Quote:
I know it's hard to accept that the Barkley pick was a mistake (which is essentially what the thread starter is getting at), but the sooner we all accept the hard truths about the people running this organization, the better for the collective IQ of BBI.
Yes. Drafting excellent players is a mistake. Got it.
If we can just get a bunch of guys on their first contracts to play for cheap we could build a powerhouse, and not even use a RB!!! They are fungible!
But running QB's? Not fungible I, er, guess???
I think their point is "It doesn't matter how talented Barkley is, a running back only has so much impact, so even if Barkley is three times the player Nick Chubb is, both will have similar impact on the game as a whole - so Chubb is the smarter choice as he takes less draft capital to obtain and less money to keep."
But of course Barkley is not three times the player Chubb is. Chubb is great. Maybe Barkley is ten to 15 percent better.
Not realizing that fungible really doesn't have that meaning. By that logic, QB's are fungible since Minshew, Kyle Allen, and Teddy Bridgewater have stepped in without their teams missing a beat.
But we don't hear that claim. Why?
And Terps - fuck off with the "give it up already" shit. You keep beating the drum that Barkley was a bad pick, I'm guessing because if you say it enough times, you'll think a point will magically appear.
The proof is right there on the field week after week. The rest is excuses and rationalizations. I don't know what else to tell you.
Not realizing that fungible really doesn't have that meaning. By that logic, QB's are fungible since Minshew, Kyle Allen, and Teddy Bridgewater have stepped in without their teams missing a beat.
But we don't hear that claim. Why?
You wrote that with a straight face?
Not realizing that fungible really doesn't have that meaning. By that logic, QB's are fungible since Minshew, Kyle Allen, and Teddy Bridgewater have stepped in without their teams missing a beat.
But we don't hear that claim. Why?
And Terps - fuck off with the "give it up already" shit. You keep beating the drum that Barkley was a bad pick, I'm guessing because if you say it enough times, you'll think a point will magically appear.
You got to start bringing something better than this.
Or back down quietly...
Because when it is all said and done, a lot of people are going to look like idiots by saying Barkley is a bad pick.
Name some excellent players who have gone down in the annals as bad picks.
To support the nonsense, we are going to have ridiculous points made that because a RB from Fordham had a good game that RB's are fungible and have as much impact as the #2 pick.
And in some warped world, a season and a half in, you think saying Barkley is a bad pick is the correct take. Even as you watch the likely alternatives struggle.
Picking excellent players is never bad. Maybe someday that will sink in
But surely you don't need that explained.
If so, refrain back to the back down quietly post...
Good FG kickers are harder to find than good RBs. And they are having greater impacts on the outcome of games. Hell, I could have argued taking a K at #2 made more sense than a RB...
That's pretty sad on quite a few levels.
So what would have been the right combination to placate people? And why isn't Jones/Barkley good enough?
Darnold/Allen?
I mean, we're talking two picks/players here. What two different players would have completely changed the complexion of this team?
It isn't necessarily Darnold/Allen vs. Barkley/Jones. It is the trade down of supposedly loading up on several OL and Pass rushers.
Of course, that narrative interestingly changed when the QB's from last year all look mediocre to terrible so far. But you see, Barkley is a RB that is a useless pick (but a supposedly "easy" one). I'll likely need that line of horseshit explained to me too.
I'm still waiting for somebody to point out an excellent player who really wasn't a good pick. I mean, the Giants are so moronic that they must have broken new ground!!
That's pretty sad on quite a few levels.
well at least you seem a bit more quiet...
It isn't necessarily Darnold/Allen vs. Barkley/Jones. It is the trade down of supposedly loading up on several OL and Pass rushers.
Of course, that narrative interestingly changed when the QB's from last year all look mediocre to terrible so far. But you see, Barkley is a RB that is a useless pick (but a supposedly "easy" one). I'll likely need that line of horseshit explained to me too.
I'm still waiting for somebody to point out an excellent player who really wasn't a good pick. I mean, the Giants are so moronic that they must have broken new ground!!
I spoke to soon.
Here comes the rants...
So what would have been the right combination to placate people? And why isn't Jones/Barkley good enough?
Darnold/Allen?
I mean, we're talking two picks/players here. What two different players would have completely changed the complexion of this team?
For the 2018 and 2019 draft, any of these combinations made more sense with the first round picks than QB and RB:
QB, OL, DE, Edge/LB, and, maybe Corner.
The Cardinals only gave up a 3rd round pick to move from 15 to 10 for Rosen.
So while I understand the constant drum beating for a trade down (every year for as long as I remember), you have to have a willing partner. You don't trade out of #2 overall for anything that doesn't include an additional first round pick, IMO. And that just didn't seem to be there, and Gettleman said so when he said he wasn't going trade the pick for a "bag of donuts" which tells you about the offers he was receiving the week leading up to the draft.
It wasn't the trade down people were screaming about....
But revisionist history is pretty common here.
Quote:
would have changed the narrative completely... when we ended up getting a viable QB prospect the following year.
So what would have been the right combination to placate people? And why isn't Jones/Barkley good enough?
Darnold/Allen?
I mean, we're talking two picks/players here. What two different players would have completely changed the complexion of this team?
For the 2018 and 2019 draft, any of these combinations made more sense with the first round picks than QB and RB:
QB, OL, DE, Edge/LB, and, maybe Corner.
Well wait a second... ANY combination? Or any combination of QB plus? Because we all know that you didn't want Eli here anymore. So QB had to be part of the combo, no?
If you're tired, then leave.
Come back in a few years when its time to let everybody know you were right and they were idiots...
You're probably done contributing for the year.
You know the ranting type.
Listen to the bell...it tolls for thee.
What else is there to talk about concerning the Giants? The football itself is embarrassing and there isn't any prospect of that changing under this leadership.
Quote:
The mental strength it takes to continue to say the same points all over again with the same people who will never change their minds. This may come off as sarcasm, but I'm serious.
What else is there to talk about concerning the Giants? The football itself is embarrassing and there isn't any prospect of that changing under this leadership.
Sometimes quiet is good
Because when it is all said and done, a lot of people are going to look like idiots by saying Barkley is a bad pick.
Oh, a prediction fight against Go Terps! I know who my money is on.
I'm not saying what you should do terps. I am simply impressed by the stamina you all have.
Find someone who can scheme with the talent we have and win.
Find someone who can scheme with the talent we have and win.
This point should not be diminished. All of the debates over who we should have taken... with this staff, I'm convinced they're all moot. I suppose you could piece together the absolute perfect FA acquisitions and draft picks and argue it might be enough to overcome Shurmur, but anything less and I'm sure the Giants would still be embarrassing.
For the 2018 and 2019 draft, any of these combinations made more sense with the first round picks than QB and RB:
QB, OL, DE, Edge/LB, and, maybe Corner.
Well wait a second... ANY combination? Or any combination of QB plus? Because we all know that you didn't want Eli here anymore. So QB had to be part of the combo, no?
Ideally, yes. But I thought there was good QB value in some later rounds, too.
The Barkley debate actually bothers me because I am lifelong PSU fan. And I knew about him in high school because his school, Whitehall/PA (produced Matt Millen and Dan Koppen), used to play my high school, Phillipsburg/NJ, when both teams played in the East Penn Conference a long time ago. It was a conference rich in football talent.
My dad told me about him several years ago when he saw SB play against Easton HS. He said he was an absolute freak.
Look, it's just a philosophical difference. I despise the cap model. Wish it was gone or softer. But with it here, you want to get the best value for that cap dollar. And right now RB is not the best value because it's a position that is abundant in supply.
Find someone who can scheme with the talent we have and win.
we're just having a football talk. We know we're at where we're at. Having said that, Barkley does indeed have tremendous talent. Jones is a giant question mark. He has shown brilliant flashes. But he has been awful the last three games.
And swap Jackson and Jones and the teams are in the same position.
Quote:
is Darnold + Nick Bosa. Not because I think Darnold is better than Jones but Bosa is just that good.
We had no shot at Bosa
We probably finsih with a worse record if we were playing Darnold all year instead of Barkey. After all the Jets with Darnold finished 3rd.
Enjoy the Bosa's for the limited time their muscles are able to stay secured to bone...
Enjoy the Bosa's for the limited time their muscles are able to stay secured to bone...
😂😂