SI: Does Saquon fit the Giants timeline?

I saw a lot out of this team yesterday which tells me good coaching matter and can help turn a team around quickly. The blocking is unfortunate but who knows what it will look like a month from now after some continuity.

You can do this exercise for a lot of great players on bad teams.

At the end of the day, unless something changes soon, Barkley would have been a wasted #2 pick because the Giants failed to put people in front of him that can run block. It's very frustrating to watch.

1. He's super talented, you don't go wrong acquiring super talented players. Its not his fault that the Giants have not been able to build an OL yet.

2. Maybe DG's biggest fault, misreading the tea leaves when Eli was here. They were not a good team and could not contend. But he treated it like a last gasp at trying to win with Eli. Solder, Barkley. In this instance yes, Barkley was picked at the wrong time. DG said "Barkley will make the OL better", sorry that is flat out incorrect.

But, he’s going to get resigned long term.

People hammer this home since he’s a RB, but Josh Rosen is on a practice squad and Sam Darnold still has a lot of concerns.

You could certainly make the point, Bradley Chubb or Nelson we’re better suited as infrastructure builders.

a year or two before this last draft and found some gems. I'd feel a whole lot better about this offense and this team if we could run consistently and have Jones be the gravy on top.

In comment 14973000 eclipz928 said:

Quote:

At the end of the day, unless something changes soon, Barkley would have been a wasted #2 pick because the Giants failed to put people in front of him that can run block. It's very frustrating to watch.

That's a very flawed POV. You can make an argument that most players drafted high are bad picks if the team still stinks 3-4 years later.

Darnold/Rosen would be bad picks. Chubb or Nelson might have the Giants at the very same record as they do now.

run down by the time he enters year 4. You can only get ambushed so many times by 3 350lb DL the minute you get the hand off. It takes its toll not just physically but mentally.

you will never turn this around. It took LT to turn around the franchise back in the 80s. I don't believe were that far off even though with a new coach again and new systems we will have a losing season. We need to find a great pass rusher and more help along the OL and this team will improve. If we continue to fire the coaches every year because of bad seasons we will continue to fail. After this season no matter how bad it is I hope the coaching staff stays and we can gain some continuity to move forward.

not one hour ago. For the relatively short term, I would temper myself and SI with -- for the rest of this year, (1) we just are not going to face a front 7 as good as we did last night, (2) our OL play and Garrett's coaching/scheming are likely to improve at least somewhat. Last night SHOULD be SB's worst game. (Did you see how frustrated he was on the sideline? Can't blame him -- he wants "it.")

Longer view, yeah, this has taken too long, and the SB pick might have been "premature" in a sense. DG thought the OL was better than it was, and SB is a once-in-a generation RB, so you still don't pass on it, I guess.

Watching last night, that Barkley has wasted his talent on this team. Again, it comes down to blocking issues. I don’t remember conversations about Barkley making the OL better. (Doesn’t mean they didn’t happen.) But his running game—like the QB passing game, both Eli’s and DJ’s—is absolutely predicated on solid protection. It’s been a glaring weakness since 2012. Maybe this will be the year it improves with some new guys up front stepping up.

but last night was the first time I really started to feel like it may have been the wrong choice. It was very disheartening to watch a player of his caliber basically be rendered useless because the run blocking was so bad.

Yes it is one game, yes there are 3 new starters on the line, and yes it was Gates' first career action at Center. Things should get better as the weeks go on, BUT the point of drafting Barkley second overall is because he is supposed to be able to excel with an inferior line in front of him. If he needs good line play to have an impact, then he is a waste for the current state of this team. They would have been better off addressing the other holes on the team, and then drafting a RB after that when there is the opportunity for one to flourish.

Watching last night, can anybody really say that we are better off right now with Barkley instead of Quenton Nelson, Bradley Chubb (maybe no injury if he's here), etc.?

It made no sense then, and it makes less sense now. Without even a service offensive line, it just wasn't a useful pick. And now, we are going to likely waste his entire rookie deal. At the end of this year, he's going to demand a massive deal, in the neighborhood of 20 per year.

If this season continues downward, they should trade him to a contender for a 1 plus change

I am in the BPA and, at the time, I felt they needed a retool and run Eli out there. Hindsight says the OL was shambles and the coaching didn't help. Signing Solder i thought would be part of this retooling an instead he has been cause to do a reset. I was wrong and I think DG has been wrong. Again, thats the benefit of hindsight. That said, Barkley is maddeningly useless if he is not touching the ball. He doesn't seem to know how to read if there is a blitz and even when he's there to pick it up he is very bad at it. And though one of his best assets is being that relief valve there are times when you wonder what he's thinking when he heads out on that route. He's a great talent, but when you look at some of the other RB's picked in later rounds or with the RB by committee like the steelers, it seems we'd be just as well off having maybe aquired an additional pick in 2018 and taking an OL or WR after trading down.
Hindsight.

what I said on draft night and what I stand by today. Taking a RB at #2 overall is a luxury pick...not a pick you make when you're building a roster. It was a horrendous pick then and it's still a bad pick now. By the time we're able to take advantage of Barkley's skillset he will be off his rookie contract.

And then that brings up the looming debate as to how much of your salary cap you want to commit to a RB (the answer should be not much). Just a brutal pick that was a setback for the franchise.

In comment 14973045 Josh in the City said:

Quote:

what I said on draft night and what I stand by today. Taking a RB at #2 overall is a luxury pick...not a pick you make when you're building a roster. It was a horrendous pick then and it's still a bad pick now. By the time we're able to take advantage of Barkley's skillset he will be off his rookie contract. And then that brings up the looming debate as to how much of your salary cap you want to commit to a RB (the answer should be not much). Just a brutal pick that was a setback for the franchise.

And who did you want to pick on draft night? Be honest.

responding in interviews that the RB he tries to emulate most of all is...Barry Sanders.

Will be big in deciding what to do with Saquon. I’m starting to feel the same way about him that I did Odell. An immense talent that makes this team watchable but doesn’t move the needle on wins because of the reliance on other positions.

While I love what Saquon can give us, I’d be lying if I said if we can get a 1st and 4th for him that I wouldn’t take it and just get a serviceable RB in the 3rd-5th round and put the remaining resources in the OL, Pass Rush, DBs.

Didn't make the playoffs with the Chargers until his 4th season. They then went to the playoffs 5 out of 6 seasons following.

You might say, "yeah, but they didn't win a championship." Fair statement. That, to me, had a lot more to do with Rivers and Schottenheimer than it did LaDainian. It was not a mistake for the Chargers to draft LdT...he played for the Chargers for 9 seasons. Good years in there.

This is an overreaction. The Giants will work this out, Saquon is part of the solution. In fact, I think much of this is an overreaction to one game. The Steelers were loading the box, and as Tomlin said, they put their own secondary at risk to stop Saquon. It's incumbent upon Garrett and Daniel Jones to make them pay for that commitment over the top, and they didn't do that enough.

The game came down to a bad redzone INT, a failure to score a TD when you're set up inside the 3 yard line after a muffed punt, and a failure to recover a fumble with 4 blue jerseys around it immediately following the redzone INT.

Really, those 3 plays could've changed the whole dynamic and could've meant victory.

The Giants are 0-1, not 0-16. They could yet turn this around THIS year.

In comment 14973046 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

In comment 14973045 Josh in the City said: Quote: what I said on draft night and what I stand by today. Taking a RB at #2 overall is a luxury pick...not a pick you make when you're building a roster. It was a horrendous pick then and it's still a bad pick now. By the time we're able to take advantage of Barkley's skillset he will be off his rookie contract. And then that brings up the looming debate as to how much of your salary cap you want to commit to a RB (the answer should be not much). Just a brutal pick that was a setback for the franchise. And who did you want to pick on draft night? Be honest.

I can say I wanted Barkley, Nelson, or Josh Allen.

But after drafting Barkley I REALLY REALLY wanted us to trade back into the late 1st for Lamar Jackson. Imagine is we had both those guys in our backfield...

In comment 14973013 Chip said:

Quote:

you will never turn this around. It took LT to turn around the franchise back in the 80s. I don't believe were that far off even though with a new coach again and new systems we will have a losing season. We need to find a great pass rusher and more help along the OL and this team will improve. If we continue to fire the coaches every year because of bad seasons we will continue to fail. After this season no matter how bad it is I hope the coaching staff stays and we can gain some continuity to move forward.

And what did it take, six seasons after drafting LT until they won a Super Bowl?

This team still has a way to go, but if they can keep adding the right pieces and possibly win one or two championships during his tenure in NY, Barkley still makes the team better and someone worth being one of those pieces that you build around.

In comment 14973054 GoDeep13 said:

Quote:

In comment 14973046 Britt in VA said: Quote: In comment 14973045 Josh in the City said: Quote: what I said on draft night and what I stand by today. Taking a RB at #2 overall is a luxury pick...not a pick you make when you're building a roster. It was a horrendous pick then and it's still a bad pick now. By the time we're able to take advantage of Barkley's skillset he will be off his rookie contract. And then that brings up the looming debate as to how much of your salary cap you want to commit to a RB (the answer should be not much). Just a brutal pick that was a setback for the franchise. And who did you want to pick on draft night? Be honest. I can say I wanted Barkley, Nelson, or Josh Allen. But after drafting Barkley I REALLY REALLY wanted us to trade back into the late 1st for Lamar Jackson. Imagine is we had both those guys in our backfield...

Lamar Jackson would not be the Lamar Jackson that we know now, on this team. Lamar Jackson is in a PERFECT situation where his skills are perfectly built around by Harbaugh. I think Lamar Jackson on this team might look more like Geno Smith than the Lamar Jackson we know now.

we should just cut barkley now and be done with it. This way no more articles or second guessing.

In comment 14973013 Chip said:

Quote:

you will never turn this around. It took LT to turn around the franchise back in the 80s.

LT is probably the best defensive player in the history of the NFL and wrecked offensive gameplans all by himself.

Saquon Barkley is a very good RB whose impact on the game is limited by the position he plays. To compare him to LT is preposterous.

In comment 14973009 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

In comment 14973000 eclipz928 said: Quote: At the end of the day, unless something changes soon, Barkley would have been a wasted #2 pick because the Giants failed to put people in front of him that can run block. It's very frustrating to watch. That's a very flawed POV. You can make an argument that most players drafted high are bad picks if the team still stinks 3-4 years later. Darnold/Rosen would be bad picks. Chubb or Nelson might have the Giants at the very same record as they do now.

It's not a flawed view at all simply because running backs, on top of having a short life span in the NFL, are probably more dependent on the scheme and talent around them to be successful than any other position. As an individual player it takes a lot for a RB to contribute to the success of the team compared to pass rusher or a TE that can block.

The word "timeline" is appropriate to this conversation because a drafted defensive player or a QB that's good enough could probably last long enough through a rebuild to be contributers once the team is competitive again. That's not typically a reality for RB's for various reasons.

Forget about Saquon. His college QB was a runner. They ran a LOT of read option.

Carries in 2016:

Saquon 272 carries 18 TDs

McSorely 146 carries 7 TDs

Carries in 2017:

Saquon 217 carries 18 TDs

McSorely 144 carries 11TDs

Defenses couldn’t just key on Barkley

Teams can rebuild quickly, and certainly within the timeline of a gifted RB.

Will they do it, who knows, but if Judge turns out to be the real deal Barkley can certainly be in his prime for when it could happen.

"The word "timeline" is appropriate to this conversation because a drafted defensive player or a QB that's good enough could probably last long enough through a rebuild to be contributers once the team is competitive again. That's not typically a reality for RB's for various reasons."

that he's stuck having now what seems like a third year of a an offensive line that run blocks as if they thought the call was a screen pass.

plenty of time left to turn things around. And blame the rest of the picks/signings - they are part of why we aren't better right now. The Barkley obsession is nuts.

then "Sir Darnold the Savior" and xxx (Whoever)

about this is the "timeline" aspect.

If we didn't take Barkley, we'd likely have taken Darnold. That does nothing to change the situation we are in, and the cost of a QB is much higher than that of Barkley.

All it does is give people who bitched and whined about the pick when it was made another chance to bitch and whine.

Were saying in 2018. They selected a player that did not fit with the organization as it was going to need to be reconstructed. This is an argument a lot of posters weren't able to process. It could be a great player but the wrong pick.

I do think the answer is a bit more nuanced than the timeline. The short answer for the current Giants roster is he does not fit the timeline as it currently stands. However, Barkley fit the timeline for the team that DG grossly misread in the 2018 offseason. It was a pick meant to extend Eli's career and win one more with the roster as constructed at the time.

As other posters have aptly point out, the rebuild didn't really begin until the moment Jones was selected. Then it all became about the future. Unfortunately at that point, the Giants had already invested in a win now asset with their highest draft pick in decades.

As you can plainly see, the RB position just isn't effective without a competent oline. Maybe this changes as the season goes forward, but the reality of the situation is Barkley took a pretty good beating over the least 2+ seasons. This is the simple reason why the RB position deteriorates at an exponentially greater rate than most others on the field.

In comment 14973045 Josh in the City said:

Quote:

what I said on draft night and what I stand by today. Taking a RB at #2 overall is a luxury pick...not a pick you make when you're building a roster. It was a horrendous pick then and it's still a bad pick now. By the time we're able to take advantage of Barkley's skillset he will be off his rookie contract. And then that brings up the looming debate as to how much of your salary cap you want to commit to a RB (the answer should be not much). Just a brutal pick that was a setback for the franchise.

Who has a "luxury pick" drafting #2 overall? I don't get this analysis.

in as to whether Barkley was the right pick or not.

The simple question on the table with this OP/article is whether he fits the timeline of this team.

If he does, then he should be extended. If not, he should be traded for value.

In comment 14973076 steve in ky said:

Quote:

Teams can rebuild quickly, and certainly within the timeline of a gifted RB. Will they do it, who knows, but if Judge turns out to be the real deal Barkley can certainly be in his prime for when it could happen.

Well it's not just the tread left on the tires that has to be considered, you also have to figure out what kind of contract to give the player. Giants may have to consider giving Barkley a new deal as early as this off-season - what kind of salary do you think he's going to ask for, and what do you pay him to stay? There's time to sort that out, but as of today those are difficult questions to answer.

where he gained like one yard on nine carries and was continually hit in the backfield. Taking a handoff and running between tackles is not a strength.

Bradshaw a different back. Give him the ball and he will power his way for three, four, six yards Barclay stuffed eight times and then will break one for 60 yards.

We won with Bradshaw.

was able to avoid 2-3 guys in the backfield??

This isn't a RB technique thing. It is an OL thing.

it is Barkley

If they can get, say, a first and a second, maybe they do it.

In comment 14973201 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

it is Barkley

I legit chuckled out loud at this at my desk. I was thinking the same thing.

You people are going to turn me into FMiC. 1 Fucking game against arguably the best defense in football, with a veteran team, and a coach that has been there for a decade and you want to trade Barkley and return to bitching about a pick that was definitively not a bust. What team has better front 7? 3 new starters on our OL, 1 completely new the position and no preseason games? I fucking get it now. My apologies FMiC. Some of you are so stupid I am surprised you can shit in a toilet without completely missing the bowl.

In comment 14973223 Thegratefulhead said:

Quote:

You people are going to turn me into FMiC. 1 Fucking game against arguably the best defense in football, with a veteran team, and a coach that has been there for a decade and you want to trade Barkley and return to bitching about a pick that was definitively not a bust. What team has better front 7? 3 new starters on our OL, 1 completely new the position and no preseason games? I fucking get it now. My apologies FMiC. Some of you are so stupid I am surprised you can shit in a toilet without completely missing the bowl.

You again? You really are an idiot.

In comment 14973226 LawrenceTaylor56 said:

Quote:

In comment 14973223 Thegratefulhead said: Quote: You people are going to turn me into FMiC. 1 Fucking game against arguably the best defense in football, with a veteran team, and a coach that has been there for a decade and you want to trade Barkley and return to bitching about a pick that was definitively not a bust. What team has better front 7? 3 new starters on our OL, 1 completely new the position and no preseason games? I fucking get it now. My apologies FMiC. Some of you are so stupid I am surprised you can shit in a toilet without completely missing the bowl. You again? You really are an idiot.

Why? Make an argument why crying like a little bitch, knowing those facts is a reasonable position to take. What the actual fuck did you reasonably think was going to happen knowing all that we know about circumstance surrounding this game?

In comment 14973230 Thegratefulhead said:

Quote:

In comment 14973226 LawrenceTaylor56 said: Quote: In comment 14973223 Thegratefulhead said: Quote: You people are going to turn me into FMiC. 1 Fucking game against arguably the best defense in football, with a veteran team, and a coach that has been there for a decade and you want to trade Barkley and return to bitching about a pick that was definitively not a bust. What team has better front 7? 3 new starters on our OL, 1 completely new the position and no preseason games? I fucking get it now. My apologies FMiC. Some of you are so stupid I am surprised you can shit in a toilet without completely missing the bowl. You again? You really are an idiot. Why? Make an argument why crying like a little bitch, knowing those facts is a reasonable position to take. What the actual fuck did you reasonably think was going to happen knowing all that we know about circumstance surrounding this game?

When did I cry on this thread? You just sound like an uneducated miserable cunt, that's all.

Barkley was the right pick in 2018. Will he be a key reason we win another SB? Only time will tell.

Run blitzed every single time we were in a down and distance that we might even consider a run. Their front 7 is big, athletic and fast, the back of their defense is good too.

Our LT is a rookie.
Our RT is a career back up.
Our center is brand new.
An Offensive line needs time to gel(everyone should fucking know this by now)
They played a grand total of ZERO games together...fucking ZERO, not even a preseason game.

What were your realistic expectations going into this game? Please include why you felt the way you did. What past situation can you compare this to? What evidence did you use to come to your conclusion? Prove you are not a fucking moron. I will wait.

I'll tell you what the truth really is. You are are still butt hurt we picked Barkley and you have an irrational hatred of DG and will not be happy until he is run out of town on a pitchfork. The problem with you "tools" is that you keep trying to force the facts and circumstance to fit your argument rather than look for the truth.

In comment 14973231 LawrenceTaylor56 said:

Quote:

In comment 14973230 Thegratefulhead said: Quote: In comment 14973226 LawrenceTaylor56 said: Quote: In comment 14973223 Thegratefulhead said: Quote: You people are going to turn me into FMiC. 1 Fucking game against arguably the best defense in football, with a veteran team, and a coach that has been there for a decade and you want to trade Barkley and return to bitching about a pick that was definitively not a bust. What team has better front 7? 3 new starters on our OL, 1 completely new the position and no preseason games? I fucking get it now. My apologies FMiC. Some of you are so stupid I am surprised you can shit in a toilet without completely missing the bowl. You again? You really are an idiot. Why? Make an argument why crying like a little bitch, knowing those facts is a reasonable position to take. What the actual fuck did you reasonably think was going to happen knowing all that we know about circumstance surrounding this game? When did I cry on this thread? You just sound like an uneducated miserable cunt, that's all.

You have responded to me once on another thread and twice on this thread. It might be helpful if you could point to where I responded to you directly before this. Probably just a reading comprehension thing, not your fault. I can't help it if you thought I was speaking to you because you know that you frequently post stupid shit.

than his rookie year. Anyone can see he was getting hit immediately after the hand off on some plays.But there are other times where he appears hesitant,with his vision not being what it was.

Looks like he's turned into a 100% finesse running back

In comment 14973254 Thegratefulhead said:

Quote:

You have responded to me once on another thread and twice on this thread. It might be helpful if you could point to where I responded to you directly before this. Probably just a reading comprehension thing, not your fault. I can't help it if you thought I was speaking to you because you know that you frequently post stupid shit.

It's because you come on two different thread guns blazing when there isn't any arguments. Calling people morons for no reason other than the fact their opinions are different from yours. Yet I also never have bashed the Barkley pick. I was either for Darnold or Barkley. If neither, trade back. But go on, can't wait for your next vulgar-laced middle school response. I suggest you go outside and take a lap. Work on your anger issues.

and will get a 2nd contract here so i think his peak will line up perfectly with our current timeline

maybe with an H-back or FB leading the way? I saw none of that last night. The Oline needs to do a better job, run blocking, but JG needs to consider helping them somehow until they can come together. Guards were not good last night, the Center was brand new and Engram cannot and should not be on the end of the line blocking for the running game. Put him in the slot and put Smith or Toilolo on the end of the line to help block.

He was not the right pick for us. Certainly not at #2 overall when we had so many holes.

He's one of the best players in the league. Trade value is very high too. If they wanted to trade him they would get plenty back.

The pick was not a bad one. The surrounding talent around him has been the problem. Not this player or his draft spot.

Steelers defense is elite. They were in the backfield all day. If Barkley has a little space he does more with it than anybody.

We have the QB. We can turn it around fast with Jones. I would keep him.

but I think the question right now is contract #2 and not re-playing the draft.

$10-15M per year for term to a RB doesn't seem like money well spent in this league. Doesn't meant it can't work out.

like a third straight year of being a horrendous running team despite having one of the best RBs in the game. I think the answer is obvious.

for a RB if he's a key component of the offense is a bargain!!

Especially if you have a QB on a rookie contract

In comment 14973287 TD said:

Quote:

He was not the right pick for us. Certainly not at #2 overall when we had so many holes.

RB was a hole. No play makers, nothing. Outside of Slayton, Barkley is still the only one.

If Hernandez and Solder and Zeitler were better this wouldn’t even be a conversation. For whatever reason/s why the OL is taking so long to develop, that’s the reason we haven’t been better, quicker. It’s unfortunate but just waiting until we are better on the OL to add pieces has plenty of downside as well.

In comment 14973308 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

If Hernandez and Solder and Zeitler were better this wouldn’t even be a conversation.

"If..." Well, you could say a lot of things would be true, iiiiiiiiif.....

glad you are participating...

In comment 14973092 Mike from SI said:

Quote:

In comment 14973045 Josh in the City said: Quote: what I said on draft night and what I stand by today. Taking a RB at #2 overall is a luxury pick...not a pick you make when you're building a roster. It was a horrendous pick then and it's still a bad pick now. By the time we're able to take advantage of Barkley's skillset he will be off his rookie contract. And then that brings up the looming debate as to how much of your salary cap you want to commit to a RB (the answer should be not much). Just a brutal pick that was a setback for the franchise. Who has a "luxury pick" drafting #2 overall? I don't get this analysis.

Nobody (unless you by fluke you lost a star QB and your season fell into the gutter). And that's exactly why you don't see RB's ever going that high anymore!

In comment 14973307 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

for a RB if he's a key component of the offense is a bargain!! Especially if you have a QB on a rookie contract

No...just please god don't let Gettleman (or whoever is our GM at the time) buy into this absolutely absurd concept. I'd MUUUUCH rather invest that money into another stud offensive lineman or defender and use a day 2 draft pick on a RB who will be more than serviceable.

Committing long term big $$ to a RB is a recipe for disaster and absolutely not how you build a roster. If you have the advantage of having a QB on a rookie contract use your dollars wisely, not on foolish luxury items that don't lead to wins!

In comment 14973009 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

In comment 14973000 eclipz928 said: Quote: At the end of the day, unless something changes soon, Barkley would have been a wasted #2 pick because the Giants failed to put people in front of him that can run block. It's very frustrating to watch. That's a very flawed POV. You can make an argument that most players drafted high are bad picks if the team still stinks 3-4 years later. Darnold/Rosen would be bad picks. Chubb or Nelson might have the Giants at the very same record as they do now.

Your point is valid, but there definitely is something to be said for the fact that Barkley's talents are not being taken advantage of with the OL continuing to be a problem.

At least Chubb would be more likely to contribute as a pass-rusher regardless of the talent that surrounds him, and Nelson would potentially be able to open holes for some other RB. But Barkley is bottled up by the players around him in a way that makes his talent go largely to waste.

That's not something that is simply a function of any great player on any bad team. Some positions are just more foundational than others. And unfortunately, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that the foundation was not as secure as DG thought/hoped it was when he drafted Barkley, and as it relates to the OL, it hasn't improved all that much since.

It does look like Thomas is the real deal. If Peart and Lemieux turn out to be as well, then we're most of the way there. But the portion of Barkley's career that has already been spent with an abysmal OL is a waste so far, no matter what.

As long as the wear and tear behind this crappy OL doesn't start to take its toll, the pick can still be redeemed. But if the constant pounding with nothing to show for it does begin to add up, it will have been an unfortunate waste of one of the most physically talented players to ever wear blue.

to value Barkley as if he's Wayne Gallman.

Elite players aren't luxury items. They are pieces to build around.

His pass blocking and route running looked atrocious to me.

I think he dances behind the line too much, but the criticism of his run totals is disingenuous. The run blocking sucked. But Barkley has to find ways to be involved in the passing game.

I was not a fan of the pick. I wanted a QB but didn't really know which one (I don't watch CFB so I didn't really have a view on any specific player). I admired DG's willingness to ignore the pressures to draft Eli's successor at the time, but always felt RB was the wrong pick (and subsequently credited him for going with Jones despite the criticism). I would have preferred a trade down. And with hindsight, I would have preferred Nelson.

If the Giants still suck next year, it's because DG didn't fix the OL and the defense still sucks - not because of the Barkley pick. I think we focus too much on him.

In comment 14973338 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

to value Barkley as if he's Wayne Gallman. Elite players aren't luxury items. They are pieces to build around.

Position value matters. Elite RB's are always 100% of the time luxury items in today's NFL.

If everything else is set and you need that one game breaker to get over the Super Bowl hump then MAAYYYBBEEEE I consider taking that risk. But to commit long term big $$ to a RB for a team that is currently being built to hopefully contend one day, that notion is absolutely mind boggling. Almost as mind boggling and throwing away a #2 overall pick on a RB.

Seriously what makes him one of the best players in the NFL?

That he is freakishly fast for his size or that he jumps over guys? That makes him Herschel Walker or Reggie Bush not one of the best football players in the NFL and the Barry Sanders comparisons are ludacris. Barry Sanders was almost impossible to tackle. Definitely not the case with Barkley.

Which part of NFL football running back is he good at? He doesn't run between the tackles well. He can't pass block at all. He doesn't break tackles. Even with all his speed he doesn't ever seem to get open in the passing game.

Feel free to correct me. But I just don't see it. I see an amazing athlete who the Giants try to force the ball to that other teams can shut down with ease because the Giants don't have a dominant OL.

With this OL Barkley's best use would be as a decoy until the Giants can move the LBs away from the box by passing over them. Last night was an embarrassment.

are not 100% luxury items. I don't even know what the fuck that means. Are you saying that no RB's should be paid??

The idea that only mid-round RB's are on winning teams isn't just absurd, it is wrong too.

You build a good team through amassing good players. Drafting Barkley is adding a good player. Drafting Darnold would not be looked at as that yet. The more good players you have, the better chance you have to win.

In comment 14973350 arniefez said:

Quote:

Seriously what makes him one of the best players in the NFL? That he is freakishly fast for his size or that he jumps over guys? That makes him Herschel Walker or Reggie Bush not one of the best football players in the NFL and the Barry Sanders comparisons are ludacris. Barry Sanders was almost impossible to tackle. Definitely not the case with Barkley. Which part of NFL football running back is he good at? He doesn't run between the tackles well. He can't pass block at all. He doesn't break tackles. Even with all his speed he doesn't ever seem to get open in the passing game. Feel free to correct me. But I just don't see it. I see an amazing athlete who the Giants try to force the ball to that other teams can shut down with ease because the Giants don't have a dominant OL. With this OL Barkley's best use would be as a decoy until the Giants can move the LBs away from the box by passing over them. Last night was an embarrassment.

To act like Barkley isn't a great RB is ridiculous. Even though I absolutely hated the pick and don't want to pay him, it's easy for me to acknowledge that on any team with an average oline Barkley would look like Superman. There is no RB in the history of football that would have been able to do anything behind that oline last night.

But that's also why having star RB's are a luxury. They aren't the difference b/w a winning team and a losing team. But they CAN make already good teams better. Put Barkley on the Panthers and I honestly don't think you see a big difference b/w him and McCaffrey....that's my honest opinion.

I've broken down RB contracts countless times on BBI. If you think they are expensive, cap crippling contracts that should only be handed out when you are already a contender then it just isn't worth having the conversation anymore.

Quote:

Barry Sanders was almost impossible to tackle. Definitely not the case with Barkley.

Do you know which RB with over 2,500 career rushing yards has the largest % of negative yardage runs? I'm guessing you don't.

In comment 14973359 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

I've broken down RB contracts countless times on BBI. If you think they are expensive, cap crippling contracts that should only be handed out when you are already a contender then it just isn't worth having the conversation anymore.

He thinks $10-15M for a top player is expensive!

Once DJ starts carving up secondaries like on the Slayton TD, they'll have to back off.

In comment 14973357 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

are not 100% luxury items. I don't even know what the fuck that means. Are you saying that no RB's should be paid?? The idea that only mid-round RB's are on winning teams isn't just absurd, it is wrong too. You build a good team through amassing good players. Drafting Barkley is adding a good player. Drafting Darnold would not be looked at as that yet. The more good players you have, the better chance you have to win.

You don't now what that a luxury item is? It's something you don't purchase until everything else in your life (or on your roster) is already built and stable. I already said that I would almost never invest a high first round draft pick or long big $$ in a running back. It's almost always a poor investment and Barkley is just another example of that. I said it on draft night and I still say it today (though I believe a lot more people would agree with the notion now than back then). You don't build your roster around luxury items....you need to build the foundation.

and obviously many teams disagree with you. Lots of RB contracts handed out the past few months, none of which have been terribly expensive. All have easy outs after 2-3 years, some have guarantees as low as 25% (I don't think any were over 50%).

You can look it all up yourself or search the archives. There's been a shift the past few years that's now showing the incredible positional value offered, but if you want to ignore it or scoff it off as a luxury then so be it.

In comment 14973263 LawrenceTaylor56 said:

Quote:

In comment 14973254 Thegratefulhead said: Quote: You have responded to me once on another thread and twice on this thread. It might be helpful if you could point to where I responded to you directly before this. Probably just a reading comprehension thing, not your fault. I can't help it if you thought I was speaking to you because you know that you frequently post stupid shit. It's because you come on two different thread guns blazing when there isn't any arguments. Calling people morons for no reason other than the fact their opinions are different from yours. Yet I also never have bashed the Barkley pick. I was either for Darnold or Barkley. If neither, trade back. But go on, can't wait for your next vulgar-laced middle school response. I suggest you go outside and take a lap. Work on your anger issues.

I stand by it. I was talking to the people that were using yesterday's game as reason to shit on the Barkley pick and to shit on DG...AGAIN. If that isn't you, why step in front of my ire? Just mad and wanna argue? I have no respect for the vitriol after that game, with people full well knowing the circumstance around it.

It isn't that it is a different opinion, it is that it is a ridiculous one. I am tired of the people STILL whining about the number 2 pick in the 2018 draft. I am with the owners on this season. If at season's end, this looks like a team on the rise, I will be good. This should be all of our expectations because it is what the people paying the coaches, players and management have told them they will be held accountable to. It is pretty transparent, a simple Google search should work. Those quotes have been shared on the site ad nauseam.

There is nothing to really take away from last night because of the circumstance surrounding this season. Certainly no indictment of the 2nd pick in 2018 or DG in general. It was in essence a preseason game between the one of the least talented teams in the NFL with an entire new coaching staff, a completely new OL vs a team predicted to compete for a SB with a SB winning coach, QB and a championship caliber defense. I just...can't.

In comment 14973363 Josh in the City said:

Quote:

In comment 14973357 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: are not 100% luxury items. I don't even know what the fuck that means. Are you saying that no RB's should be paid?? The idea that only mid-round RB's are on winning teams isn't just absurd, it is wrong too. You build a good team through amassing good players. Drafting Barkley is adding a good player. Drafting Darnold would not be looked at as that yet. The more good players you have, the better chance you have to win. You don't now what that a luxury item is? It's something you don't purchase until everything else in your life (or on your roster) is already built and stable. I already said that I would almost never invest a high first round draft pick or long big $$ in a running back. It's almost always a poor investment and Barkley is just another example of that. I said it on draft night and I still say it today (though I believe a lot more people would agree with the notion now than back then). You don't build your roster around luxury items....you need to build the foundation.

How the fuck does that work in the real world?? If a stud RB is there, are the teams at the top of the draft just supposed to let them fall so they don't take a stab at a luxury? "Hey, we're a bad team and we can get a 7th round RB, so we'll just let the good teams at the bottom of the round take a potential game-changer"?? Again - you are confusing Barkley and top RB's as being the same as a 5th round guy.

A person that touches the ball 20 times a game isn't a fucking luxury - it is an integral part of the offense.

He had 2000+ yards from scrimmage as a rookie. The most of ANY PLAYER IN THE NFL that year.

Last year, with the worst OL in football and a rookie QB, he was on pace for 1850 yards.

He has had little help from the OL. Played with a fading Eli and a rookie QB last year. And the guy puts up elite numbers.

And you don't see the explosive plays? I don't know what to tell you.

If we're doing a redraft of all NFL players right now, Barkley is at the top tier players after the QBs.

but you also have to realize that FMiC is talking about BPA. Its easy to say they shouldn't have taken a RB after these last two years, but what IF.....what if they were able to trade down, take Jackson AND get a 2nd round pick. As was stated Lamar wouldn't be the same guy he is behind Flowers, Remmers, Solder and the like and who's to say whom they get with that other pick. Its all speculation and the only thing we can do now is hope this staff can coach up, game plan and scheme to get this line working and let Barkley get some running yards. My question about Barkley now is will he ever be a decent blocker and is he capable of being a decent receiver(by that I mean running the right routes, helping out as a decent relief valve, etc.).

In comment 14973046 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

And who did you want to pick on draft night? Be honest.

If it's a bad pick, and the alternatives that any fan would have preferred from their couch are also bad picks, it doesn't make the actual pick any less bad. It's not like there aren't players that were taken within a few slots of where we took Barkley that are producing at a higher level right now with less dependency on their supporting cast.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but if we're using "can draft better than Josh would have" as our benchmark for grading DG, I'd say we're maybe being a little too forgiving.

In comment 14973389 KWALL2 said:

Quote:

He had 2000+ yards from scrimmage as a rookie. The most of ANY PLAYER IN THE NFL that year. Last year, with the worst OL in football and a rookie QB, he was on pace for 1850 yards. He has had little help from the OL. Played with a fading Eli and a rookie QB last year. And the guy puts up elite numbers. And you don't see the explosive plays? I don't know what to tell you. If we're doing a redraft of all NFL players right now, Barkley is at the top tier players after the QBs.

And our record those two years were 5-11 and 4-12 which directly proves the point.

In comment 14973401 Josh in the City said:

Quote:

In comment 14973389 KWALL2 said: Quote: He had 2000+ yards from scrimmage as a rookie. The most of ANY PLAYER IN THE NFL that year. Last year, with the worst OL in football and a rookie QB, he was on pace for 1850 yards. He has had little help from the OL. Played with a fading Eli and a rookie QB last year. And the guy puts up elite numbers. And you don't see the explosive plays? I don't know what to tell you. If we're doing a redraft of all NFL players right now, Barkley is at the top tier players after the QBs. And our record those two years were 5-11 and 4-12 which directly proves the point.

And what do you think our record would be those two years with Darnold or Nelson INSTEAD of Barkley. Different?

He was injured last year, the OL was awful, and we had a rookie QB.

What point is proven about Barkley?

is that Josh spent the entirety of 2018 saying that we absolutely could not pass on taking a franchise QB. He then said after the season that we sucked even with Barkley so we could suck without him, whereas with Darnold, we'd have a year of a franchise QB to build on.

And people remember his thread week 1 of 2018 when Darnold beat the Lions.

Knowing what we know today - I'd much rather have Barkley than Darnold. It isn't even an argument.

Josh knows that too. He's just too much of a stubborn fuck to admit it. Hence, we now get takes that RB's are luxuries.

In comment 14973406 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

is that Josh spent the entirety of 2018 saying that we absolutely could not pass on taking a franchise QB. He then said after the season that we sucked even with Barkley so we could suck without him, whereas with Darnold, we'd have a year of a franchise QB to build on. And people remember his thread week 1 of 2018 when Darnold beat the Lions. Knowing what we know today - I'd much rather have Barkley than Darnold. It isn't even an argument. Josh knows that too. He's just too much of a stubborn fuck to admit it. Hence, we now get takes that RB's are luxuries.

Let's not forget Josh's opinion of taking Daniel Jones, either.

football player is "well look at the record". LOL.

I can't believe anybody tries to make it.

We drafted one of the best players in the league. He produced at a high level despite awful surrounding talent. Nobody picked immediately after him has been special.

The rest of the top 10 after Barkley:

Sam Darnold
Denzel Ward
Bradley Chubb
Quenton Nelson
Josh Allen
Roquan Smith
Mike McGlinchey
Josh Rosen

You can make the case for QB Josh Allen. That is it.

has been very good as well

That would have to have been a trade down, for which we'll never know if the value was there or not.

Right now somebody is still holding on to Darnold > Barkley?

Or Darnold > Jones?

No doubt about it but I would take Barkley over him knowing what we know right now.

In comment 14973419 KWALL2 said:

Quote:

No doubt about it but I would take Barkley over him knowing what we know right now.

I agree with you, but that's the rub, a lot of people here still don't. Even in hindsight.

In comment 14973407 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

In comment 14973406 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: is that Josh spent the entirety of 2018 saying that we absolutely could not pass on taking a franchise QB. He then said after the season that we sucked even with Barkley so we could suck without him, whereas with Darnold, we'd have a year of a franchise QB to build on. And people remember his thread week 1 of 2018 when Darnold beat the Lions. Knowing what we know today - I'd much rather have Barkley than Darnold. It isn't even an argument. Josh knows that too. He's just too much of a stubborn fuck to admit it. Hence, we now get takes that RB's are luxuries. Let's not forget Josh's opinion of taking Daniel Jones, either.

We reset the whole thing this off season. It is what it is. That shit is over. Barkley is a Giant, we didn't trade the pick, we didn't pick Darnold. The butt hurt here lasts forever. I didn't want Barkley at 2, I was wrong, DG was right. End of story. Yesterday seemed extremely predictable to me. Of course the Steelers were going to sell out to stop Barkley with that D. What did anyone reasonably expect? I know you want keep running but we should have completely abandoned it once faced with reality. Every time we ran, it put us in an unfavorable down and distance, every single time. That 19 play drive was beautiful and encouraging. I don't care about the tipped pass. I care about the sustained execution without penalty in a very young team. We should have have stayed in the big personnel package and spread them out until they stopped us.

Franchise SB, Franchise DJ. An amazing haul. OL on paper appears promising..

In comment 14973423 Thegratefulhead said:

Quote:

In comment 14973407 Britt in VA said: Quote: In comment 14973406 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: is that Josh spent the entirety of 2018 saying that we absolutely could not pass on taking a franchise QB. He then said after the season that we sucked even with Barkley so we could suck without him, whereas with Darnold, we'd have a year of a franchise QB to build on. And people remember his thread week 1 of 2018 when Darnold beat the Lions. Knowing what we know today - I'd much rather have Barkley than Darnold. It isn't even an argument. Josh knows that too. He's just too much of a stubborn fuck to admit it. Hence, we now get takes that RB's are luxuries. Let's not forget Josh's opinion of taking Daniel Jones, either. We reset the whole thing this off season. It is what it is. That shit is over. Barkley is a Giant, we didn't trade the pick, we didn't pick Darnold. The butt hurt here lasts forever. I didn't want Barkley at 2, I was wrong, DG was right. End of story. Yesterday seemed extremely predictable to me. Of course the Steelers were going to sell out to stop Barkley with that D. What did anyone reasonably expect? I know you want keep running but we should have completely abandoned it once faced with reality. Every time we ran, it put us in an unfavorable down and distance, every single time. That 19 play drive was beautiful and encouraging. I don't care about the tipped pass. I care about the sustained execution without penalty in a very young team. We should have have stayed in the big personnel package and spread them out until they stopped us.

Good job

In comment 14973396 Gatorade Dunk said:

Quote:

In comment 14973046 Britt in VA said: Quote: And who did you want to pick on draft night? Be honest. If it's a bad pick, and the alternatives that any fan would have preferred from their couch are also bad picks, it doesn't make the actual pick any less bad. It's not like there aren't players that were taken within a few slots of where we took Barkley that are producing at a higher level right now with less dependency on their supporting cast. I understand the point you're trying to make, but if we're using "can draft better than Josh would have" as our benchmark for grading DG, I'd say we're maybe being a little too forgiving.

It's not really the alternative being who Josh would pick, but rather the alternatives available for us to pick in general. As KWall just listed, the only real guys that should have been in consideration (in hindsight) are Nelson and Allen.

For Nelson, as I mentioned, that would have been a trade down scenario. Who knows if the value was there for that. For Allen, well, we got our QB the very next year, and personally, I think I like Jones more than Allen but that's arguable.

Any way you slice it, you can't really argue that DG got an elite talent with the #2 overall pick. Now you can disagree on the team building strategy of it, but as far as value for the pick, he knocked it out of the park. You can't as for much more from a top 5 draft pick than what Saquon is.

over the other QB's but my argument on draft night (and today) isn't that we should have taken Darnold over Barkley. It's that we shouldn't have taken a RB at #2 overall under any circumstance. I'm not a college scout so I wasn't professionally evaluating the college QB's against each other. But yes, I absolutely thought Eli was finished and I would have taken one of the QB's over Barkley that year. No matter how good Barkley would eventually come, it was still the wrong pick then and it's still the wrong pick now. Those saying that "yea, but you wanted Darnold" - you simply don't get it. It wasn't about drafting Darnold or Barkley. It was DON'T DRAFT A FUCKING RB AT #2 OVERALL WHEN YOUR ROSTER IS IN SHAMBLES!

would again be our pick. What about the Browns? Do you still think they’d draft that child or Darnold over SB in a do-over?

No hypothetical trade down that who knows if could have happen.

2018 Draft redo. Giants are on the clock.

You're taking?

pick #2 overall?

In comment 14973429 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

No hypothetical trade down that who knows if could have happen. 2018 Draft redo. Giants are on the clock. You're taking?

Personally I would have only considered Chubb (out of the non QB's). If we include QB's I would have been good with Darnold and would have been wrong (unless he just took to things better here than the Jets which I guess is possible but not a reasonable assumption with the way things have gone).

And Slayton looks REALLY good. He's a smooth player. A true late round steal and we havent had many in the last decade.

Slayton, Jones, Barkley, better OL. The offense is much better. And very young.

The Steelers may have the best defense in the NFL. We were right there until that pick.

The defense played a lot better than I expected too.

Promising start. A loss sucks but Steelers are SB contenders. We have to win next week vs CHI.

other than Barkley I would have only considered...

if he is clearly the best prospect. And now 2 years in he's proven it.

Most NFL teams rank the players the same at the top. You see the next 10. You can't make a case that he wasn't a very good pick. At worst the 2nd best of the top 10 that year. Outside of QB Allen, he was the best pick.

I think that the teams who ultimately do the best have assembled not only the best players but also the best playmakers.

In comment 14973427 Josh in the City said:

Quote:

over the other QB's but my argument on draft night (and today) isn't that we should have taken Darnold over Barkley. It's that we shouldn't have taken a RB at #2 overall under any circumstance. I'm not a college scout so I wasn't professionally evaluating the college QB's against each other. But yes, I absolutely thought Eli was finished and I would have taken one of the QB's over Barkley that year. No matter how good Barkley would eventually come, it was still the wrong pick then and it's still the wrong pick now. Those saying that "yea, but you wanted Darnold" - you simply don't get it. It wasn't about drafting Darnold or Barkley. It was DON'T DRAFT A FUCKING RB AT #2 OVERALL WHEN YOUR ROSTER IS IN SHAMBLES!

Here's another thing I differ from you and a few others on...Eli being done. They had signed Solder and Omemah and made moves I thought, at the time, would helpprotect Eli, so why not get an elite back to ALSO help take focus/pressure away from your older QB? And along those lines IF those signings had worked out, I still think Eli is starting for the Giants and thats taking nothing away from how good Jones is.

... but for all of Saquon’s sensational, explosive open field ability, I’m consistently shocked at how unpolished he is as a route runner (and as a blocker in protection). When you watch McCaffrey, Kamara, or even just James White, you consistently see sharp edges and disciplined routes. There were several routes he ran last night where he just looked lost — soft, rounded cuts, getting tangled up with defenders on that goal line route, dropping passes.

I love the guy, loved the pick, but I’m getting worried about his trajectory. He’s a guy who has caught 90 passes in a season, so maybe my eyes are lying, but he seems to be regressing. I suspect that he’s trying to live up to his Superman personae — but sometimes on a 3rd and 4 I’d just settle for a crisp James White isolation route.

In comment 14973448 Jim from Katonah said:

Quote:

... but for all of Saquon’s sensational, explosive open field ability, I’m consistently shocked at how unpolished he is as a route runner (and as a blocker in protection). When you watch McCaffrey, Kamara, or even just James White, you consistently see sharp edges and disciplined routes. There were several routes he ran last night where he just looked lost — soft, rounded cuts, getting tangled up with defenders on that goal line route, dropping passes. I love the guy, loved the pick, but I’m getting worried about his trajectory. He’s a guy who has caught 90 passes in a season, so maybe my eyes are lying, but he seems to be regressing. I suspect that he’s trying to live up to his Superman personae — but sometimes on a 3rd and 4 I’d just settle for a crisp James White isolation route.

Totally agree. Watching him last night you got the feeling that if he was able to pick up the blitz better or run slightly better routes, the outcome would have been significantly different. I hope this staff can 'teach' him or scheme around these deficiencies.

It's not necessarily a wrong argument. RBs have the shortest shelf life of any position. If you take one, you try and rebuild fast and win, otherwise it's a waste. By the time you're good again, the RB is likely nearing the end of his prime. Tomlinson is an exception, yet even he

Conversely, someone like Nelson could've been our Joe Thomas for a decade. Chubb could've been like Strahan for us for a decade.

A QB like Darnold and Rosen, without the benefit of hindsight, could've been our QB for 15 years. A RB at #2 is a poor allocation of resources unless they planned to do everything in their power to win now.

McAffrey went to a team that (at the time) had a good QB in place, veteran coaching staff, and was just in the SB a couple years prior with solid pieces around him. RB made sense for them, they could retool quickly.

Adrian Peterson went to a Vikings team that had great talent on both sides of the ball but just had no QB. AP made sense for them since they had contender talent if they just had a decent QB (made the playoffs with Jackson then got Favre).

SB could very well be like Tomlinson and have an 8-year prime, but based on the odds... SB just didn't make much sense for us if we were in a true rebuild. Over players that could anchor our lines for a decade.

"Gifted," "special," "elite" and on and on. He does not show any of that in his play. We're not the right team for him? OK. Trade him to one that is.

my argument assumes 2 things. First, that the teams drafting RB's are aware of the wear and tear which goes into their overall grade. Second, not all RB's are created equal when it comes to durability. Case in point the 2015 draft. Yes, we needed a LT but had it not been for Gurley's injury I think the Giants take him (well, he likely doesn't fall to us).

There are varying degrees of risk for every position. We've got Frank Gore starting on Sunday for the Jets and you'd got David Wilson who's career was over in the blink of an eye. But you have a lot of in between and I honestly don't think the RB position gets as injured at the rate people make it seem. Typically speaking bad RB's get a couple years of burn and then fade away - it skews the shelf-life data immensely.

In comment 14973462 Dinger said:

Quote:

In comment 14973448 Jim from Katonah said: Quote: ... but for all of Saquon’s sensational, explosive open field ability, I’m consistently shocked at how unpolished he is as a route runner (and as a blocker in protection). When you watch McCaffrey, Kamara, or even just James White, you consistently see sharp edges and disciplined routes. There were several routes he ran last night where he just looked lost — soft, rounded cuts, getting tangled up with defenders on that goal line route, dropping passes. I love the guy, loved the pick, but I’m getting worried about his trajectory. He’s a guy who has caught 90 passes in a season, so maybe my eyes are lying, but he seems to be regressing. I suspect that he’s trying to live up to his Superman personae — but sometimes on a 3rd and 4 I’d just settle for a crisp James White isolation route. Totally agree. Watching him last night you got the feeling that if he was able to pick up the blitz better or run slightly better routes, the outcome would have been significantly different. I hope this staff can 'teach' him or scheme around these deficiencies.

Ever watch the way the Pats get James White lined up wide and run a perfect Isolation route against whoever is out there? Same goes with Kamara (and obviously with McCaffery). That play can be murder on a defense on those absolutely-need-a-first down moments. Either it’s not in Saquon’s skill set or it hasn’t been drilled in yet (which would be surprising since he seems like such an intelligent, earnest,!hard working guy) or I don’t know what. But right now, for a guy with great stats and more highlights in 3 years than most top RBs have in a career ... he just seems oddly limited. When it’s 3rd and 3 and we have this crown jewel talent, how come he can’t be schemed open?

so I know its there. I think he's playing with the world on his shoulders, is learning a new offense, and was getting crushed behind the LOS. I need to see more before saying he's now a bad route runner - it doesn't seem like a logical conclusion to be had right now.

In comment 14973427 Josh in the City said:

Quote:

over the other QB's but my argument on draft night (and today) isn't that we should have taken Darnold over Barkley. It's that we shouldn't have taken a RB at #2 overall under any circumstance. I'm not a college scout so I wasn't professionally evaluating the college QB's against each other. But yes, I absolutely thought Eli was finished and I would have taken one of the QB's over Barkley that year. No matter how good Barkley would eventually come, it was still the wrong pick then and it's still the wrong pick now. Those saying that "yea, but you wanted Darnold" - you simply don't get it. It wasn't about drafting Darnold or Barkley. It was DON'T DRAFT A FUCKING RB AT #2 OVERALL WHEN YOUR ROSTER IS IN SHAMBLES!

That's complete bullshit. It was most certainly Darnold over Barkley - you kept saying over and over again that you don't pass on a franchise QB for a RB.

I was about drafting Darnold, which is why you gloated week 1 when the Jets beat the Lions. Hell, at the end of last season, you still said you were sticking by Darnold being better than Jones.

Saying it wasn't about Darnold vs. Barkley FOR YOU - is complete and utter horseshit.

SB is not one of those things

In comment 14973484 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

In comment 14973427 Josh in the City said: Quote: over the other QB's but my argument on draft night (and today) isn't that we should have taken Darnold over Barkley. It's that we shouldn't have taken a RB at #2 overall under any circumstance. I'm not a college scout so I wasn't professionally evaluating the college QB's against each other. But yes, I absolutely thought Eli was finished and I would have taken one of the QB's over Barkley that year. No matter how good Barkley would eventually come, it was still the wrong pick then and it's still the wrong pick now. Those saying that "yea, but you wanted Darnold" - you simply don't get it. It wasn't about drafting Darnold or Barkley. It was DON'T DRAFT A FUCKING RB AT #2 OVERALL WHEN YOUR ROSTER IS IN SHAMBLES! That's complete bullshit. It was most certainly Darnold over Barkley - you kept saying over and over again that you don't pass on a franchise QB for a RB. I was about drafting Darnold, which is why you gloated week 1 when the Jets beat the Lions. Hell, at the end of last season, you still said you were sticking by Darnold being better than Jones. Saying it wasn't about Darnold vs. Barkley FOR YOU - is complete and utter horseshit.

I wanted a QB b/c Eli was finished and it was considered a strong QB class. I personally liked Darnold best but I'm not the talent evaluator so I would have been happy with any of the QB's that year (at the time). The only thing I certainly didn't want was a fucking RB at #2 overall when the team had an absurd number of needs. And clearly I was right (and you're still wrong!).

Picking Darnold or Rosen would have been right??

You are fucking delusional

In comment 14973509 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

Picking Darnold or Rosen would have been right?? You are fucking delusional

I still don't think Darnold is a bust. He sure as hell hasn't looked good but the team around him is atrocious too. Josh Allen is legit and has all the tools to be a very good QB. And Baker is still a huge question mark. Only sure things right now are that both Josh Rosen and Saquon Barkley would have been the wrong picks.

you wanted a QB - apparently any QB. Barkley is now equated to a QB who may already be out of the league?

Do you not realize how moronic that take is?

In comment 14973520 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

you wanted a QB - apparently any QB. Barkley is now equated to a QB who may already be out of the league? Do you not realize how moronic that take is?

Seems like you're having trouble following the conversation. Hard to have a discussion with someone who can't keep up.

isn't really a glowing endorsement. They will have to figure out his 5th year option and whether or not to offer contract #2. The fact that he's been so stagnant isn't good.

But, I suspect it won't matter much for them because their next HC won't want him anyway and will take the job under the premise that he will have a new QB.

So either way, wasted pick unless he has a revelation in the next year or so.

you simply didn't want any RB at #2. We all get that. The problem is the conversation can't really stop there even if you want it to. We were going to be picking a QB most likely, and in all liklihood it would have been the guy you wanted (and I would have signed up for) who looks like he's going to be a career backup.

I agree with you. But he's also been put in about as bad a situation as possible. No oline, no WR's, no TE, and no running game. As bad as our oline is, at least we have some legitimate NFL weapons. Hard to actually evaluate a QB in Darnold's situation.

#2 pick. That ship has sailed and we have a very good RB on a team that still arguably isn't near ready to win.

Does Saquon fit the Giants timeline or are they best served trading him for a good amount of value?

We can sell the "generational" thing that we were sold on two years ago. Its not like Giants can't draft another running back and have him on a rookie contract.

down memory lane:

Quote:

It's not just drafting Josh in the City : 2/15/2019 12:20 pm : link it's drafting the right way to build a team. I'm not trying to knock Barkley right now but that pick was asinine. He could be the greatest RB in the history of the NFL and it's still a bad pick.

LOL. Greatest RB ever - bad pick!

And the smoking gun:

Quote:

The Giants are Obviously Taking a QB Josh in the City : 3/21/2018 2:07 pm First of all, take anything you hear in the media with a huge grain of salt. This isn't the Jerry Reese led Giants. Gettleman and Co. understand the importance of secrecy and the advantage it gives the team both leading up to the draft as well as on draft day. How many times in the past decade have teams known who we were targeting and thus jumped ahead of us to grab the player we wanted? Everything we're hearing from the beat writers is b/c that's what the Giants want us (and the rest of the country) to hear. Now looking at the current state of this team, anyone who thinks we don't take a QB at #2 is completely fooling themselves. This was a 3-13 team last year that is nowhere close to competing for a Super Bowl. Even if you believe Eli has two good years left in him, do you really believe this team has a shot at winning it all in that time-frame? The answer is no. So if we're not competing for a Super Bowl in the short term, that diminishes the importance of drafting a player who must improve the team immediately. So why are we signing veterans like Jonathan Stewart, Nate Solder etc? Because Gettleman also understands the need to fix the locker room by bringing in leaders, building a true veteran presence, and establishing a winning culture. It's also important to start rebuilding the oline unit both in the short term and then eventually for the future.

This was eerily on point! And wrong!

Quote:

Josh in the City : 3/21/2018 2:20 pm : link Not really funny b/c it actually validates my point even further so thank you for pointing it out. Pretty sure Dave Brown was picked 17th overall which is exactly where an average team would be picking and exactly why they would be stuck in QB purgatory. Much harder (though admittedly not impossible) to find a franchise QB at pick #17 than it is at #2.

We lost a once in a generation chance to take a QB!!

Quote:

Sure take another year to evaluate Webb (with Eli starting) and forfeit a once in a generation opportunity doing it. That sounds like a smart plan to you?

Isn't this exactly where we would be with Darnold or Rosen??

Quote:

It's actually quite sad Josh in the City : 3/21/2018 3:37 pm : link that the masochists on this board would willingly put themselves through QB purgatory again. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Umm. You wanted ANYONE but Barkley?? Sounds a lot like you wanted a QB. A franchise one.

In comment 14973538 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

down memory lane: Quote: It's not just drafting Josh in the City : 2/15/2019 12:20 pm : link it's drafting the right way to build a team. I'm not trying to knock Barkley right now but that pick was asinine. He could be the greatest RB in the history of the NFL and it's still a bad pick. LOL. Greatest RB ever - bad pick! And the smoking gun: Quote: The Giants are Obviously Taking a QB Josh in the City : 3/21/2018 2:07 pm First of all, take anything you hear in the media with a huge grain of salt. This isn't the Jerry Reese led Giants. Gettleman and Co. understand the importance of secrecy and the advantage it gives the team both leading up to the draft as well as on draft day. How many times in the past decade have teams known who we were targeting and thus jumped ahead of us to grab the player we wanted? Everything we're hearing from the beat writers is b/c that's what the Giants want us (and the rest of the country) to hear. Now looking at the current state of this team, anyone who thinks we don't take a QB at #2 is completely fooling themselves. This was a 3-13 team last year that is nowhere close to competing for a Super Bowl. Even if you believe Eli has two good years left in him, do you really believe this team has a shot at winning it all in that time-frame? The answer is no. So if we're not competing for a Super Bowl in the short term, that diminishes the importance of drafting a player who must improve the team immediately. So why are we signing veterans like Jonathan Stewart, Nate Solder etc? Because Gettleman also understands the need to fix the locker room by bringing in leaders, building a true veteran presence, and establishing a winning culture. It's also important to start rebuilding the oline unit both in the short term and then eventually for the future. This was eerily on point! And wrong! Quote: Josh in the City : 3/21/2018 2:20 pm : link Not really funny b/c it actually validates my point even further so thank you for pointing it out. Pretty sure Dave Brown was picked 17th overall which is exactly where an average team would be picking and exactly why they would be stuck in QB purgatory. Much harder (though admittedly not impossible) to find a franchise QB at pick #17 than it is at #2. We lost a once in a generation chance to take a QB!! Quote: Sure take another year to evaluate Webb (with Eli starting) and forfeit a once in a generation opportunity doing it. That sounds like a smart plan to you? Isn't this exactly where we would be with Darnold or Rosen?? Quote: It's actually quite sad Josh in the City : 3/21/2018 3:37 pm : link that the masochists on this board would willingly put themselves through QB purgatory again. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Umm. You wanted ANYONE but Barkley?? Sounds a lot like you wanted a QB. A franchise one.

I'm confused? You literally just proved my point. I said above, I thought Eli was done and I wanted them to draft a QB. And in NO circumstance did I want them to draft a RB. All those old posts you just re-posted basically corroborate what I said above. I'm actually asking this seriously, do you have a learning disability b/c I'm going to feel bad for making fun of you being slow to catch on.

In comment 14973534 Josh in the City said:

Quote:

I agree with you. But he's also been put in about as bad a situation as possible. No oline, no WR's, no TE, and no running game. As bad as our oline is, at least we have some legitimate NFL weapons. Hard to actually evaluate a QB in Darnold's situation.

I don't disagree. But now we can say the exact same about Barkley, no? Better line and this offense takes off - sound reasonable? How good would Jones be with a dominant run game?

If you take a step back I think you will see that it makes a tremendous difference. More teams are heading in this direction, IMO. They want to limit the opponents possessions and since building an elite defense is difficult and costly, controlling clock is the more realistic option.

In sum, there's many ways to win. We can absolutely win with Barkley, we need to hit on a couple more pieces.

you were right on that take?? How is wanted a QB that could be a complete bust like Rosen, or one who might be mediocre in Darnold a better choice than Barkley? Isn't that the QB purgatory you're talking about??

By the way - your thoughts on Jones:

Quote:

He's fucking horrible Josh in the City : 4/25/2019 10:57 pm : link Sorry there is no sugar coating it. Will go down as the worst pick and biggest reach in franchise history. Taking a day 3 guy at 6 overall. Doesn't get any worse. Fire gettleman!

You actually hoped people saved those threads - hey wait you saved them!

Quote:

RE: RE: He's fucking horrible Josh in the City : 4/25/2019 11:00 pm : link Essex: I hope someone is saving these I am. So I can tell you I told you so. HE FUCKING SUCKS!!

In comment 14973553 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

In comment 14973534 Josh in the City said: Quote: I agree with you. But he's also been put in about as bad a situation as possible. No oline, no WR's, no TE, and no running game. As bad as our oline is, at least we have some legitimate NFL weapons. Hard to actually evaluate a QB in Darnold's situation. I don't disagree. But now we can say the exact same about Barkley, no? Better line and this offense takes off - sound reasonable? How good would Jones be with a dominant run game? If you take a step back I think you will see that it makes a tremendous difference. More teams are heading in this direction, IMO. They want to limit the opponents possessions and since building an elite defense is difficult and costly, controlling clock is the more realistic option. In sum, there's many ways to win. We can absolutely win with Barkley, we need to hit on a couple more pieces.

100% agree but that's also the point. You can invest early in a QB and build your team around him. You don't want to do the same with a RB for 2 reasons. 1- by the time you're ready to win you're allocating a large portion of your cap to a position that doesn't have a significant impact on wins/losses and 2- RB's half lives (especially their prime years) are significantly shorter than QB's and other positions. Which is why it's almost always a mistake to draft a RB on day one unless you're team is ready to compete for a Super Bowl.

In comment 14973479 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

so I know its there. I think he's playing with the world on his shoulders, is learning a new offense, and was getting crushed behind the LOS. I need to see more before saying he's now a bad route runner - it doesn't seem like a logical conclusion to be had right now.

Agreed that he’s run a lot of great routes in his career here, and hopefully last night’s performance — lots of rounded edge muddling —was just first game rust. Garrett and co are no dummies, I hope they find a way to utilize his gifts.

In comment 14973558 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

you were right on that take?? How is wanted a QB that could be a complete bust like Rosen, or one who might be mediocre in Darnold a better choice than Barkley? Isn't that the QB purgatory you're talking about?? By the way - your thoughts on Jones: Quote: He's fucking horrible Josh in the City : 4/25/2019 10:57 pm : link Sorry there is no sugar coating it. Will go down as the worst pick and biggest reach in franchise history. Taking a day 3 guy at 6 overall. Doesn't get any worse. Fire gettleman! You actually hoped people saved those threads - hey wait you saved them! Quote: RE: RE: He's fucking horrible Josh in the City : 4/25/2019 11:00 pm : link Essex: I hope someone is saving these I am. So I can tell you I told you so. HE FUCKING SUCKS!!

Yep, and right now I admit I was wrong about Jones. But kind of sad you're trying to change the subject now that we've proven you to be completely incoherent and blatantly wrong about!

the actual point of this thread!

In comment 14973411 KWALL2 said:

Quote:

football player is "well look at the record". LOL. I can't believe anybody tries to make it. We drafted one of the best players in the league. He produced at a high level despite awful surrounding talent. Nobody picked immediately after him has been special. The rest of the top 10 after Barkley: Sam Darnold Denzel Ward Bradley Chubb Quenton Nelson Josh Allen Roquan Smith Mike McGlinchey Josh Rosen You can make the case for QB Josh Allen. That is it.

FACTS. this is the ultimate team game....one player doesnt change that unless your name is pat mahomes and even then, he has a fuck ton of talent around him.

barkley is a stud and a player you build around. unfortunately, we failed to get the OL rebuilt as we missed on some but the line is young, barkley isnt old or anything. we can easily have him on second contract winning games for us once the OL comes together....

I simply disagree. I'm not doing this again with you. If our biggest problem is paying Barkley money then its a good problem to have. Take a look at the RB deals that have been signed and get back to me - they are extremely favorable. And we'd be paying him, in theory, after year 3 meaning we'd get plenty of production out of him minus a shitty fluke injury (that players get at almost every position). He wasn't drafted to be a 4/5 year player - his size/build/style have all been carefully investigated prior to making the pick. What you are calling a hinderance has already been factored into his draft grade (same with the contracts). You ignored all my points on this above, so its reasonable to assume you don't want to entertain the possibility that you are wrong.

Its all good though, I'm done on this thread, enjoy your night everyone.

to make this dumb point after I keep showing you this. But you can't say Barkley was worth the #2 pick and not Quinton Nelson.

In 2018 when Barkely was drafted the top 10 RBs had an average salary of $8.4M and the top 10 Gs $11.4M. You are stating something as a fact that the evidence doesn't even remotely support. Dollars allocated to a position is the best measure of value as teams view it themselves.

Many including myself said that you have to build the OL before you take an RB that high, you have to be sure you are ready to win now, that's even IF a RB at #2 is worth it at all, which it is tough to make a general purpose argument for in its own right. People point to Elliot but that really fails at a remotely apt comparison as the difference between the #2 pick and #4 pick is 800 points or the #21 pick in the draft and honestly I'd have had absolutely zero problem with the Giants trading down to #4 grabbing Barkley and extra picks of even 600 value.

People continually excuse these kinds of things situation by situation but the fact of the matter is often hard to see that the Giants actually grasp asset allocation principles.

Anyway quit making the same bad points Britt, at least find your way to new bad points.
Sportrac 2018 Salaries - ( New Window )

You can make some silly argument about not taking Guards early, but I think the guy made first team All-Pro in his first two years. About as rare as it comes.

In comment 14973590 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

I simply disagree. I'm not doing this again with you. If our biggest problem is paying Barkley money then its a good problem to have. Take a look at the RB deals that have been signed and get back to me - they are extremely favorable. And we'd be paying him, in theory, after year 3 meaning we'd get plenty of production out of him minus a shitty fluke injury (that players get at almost every position). He wasn't drafted to be a 4/5 year player - his size/build/style have all been carefully investigated prior to making the pick. What you are calling a hinderance has already been factored into his draft grade (same with the contracts). You ignored all my points on this above, so its reasonable to assume you don't want to entertain the possibility that you are wrong. Its all good though, I'm done on this thread, enjoy your night everyone.

Saquon is going to want McCaffrey money and someone is going to be willing to pay him that. Do you think he's worth $16 million per year?! The deal will also require ~50% guaranteed at signing. I believe CMC's deal has a potential out after 3 years with a small amount (relatively) of dead money (around $9-10 million). Would I want to give Saquon that contract and then have to pay DJ the following year? Nope, no f'ing way. It's a bad pick any way you slice it. You needed to get something out of his rookie contract and we're going to end up with nothing...not even a sniff of the playoffs.

In comment 14973426 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

In comment 14973396 Gatorade Dunk said: Quote: In comment 14973046 Britt in VA said: Quote: And who did you want to pick on draft night? Be honest. If it's a bad pick, and the alternatives that any fan would have preferred from their couch are also bad picks, it doesn't make the actual pick any less bad. It's not like there aren't players that were taken within a few slots of where we took Barkley that are producing at a higher level right now with less dependency on their supporting cast. I understand the point you're trying to make, but if we're using "can draft better than Josh would have" as our benchmark for grading DG, I'd say we're maybe being a little too forgiving. It's not really the alternative being who Josh would pick, but rather the alternatives available for us to pick in general. As KWall just listed, the only real guys that should have been in consideration (in hindsight) are Nelson and Allen. For Nelson, as I mentioned, that would have been a trade down scenario. Who knows if the value was there for that. For Allen, well, we got our QB the very next year, and personally, I think I like Jones more than Allen but that's arguable. Any way you slice it, you can't really argue that DG got an elite talent with the #2 overall pick. Now you can disagree on the team building strategy of it, but as far as value for the pick, he knocked it out of the park. You can't as for much more from a top 5 draft pick than what Saquon is.

That's a fair point all the way through. I'd add Bradley Chubb to the list as well, even with his injury. He did rack up 12 sacks as a rookie, and we've been craving any semblance of a consistent pass rush over that same period of time. And I feel wrong even pointing to Allen in that scenario since I was very vocal that his inaccuracy in college was going to make him mediocre at best in the NFL - I've been way off on that one so far.

But you're right about Barkley's talent, and about the way that I feel with regard to the team building aspect of it (lord knows I've certainly repeated it often enough to make most of the board puke).

It's just frustrating not only to see the team continue to suck out loud, but to also know that Saquon is capable of so much more than this roster has allowed him to produce.

can be to the running game.

Last night should have been enough.

In comment 14973045 Josh in the City said:

Quote:

what I said on draft night and what I stand by today. Taking a RB at #2 overall is a luxury pick...not a pick you make when you're building a roster. It was a horrendous pick then and it's still a bad pick now. By the time we're able to take advantage of Barkley's skillset he will be off his rookie contract. And then that brings up the looming debate as to how much of your salary cap you want to commit to a RB (the answer should be not much). Just a brutal pick that was a setback for the franchise.

You also wanted Sam Darnold. You are in no position to be bearing your chest based on Darnolds body of work up until now. It’ll never happen but I agree with the premise, unfortunately

In comment 14973578 Josh in the City said:

Quote:

In comment 14973558 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: you were right on that take?? How is wanted a QB that could be a complete bust like Rosen, or one who might be mediocre in Darnold a better choice than Barkley? Isn't that the QB purgatory you're talking about?? By the way - your thoughts on Jones: Quote: He's fucking horrible Josh in the City : 4/25/2019 10:57 pm : link Sorry there is no sugar coating it. Will go down as the worst pick and biggest reach in franchise history. Taking a day 3 guy at 6 overall. Doesn't get any worse. Fire gettleman! You actually hoped people saved those threads - hey wait you saved them! Quote: RE: RE: He's fucking horrible Josh in the City : 4/25/2019 11:00 pm : link Essex: I hope someone is saving these I am. So I can tell you I told you so. HE FUCKING SUCKS!! Yep, and right now I admit I was wrong about Jones. But kind of sad you're trying to change the subject now that we've proven you to be completely incoherent and blatantly wrong about!

WTF?? Completely incoherent and blatantly wrong??



Let's break this down for you since you aren't grasping it.

You said that picking a QB was a better pick than Barkley. You stick by that. You've even said that the only bad picks were Rosen and Barkley. And you say you've been proven correct. By what metric??

How would drafting Darnold have helped? Barkley is better than Darnold at this point and it isn't even close. But then again - you said Daniel Jones FUCKING SUCKS!! What are you actually right about?

In comment 14973613 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

In comment 14973578 Josh in the City said: Quote: In comment 14973558 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: you were right on that take?? How is wanted a QB that could be a complete bust like Rosen, or one who might be mediocre in Darnold a better choice than Barkley? Isn't that the QB purgatory you're talking about?? By the way - your thoughts on Jones: Quote: He's fucking horrible Josh in the City : 4/25/2019 10:57 pm : link Sorry there is no sugar coating it. Will go down as the worst pick and biggest reach in franchise history. Taking a day 3 guy at 6 overall. Doesn't get any worse. Fire gettleman! You actually hoped people saved those threads - hey wait you saved them! Quote: RE: RE: He's fucking horrible Josh in the City : 4/25/2019 11:00 pm : link Essex: I hope someone is saving these I am. So I can tell you I told you so. HE FUCKING SUCKS!! Yep, and right now I admit I was wrong about Jones. But kind of sad you're trying to change the subject now that we've proven you to be completely incoherent and blatantly wrong about! WTF?? Completely incoherent and blatantly wrong?? Let's break this down for you since you aren't grasping it. You said that picking a QB was a better pick than Barkley. You stick by that. You've even said that the only bad picks were Rosen and Barkley. And you say you've been proven correct. By what metric?? How would drafting Darnold have helped? Barkley is better than Darnold at this point and it isn't even close. But then again - you said Daniel Jones FUCKING SUCKS!! What are you actually right about?

Dude, stop embarrassing yourself.

Embarrassing myself? Just in this thread alone you posted:

Quote:

I wanted a QB b/c Eli was finished and it was considered a strong QB class. I personally liked Darnold best but I'm not the talent evaluator so I would have been happy with any of the QB's that year (at the time). The only thing I certainly didn't want was a fucking RB at #2 overall when the team had an absurd number of needs. And clearly I was right (and you're still wrong!).

You were clearly right that a picking Barkley was wrong? You were clearly right that QB was the correct decision? Where the fuck are we today with Rosen? With Darnold?

If you aren't embarrassed in saying that Barkley and Rosen were 100% the wrong picks I don't know what to tell you. One is almost out of football and the other in one of the best at his position. Going on three years of crying over a draft that is done and worse yet, would have sucked even more had we taken one of the choices you wanted.

That's the embarrassment.

In comment 14973623 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

Embarrassing myself? Just in this thread alone you posted: Quote: I wanted a QB b/c Eli was finished and it was considered a strong QB class. I personally liked Darnold best but I'm not the talent evaluator so I would have been happy with any of the QB's that year (at the time). The only thing I certainly didn't want was a fucking RB at #2 overall when the team had an absurd number of needs. And clearly I was right (and you're still wrong!). You were clearly right that a picking Barkley was wrong? You were clearly right that QB was the correct decision? Where the fuck are we today with Rosen? With Darnold? If you aren't embarrassed in saying that Barkley and Rosen were 100% the wrong picks I don't know what to tell you. One is almost out of football and the other in one of the best at his position. Going on three years of crying over a draft that is done and worse yet, would have sucked even more had we taken one of the choices you wanted. That's the embarrassment.

Sorry but you were wrong on draft night and you’ve been proven wrong 3 yrs later. Investing the #2 overall pick on a RB was a disastrous mistake and nothing you say is changing that unfortunately. Only thing we can hope for now is that Gettleman realized his and your mistake and doesn’t exacerbate it by giving him a big money contract.

realize that on draft night, I wanted a trade down, right?

But once we picked Barkley, he is clearly a better choice than Darnold or Rosen. And he's a joy to watch. Unless it is three years later and somebody is still bitching about a draft that if it went the way they wanted - would have been worse.

You've actually said that Barkley could be the best RB ever and it would still be a terrible pick. Think about that for a minute if you have any brain power at all.

you miss the point here when you declare yourself right.

If you can't argue that we'd be better off with Darnold or Rosen over Barkley, then you can't say you were right. That's what you wanted to have happen.

Hell, you can't even prove that taking a RB at #2 is a bad move - and you certainly aren't helping the case by saying he could be the best ever and still be a terrible pick. That's just sheer ignorance

You're right about Nelson. He's a great player. But I still take Barkley over him.

BB56 on point with "A lot of things to worry about but SB isn't one of them".

Put a decent OL in front of him and he will shine.

Jones vs Allen? I like Allen but I think Jones will be a better QB over the next 10 years.

In comment 14973636 KWALL2 said:

Quote:

You're right about Nelson. He's a great player. But I still take Barkley over him. BB56 on point with "A lot of things to worry about but SB isn't one of them". Put a decent OL in front of him and he will shine. Jones vs Allen? I like Allen but I think Jones will be a better QB over the next 10 years.

I might take Barkley as well straight up between the two, but the play was to trade down from #2 and Nelson would have been a nice prize a few picks further.

The better trade would have been up at the bottom of 1 for QB Jackson which is something a few of us liked that year.

Concerning the Giants timeline, it's a broken clock that's right twice a day.

No amount of strategy to get the right players, at the right position, at the right time, will work util you fix the clock. That clock is management.

Barkley is 23 years old. He won’t be 24 until next season. There are college seniors now who will be that age.

It is not Barkley’s fault he gets hit behind the LOS on the majority of his carries last night.

In comment 14973665 PetesHereNow said:

Quote:

Barkley is 23 years old. He won’t be 24 until next season. There are college seniors now who will be that age. It is not Barkley’s fault he gets hit behind the LOS on the majority of his carries last night.

It might not be Barkley's fault, but the potential wear and tear is going to stack up on his body and his athleticism, not on those whose fault it is.

It's not about blaming Barkley. It is about trying to take advantage of his physical gifts before our dogshit OL gets him killed.

tackled by guys not even getting blocked off the snap more often than not.

In comment 14973592 NoGainDayne said:

Quote:

to make this dumb point after I keep showing you this. But you can't say Barkley was worth the #2 pick and not Quinton Nelson. In 2018 when Barkely was drafted the top 10 RBs had an average salary of $8.4M and the top 10 Gs $11.4M. You are stating something as a fact that the evidence doesn't even remotely support. Dollars allocated to a position is the best measure of value as teams view it themselves. Many including myself said that you have to build the OL before you take an RB that high, you have to be sure you are ready to win now, that's even IF a RB at #2 is worth it at all, which it is tough to make a general purpose argument for in its own right. People point to Elliot but that really fails at a remotely apt comparison as the difference between the #2 pick and #4 pick is 800 points or the #21 pick in the draft and honestly I'd have had absolutely zero problem with the Giants trading down to #4 grabbing Barkley and extra picks of even 600 value. People continually excuse these kinds of things situation by situation but the fact of the matter is often hard to see that the Giants actually grasp asset allocation principles. Anyway quit making the same bad points Britt, at least find your way to new bad points. Sportrac 2018 Salaries - ( New Window )

I don’t know why you’re singling me out when plenty of people are happy with Barkley over Nelson, then and now, even on this very thread.

Everything you posted is your opinion. Just because people have a different opinion doesn’t make them wrong and you right, or vice versa.

Also, I was fine back in 2018 taking Nelson. In fact, I was fine taking Barkley, Nelson, and any of the QB’s. Unlike many here, I didn’t put all my eggs in one basket and then throw a 3 year temper tantrum over not getting my way, because I could see a path to success through any of those players.

Even Googs is right that the ship has sailed. If you want to debate Barkley’s future value, that’s one thing. But still arguing over the pick three years later and being unable to accept it is just sour grapes at this point. Let it go.

In comment 14973652 KWALL2 said:

Quote:

The better trade would have been up at the bottom of 1 for QB Jackson which is something a few of us liked that year.

Maybe, I would have been more than satisfied with something like Q Nelson, N Chubb and D Leonard.

and his potential. Lets wait a few games before we trade him off to the Steelers for a 2nd round pick.

This OL is basically brand new. New RT, new LT, new C. No pre-season. I can go on.

The only thing I dont love about SB is 1) Pass blocking is horrible and 2) DONT LEAVE YOUR FEET YOU ARE GOING TO GET KILLED.

I would look to deal him this coming offseason before he depreciates to the point you cannot fetch a first for him. He’s an incredible talent but he’s not the right player for this team right now. Everybody in this forum knows this won’t be a playoff team this year and honestly I don’t think it will be in 2021, either.

I think he is head and shoulders better than any of the QBs. That said, I agree with the notion that taking him doesn't seem to match the timeline for Gettleman. Either that or he isn't doing a good job of executing. If you take a RB there and know you are likely to take your next QB the following year, you have to have some semblance of an OL, which they still do not.

But, I love the 3 OL picks this year. They all need to be starting next year and at a decent level for this to be worthwhile.

In comment 14973835 The_Boss said:

Quote:

I would look to deal him this coming offseason before he depreciates to the point you cannot fetch a first for him. He’s an incredible talent but he’s not the right player for this team right now. Everybody in this forum knows this won’t be a playoff team this year and honestly I don’t think it will be in 2021, either.

Not to miller the thread. But you have talked up Carson Wentz in the past, paraphrasing, “he will be dominating the division for the next 5+ years.” What’s happened to him?

He’s going to get resigned. You don’t draft a player #2 if you intend to nickel and dime over the 2nd contract. He’s here for the long term.

In comment 14973910 Sean said:

Quote:

He’s going to get resigned. You don’t draft a player #2 if you intend to nickel and dime over the 2nd contract. He’s here for the long term.

Of course he is. This, once again, is much ado about nothing.

In comment 14973909 Sean said:

Quote:

In comment 14973835 The_Boss said: Quote: I would look to deal him this coming offseason before he depreciates to the point you cannot fetch a first for him. He’s an incredible talent but he’s not the right player for this team right now. Everybody in this forum knows this won’t be a playoff team this year and honestly I don’t think it will be in 2021, either. Not to miller the thread. But you have talked up Carson Wentz in the past, paraphrasing, “he will be dominating the division for the next 5+ years.” What’s happened to him?

I’ll be damned if I know. While they could still sweep us again this year, you can see that franchise falling on hard times very soon. It’s an aging roster and the players (other than Ertz) don’t seem to either like or rally behind Wentz like they did with Foles. It’s going to be a train wreck I for one cannot wait to see play out.

I love Barkley but the Giants know what the Steelers do, too: the running game is about the Offensive Line - not the RB. What happened when James Conner went down? PIT simply put in its backup RB and kept going.

The Giants used to have that setup with Tiki, then Jacobs, then Ward, then Bradshaw. Even D.J. Ware looked decent when given the ball. Get the RB after round 1. Joe Skiba could've average 4 ypc behind that OL.

The right pick was Quenton Nelson, just like the right pick was Ramczyk over Evan Engram. But in both instances, we got all distracted by the shiny hood ornament. We should've known better, and did.

In comment 14973910 Sean said:

Quote:

He’s going to get resigned. You don’t draft a player #2 if you intend to nickel and dime over the 2nd contract. He’s here for the long term.

Just curious where the cutoff is. Does that apply to guys taken #9 or #10 overall? Or is it just top 2?

Even just looking at RBs, did Lawrence Phillips (6th pick) make it to a second contract? How about Curtis Enis (5th)? Leonard Fournette (4th)? Trent Richardson (3rd)? Blair Thomas (2nd)? Ki-Jana Carter (1st)? Did any of their draft position dictate their team's intent for their second contract?

The whole "you don't draft a player #2 if..." nonsense is an absurd take. Barkley's second contract will be due to his play on the field and his character in the locker room and the community, and the team's roster and cap structure at that time, not his draft position.

After everything we've all seen around the league, you don't think a possibility even exists - however minute - that Barkley could be traded before his next contract? Or tagged and then traded? Or tagged and then hurt? Or tagged and let walk after his tag year(s)?

I'm not suggesting for one second that Barkley won't get a second contract here. I assume he probably will, and I'll reserve my opinion on that for when we see what the OL looks like at that time and what SB's next contract is. But the idea that anyone can genuinely speak in absolutes about a 2nd contract with THIS franchise (and then have another intelligent poster second the motion) is beyond comprehension.

In comment 14974019 Gatorade Dunk said:

Quote:

In comment 14973910 Sean said: Quote: He’s going to get resigned. You don’t draft a player #2 if you intend to nickel and dime over the 2nd contract. He’s here for the long term. Just curious where the cutoff is. Does that apply to guys taken #9 or #10 overall? Or is it just top 2? Even just looking at RBs, did Lawrence Phillips (6th pick) make it to a second contract? How about Curtis Enis (5th)? Leonard Fournette (4th)? Trent Richardson (3rd)? Blair Thomas (2nd)? Ki-Jana Carter (1st)? Did any of their draft position dictate their team's intent for their second contract? The whole "you don't draft a player #2 if..." nonsense is an absurd take. Barkley's second contract will be due to his play on the field and his character in the locker room and the community, and the team's roster and cap structure at that time, not his draft position. After everything we've all seen around the league, you don't think a possibility even exists - however minute - that Barkley could be traded before his next contract? Or tagged and then traded? Or tagged and then hurt? Or tagged and let walk after his tag year(s)? I'm not suggesting for one second that Barkley won't get a second contract here. I assume he probably will, and I'll reserve my opinion on that for when we see what the OL looks like at that time and what SB's next contract is. But the idea that anyone can genuinely speak in absolutes about a 2nd contract with THIS franchise (and then have another intelligent poster second the motion) is beyond comprehension.

WOw. What a dim view of Barkley's abilities and accomplishments if those are your comparators.

because the understanding is you aren't taking a player that you only want 4 or 5 years out of. Those other RB's weren't any good - what do they have to do when talking about Barkley?

Fournette was a mistake. I said it when Jacksonville drafted him, and it still stands. His style of play put him in that higher risk category for me, he also wasn't much of a pass catchers which is the ignored portion of all of this (Barkley isn't just a RB). Of all the guys taken top 10 the past 5+ years Fournette was the most one dimensional. Bad pick, not at all relatable, IMO.

Sure, there's a chance he's traded but I'd put that at 10% if not less. We can't put our entire franchise on hold because the OLine stinks, which is what many of these posts seems to allude to. As you can see with how long its taking putting together an OL isn't easy (atleast not for NYG) and ignoring other positions to compound it makes no sense to me.

We've had 5 new starters across the entire line since Barkley was drafted, some of the positions multiple new starters. They came via trades, FA, and picks. The line has been addressed a lot and it hasn't been working - that's the problem.

hey, lets not compare Barkley to his peers, lets come up with a shitty list from 15/20 years ago during a completely different NFL.

Why aren't you comparing him to Elliot (extension), CMC (extension), Gurley (extension, cut, left for dead but has the opportunity to be the man again in Atlanta)?

LOL. I know. Hey. Ki-Jana Carter getting injured immediately in his career is just like Barkley!! Perfect parallel.

In comment 14974034 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

LOL. I know. Hey. Ki-Jana Carter getting injured immediately in his career is just like Barkley!! Perfect parallel.

You're smarter than that. The point was that the draft slot doesn't guarantee the second contract, which is verbatim what Sean said, and was specifically what I was referring to. It's not by accident (and probably not surprising) that you're taking that entirely out of context.

Sometimes you really do prove your critics correct.

In comment 14974033 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

hey, lets not compare Barkley to his peers, lets come up with a shitty list from 15/20 years ago during a completely different NFL. Why aren't you comparing him to Elliot (extension), CMC (extension), Gurley (extension, cut, left for dead but has the opportunity to be the man again in Atlanta)?

Is Leonard Fournette not his peer? Would Trent Richardson not be his peer if he didn't suck his way out of the league already?

I was responding to Sean's post that Barkley's draft slot alone guarantees not only a second contract, but according to Sean, one without even a negotiation. I provided a RB in each draft slot of the top six that did not reach their second contract with the team that selected them - in some cases, because there are so few RBs taken that high in the draft, I had to go back a bit farther, but obviously not all of them, like Fournette in particular.

I didn't think it was that hard to understand the context of my post. I guess I was wrong.

I guess you didn't read it. Ohh well.

In comment 14974042 Gatorade Dunk said:

Quote:

In comment 14974033 UConn4523 said: Quote: hey, lets not compare Barkley to his peers, lets come up with a shitty list from 15/20 years ago during a completely different NFL. Why aren't you comparing him to Elliot (extension), CMC (extension), Gurley (extension, cut, left for dead but has the opportunity to be the man again in Atlanta)? Is Leonard Fournette not his peer? Would Trent Richardson not be his peer if he didn't suck his way out of the league already? I was responding to Sean's post that Barkley's draft slot alone guarantees not only a second contract, but according to Sean, one without even a negotiation. I provided a RB in each draft slot of the top six that did not reach their second contract with the team that selected them - in some cases, because there are so few RBs taken that high in the draft, I had to go back a bit farther, but obviously not all of them, like Fournette in particular. I didn't think it was that hard to understand the context of my post. I guess I was wrong.

It wasn't hard to understand at all. It was a good point. You know Fat Man is a complete fucking jerkoff. I don't know why you waste your time with the back and forth.

In comment 14974014 mittenedman said:

Quote:

I love Barkley but the Giants know what the Steelers do, too: the running game is about the Offensive Line - not the RB. What happened when James Conner went down? PIT simply put in its backup RB and kept going. The Giants used to have that setup with Tiki, then Jacobs, then Ward, then Bradshaw. Even D.J. Ware looked decent when given the ball. Get the RB after round 1. Joe Skiba could've average 4 ypc behind that OL. The right pick was Quenton Nelson, just like the right pick was Ramczyk over Evan Engram. But in both instances, we got all distracted by the shiny hood ornament. We should've known better, and did.

I've contended that this team would be better with Nelson + Chubb than Barkley + Hernandez, but in all fairness, nobody would take a Guard with the 2nd overall pick.

Now Engram over Ramczyk was an obvious mistake at the time. Shit, if they were so set on a TE I wish they went Njoku. Sure, Njoku hasn't torn it up in Cleveland but at least he provides some semblance of blocking.

I think the question of if he's "worth it" completely hinges on that determination, and to be honest, it's probably not as much as his value.

There's no point taking pennies on the dollar, as I doubt he'd even net anything more than like a late first.

I used to say I was completely against signing him to a second contract, but if his production is hamstrung due to the terrible run blocking, it might not be a bad idea to lock him up with an extension before he hits the 5th year option for a couple more years while his production is lower.

Then you can still get the 6-8 prime years of Barkley (if he gets that many) without totally breaking the bank like the Saints did with Kamara, Titans with Henry, or Cowboys with Zeke.

I think Barkley has the capability to be just as good as any of those RBs, but his play style benefits from having decent run blocking more than any of those players (except maybe Kamara)

In comment 14974027 Bill L said:

Quote:

In comment 14974019 Gatorade Dunk said: Quote: In comment 14973910 Sean said: Quote: He’s going to get resigned. You don’t draft a player #2 if you intend to nickel and dime over the 2nd contract. He’s here for the long term. Just curious where the cutoff is. Does that apply to guys taken #9 or #10 overall? Or is it just top 2? Even just looking at RBs, did Lawrence Phillips (6th pick) make it to a second contract? How about Curtis Enis (5th)? Leonard Fournette (4th)? Trent Richardson (3rd)? Blair Thomas (2nd)? Ki-Jana Carter (1st)? Did any of their draft position dictate their team's intent for their second contract? The whole "you don't draft a player #2 if..." nonsense is an absurd take. Barkley's second contract will be due to his play on the field and his character in the locker room and the community, and the team's roster and cap structure at that time, not his draft position. After everything we've all seen around the league, you don't think a possibility even exists - however minute - that Barkley could be traded before his next contract? Or tagged and then traded? Or tagged and then hurt? Or tagged and let walk after his tag year(s)? I'm not suggesting for one second that Barkley won't get a second contract here. I assume he probably will, and I'll reserve my opinion on that for when we see what the OL looks like at that time and what SB's next contract is. But the idea that anyone can genuinely speak in absolutes about a 2nd contract with THIS franchise (and then have another intelligent poster second the motion) is beyond comprehension. WOw. What a dim view of Barkley's abilities and accomplishments if those are your comparators.

WOw. What a dim view of your reading comprehension if you couldn't understand that my point was that draft position does not inform a player's second contract.

I referenced two very recent, very high-profile draft busts that the Giants have had. Then added a list of RBs who were taken at the very top of the draft yet failed to reach their second contract. If all that mattered was draft position, as Sean tried to posit, all of those players would have gotten a second contract with the teams that drafted them because their draft position was unchanged even while their careers were derailed for various reasons.

Was it not clear when I wrote "Barkley's second contract will be due to his play on the field and his character in the locker room and the community, and the team's roster and cap structure at that time, not his draft position," or when I finished with "I'm not suggesting for one second that Barkley won't get a second contract here. I assume he probably will... [b]ut the idea that anyone can genuinely speak in absolutes about a 2nd contract with THIS franchise... is beyond comprehension"?

how you doing on coping with your fairly recent loss?

"He’s going to get resigned. You don’t draft a player #2 if you intend to nickel and dime over the 2nd contract. He’s here for the long term."

And its turned into this?

on this thread has been that even the recent 2nd contracts handed out aren't cap killers or even that tough to get out from.

But instead, we are provided lists of a bunch of RB's who never got 2nd contracts (of course overlooking the obvious examples of those that did get them and went on to have excellent careers like LT, Faulk, Peterson, Sanders, etc.

he turned 23 years old in February

is one dimensional and not a pass catcher is absurd.

In 2019, Fournette caught 76 balls for 522 yards.

To give it some perspective, the 522 yards was second among all running backs that gained 1000 yards rushing, behind only McCaffrey.

CMC as the peak contract can be cut in 2022 ($0 cap savings so all dead money) and then starting in 2023 they would save $7.7m. Its essentially a 2 year deal with the option for seasons 3, 4, and 5.

What's Allen Robinson going to get this offseason? I'm guessing he will be getting around $50m guaranteed which is almost 30% more than CMC.

Which player is better? Which player will have the better contract?

Would love this question to actually be answered even 1 time on these threads.

In comment 14974100 LBH15 said:

Quote:

is one dimensional and not a pass catcher is absurd. In 2019, Fournette caught 76 balls for 522 yards. To give it some perspective, the 522 yards was second among all running backs that gained 1000 yards rushing, behind only McCaffrey.

Yeah, he has a good year under his belt as a pass catcher. He didn't in college and he was alright to start his NFL career. But he isn't dynamic at all which was my point. You know what you are getting with him - maybe 4 ypc (if that) and really not a threat to take it to the house. Bad pick at #4.

His performance thus far has.

Fix the line.

LSU had terrible QBs when he was there. Hard to show anything as a receiver in that environment.

in his first 3 years. They were runs and not catches but I am not sure that matters when describing ability to "take it to the house". You might not like picking him at #4 but it must be due to something else.

Regarding this silly discussion on second contracts for #2 picks or early running back picks. Every GM is just hoping his pick turns out to be as good a player (on and off the field) as he can. And if he does, then the second contract will take care of itself. Not a guarantee but nothing is.

Did you know that the Giants have the THIRD most cap allocated to the RB position in the NFL (per Spotrac.)? #1 is SF with $18.6M, 2nd are the Panthers with $12.4, 3rd are the Giants with $12.3m. League avg franchise cap allocation is $8M.

Saquon currently has a cap hit of $8.6M. Ezekiel Elliott has a $10.9M hit by comparison.

I expect Barkley's next contract to be richer than Elliott's, but I really wonder whether it will be that much higher. Point is that the Giants are already operating under an unusually heavy allocation to RBs, so I think the Barkley 2nd contract really won't incrementally be such a big change.

i'm merely going off of my thoughts on him heading into that draft. Seemed to me that his style of play wasn't worth #4 overall at the time. He's still got time to make a nice career for himself but if the attitude rumors are true then its an uphill battle.

In comment 14974121 LBH15 said:

Quote:

in his first 3 years. They were runs and not catches but I am not sure that matters when describing ability to "take it to the house". You might not like picking him at #4 but it must be due to something else. Regarding this silly discussion on second contracts for #2 picks or early running back picks. Every GM is just hoping his pick turns out to be as good a player (on and off the field) as he can. And if he does, then the second contract will take care of itself. Not a guarantee but nothing is.

Difference of opinion on Fournette's ability. That's fine, don' really need to get into that, I just don't care about it in all honestly.

As for your second comment, that's correct, and why I don't understand why Sean was called out for something that was so incredibly obvious.

AND got their QB a year later.

They passed over the QBs in 2018 for the exact reason they should have, they didn't believe in one. Jones is showing more promise than Darnold, now it's about the talent around him and SB.

If no other player grades out above SB, it's an easy decision. There was no edge or LT who graded higher, let alone QB. What you don't want to do is force a pick based on position. The cap mechanics can all be handled as time goes on, as we've seen a million examples demonstrate.

The tune will change once the OL is at least average and SB explodes.

In comment 14974143 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

In comment 14974121 LBH15 said: Quote: in his first 3 years. They were runs and not catches but I am not sure that matters when describing ability to "take it to the house". You might not like picking him at #4 but it must be due to something else. Regarding this silly discussion on second contracts for #2 picks or early running back picks. Every GM is just hoping his pick turns out to be as good a player (on and off the field) as he can. And if he does, then the second contract will take care of itself. Not a guarantee but nothing is. Difference of opinion on Fournette's ability. That's fine, don' really need to get into that, I just don't care about it in all honestly. As for your second comment, that's correct, and why I don't understand why Sean was called out for something that was so incredibly obvious.

Gatorade dunk already said his point was that second contracts aren't doled out solely on being the #2 pick.

His usage of an odd set of comp RBs was what you all really jumped him on and, quite frankly, he didn't even need to include them in his post.

But nevertheless we like to be argumentative on BBI...like saying Fournette is one-dimensional :-)

Later.

In comment 14974113 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

His performance thus far has. Fix the line.

That's a fair take, and much more accurate than the one you so eagerly agreed with earlier this morning.

#2 picks aren't guaranteed second contracts. Star players are, for the most part. Not all high draft picks become star players. It's really that simple - that was my point.

In comment 14974057 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

how you doing on coping with your fairly recent loss?

Hey Fiddy, thanks for checking in - I really appreciate it.

TBH, it's been a rough past month or so (2020 is the gift that keeps on taking) - another one of my brothers had the exact same heart attack that took his twin (thankfully he survived due to his wife jumping right in to administer CPR immediately when he went down), and then had one of our dogs run away from the dogsitter's house a couple of weeks ago (luckily, we found her after 36 hours out in the wild). I'm focusing on the fact that both of those scary moments turned out okay, which is better than the first half of the year was going.

In comment 14974092 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

on this thread has been that even the recent 2nd contracts handed out aren't cap killers or even that tough to get out from. But instead, we are provided lists of a bunch of RB's who never got 2nd contracts (of course overlooking the obvious examples of those that did get them and went on to have excellent careers like LT, Faulk, Peterson, Sanders, etc.

Are you going with dense or stubborn on this one? I didn't reply to UConn. I replied to Sean. And it wasn't about whether second contracts are cap killers. It was about draft status dictating a second contract rather than the player's actual merit by way of performance.

At no point did I suggest that Barkley's performance was not deserving of a second contract. His draft status, however, which is what Sean referred to for no reason that anyone asked him to, wasn't any different than the busts I listed. None of them had busted yet when they were drafted, but their second contracts were obviously no sure thing, since none of them earned one with the team that drafted them.

For something to be a sure thing, there can't be as many exceptions as the ones I rattled off, can there? Is Barkley extremely likely to get a second contract? Yes, of course. And I said exactly that in my post. But speaking in absolutes? Let's just say if the underlying point wasn't something you already agree with (in this case, Barkley getting a second contract, irrespective of draft position), or if that post had been penned by McL or NGD, you'd have been all over that same exact post for the same exact reason. You and I both know it.

because you wanted to make an argument out of it. You really think he meant its automatic simply because he was the 2nd pick?

I read it completely differently.

I stand by my comment. Fournette had the 28th lowest YPC last year based on players with atleast 100 carries (Lamar Jackson and Josh Allen is on this list so I'll give you 26th) . 2019 was the highest YPC of his career. Brandon Jacobs had a 74 yarder before, should we include him too?

Sorry, i'm not including the guy with the top RB's in the league who all have a much better skillset. Doesn't pass the eye test either and the numbers back it up. Add in the personal issues and he's a no go for me in this discussion. He's replacable.

*

all Sean said was they weren't going to nickle and dime him on a 2nd contract.

It seems like that assumes Barkley isn't a complete stiff, injured or incarcerated.

You seemingly read a whole lot more into it but are calling me dense or stubborn.

This problem will be the downfall of mankind. Somehow, admission of being wrong is considered weakness. I would argue that it is a profound statement about one's character. I did not want a RB at 2 in 2018, I wanted Rosen or a trade down. Maybe a trade would have been better had it materialized. We will never know. It is reasonably safe to say I was wrong about Rosen. Never mind that SB is clearly an exceptional back, he possesses the type of leadership and character that is rare in a star player. He was not a good pick, he was a great pick. Ignore the talent and compare SB to OBJ, the difference is obvious. Let it go, it was good pick.

what's your actual disagreement with gratefulhead?

Stick to that instead of what you're doing so far, it's a bad look.

What you are talking about now is different. I only responded to your questionable stance that Fournette is one-dimensional. He caught the ball a lot in 2019 and clearly can run and catch. He is not one-dimensional...case closed.

This has nothing to do with your eye test, his personal issues or whether he is easily replaceable as a player.

In comment 14974357 Gatorade Dunk said:

Quote:

In comment 14974057 Big Blue '56 said: Quote: how you doing on coping with your fairly recent loss? Hey Fiddy, thanks for checking in - I really appreciate it. TBH, it's been a rough past month or so (2020 is the gift that keeps on taking) - another one of my brothers had the exact same heart attack that took his twin (thankfully he survived due to his wife jumping right in to administer CPR immediately when he went down), and then had one of our dogs run away from the dogsitter's house a couple of weeks ago (luckily, we found her after 36 hours out in the wild). I'm focusing on the fact that both of those scary moments turned out okay, which is better than the first half of the year was going.

Wow! Stay strong.

In comment 14974555 LBH15 said:

Quote:

What you are talking about now is different. I only responded to your questionable stance that Fournette is one-dimensional. He caught the ball a lot in 2019 and clearly can run and catch. He is not one-dimensional...case closed. This has nothing to do with your eye test, his personal issues or whether he is easily replaceable as a player.

Ok