Which was the correct take BUT all of a sudden in order to put the Giants down, these same people (mostly in the media) have the take of how the Giants really screwed up by letting him go. Am I crazy or are we getting gaslit?
but I thought drafting a QB was a longshot with the Eli mandate. He was a hard sell as a sure bet franchise QB imv.
I thought trading back was a good move considering how bad Reese had destroyed the talent base of the franchise. Bigger disappointment with the SB pick was not getting the OL right to maximize his talent.
BBI. Spending on a RB is stupid. No one smart over pays for aRB.
Roseman Signs Barkley for millions s more than anyone else
BBI. Crickets.
Maybe it's important to note some context.
If you're a franchise that believes you're an impact RB away from winning the Super Bowl, the juice may be worth the squeeze.
If you're a franchise desperately clinging to the hope that you can win 9 games and sneak in the playoffs, maybe it's not such a good idea.
What needs no context is the error of drafting a RB #2 overall. That was a mistake from the time that buffoon of a GM unplugged the phones until the card was handed in.
RE: I was convinced the Giants were going to draft Josh Allen
whom I thought was the most talented QB in that draft, his so-called accuracy issues notwithstanding. Drafting Barkley reminded me of New Orleans passing on Lawrence Taylor and drafting George Rogers. The Giants were never going to win anything simply because they had Barkley, just as NO never won anything simply because they had Rogers, so it made no sense to me that Schoen didn't trade Barkley last year.
If you were 'convinced' that the Giants were going to take Josh Allen you must be some kind of savant because the Giants had shown very little interest in Allen to that point and nobody in the league was talking about him as being a potential #2 pick. And your little Rogers story is actually a terrible analogy. The Saints mistake as such was that they passed on the best player in the draft to fill a need. In Barkley the Giants did get the best player in that draft.
And the contention that the pick set the franchise back is just silly and thoughtless. Barkley was the best player on this team while he was here and the record showed they had a far better record when he played than when he didn't. The only thing that set the franchise back was that because of injuries he was never able to really duplicate and build on his great first year. In fact what did the set the franchise back was the injury to Odell as he was never the same. Just imagine this team the past 5 or so years, at least offense, with a healthy Odell and a healthy Saquon.
RE: RE: I was convinced the Giants were going to draft Josh Allen
for their comical and incompetent management of assets. Drafting a RB back #2 overall was a horrible use of available resources. Letting him walk out the door for zero return was just as horrible.
The people who are hiring the people who are mismanaging the assets are where the issue is.
I get it, but I've asked this on every thread about this lately.
What could the Giants have realistically gotten in return for Barkley at the trade deadline?
Just imagine this team the past 5 or so years, at least offense, with a healthy Odell and a healthy Saquon.
Unfortunately, that's pure fantasy and not relevant.
Beckham's season averages since he left the Giants reflect a player who is neither:
44 rec, 614 yds, 3.8 TDs
Aside from a brief period in 2021 when he flashed with Matthew Stafford (a HOF QB) and the Rams, he's been either injured or largely ineffective.
My friend, do you even begin to understand the word 'healthy'! 2014-16 Odell was quite literally the most dynamic player in the entire NFL. However, he's just as clearly been nowhere near the same player since breaking his leg early in the 2017 season.
Let me also address the rather sophomoric nobody should ever draft a RB that early. The Giants didn't draft Saquon because they wanted a RB;they drafted him because he was the best player in the draft and a potential dynamic game changing playmaker for a team that had no playmakers other than an injured Odell.
I also wanted to note that the old 'we have too many holes in the roster to justify taking a playmaker' is just such patent sophomoric nonsense. Teams that win in the NFL aren't teams with the deepest rosters or the fewest holes; they're the teams with the most dynamic playmakers.
RE: RE: RE: RE: I was convinced the Giants were going to draft Josh Allen
Just imagine this team the past 5 or so years, at least offense, with a healthy Odell and a healthy Saquon.
Unfortunately, that's pure fantasy and not relevant.
Beckham's season averages since he left the Giants reflect a player who is neither:
44 rec, 614 yds, 3.8 TDs
Aside from a brief period in 2021 when he flashed with Matthew Stafford (a HOF QB) and the Rams, he's been either injured or largely ineffective.
My friend, do you even begin to understand the word 'healthy'! 2014-16 Odell was quite literally the most dynamic player in the entire NFL. However, he's just as clearly been nowhere near the same player since breaking his leg early in the 2017 season.
Let me also address the rather sophomoric nobody should ever draft a RB that early. The Giants didn't draft Saquon because they wanted a RB;they drafted him because he was the best player in the draft and a potential dynamic game changing playmaker for a team that had no playmakers other than an injured Odell.
I also wanted to note that the old 'we have too many holes in the roster to justify taking a playmaker' is just such patent sophomoric nonsense. Teams that win in the NFL aren't teams with the deepest rosters or the fewest holes; they're the teams with the most dynamic playmakers.
Today's word of the day is apparently "sophomoric". Kudos to whoever buys your toilet paper.
I understand the word "healthy". But that's a fantasy. They were not healthy. I don't see how it's a relevant discussion to imagine a scenario that didn't happen.
I'm sure in your imagination, the trio of Daniel Jones, Saquon Barkley and Odell Beckham are responsible for a lethal Giants offense that justifies everything you believe to be true about all of them - especially Jones.
Was the equivalent of putting high performance brakes on a Citroen 2CV. Sure they'll stop the car faster, but it doesn't matter too much when you can't go over 55MPH anyway.
So given that notion of the brakes etc. should the Giants in fact have taken Lawrence Taylor in 1981. At the time he was drafted as a LB on a team the one strength was LB and they had at the time a dreadful offence (in fact worse than what we have now!) My gooodness what a luxury. And then they double down and take another LB with the 3rd pick in 1984. Now that is stupid.
And just to follow up on an earlier comment its hard to keep track. In 2019 the Giants blew it by passing on the higher rated impact player (the DE Allen) to reach a bit for a QB, then blew it again this year by taking the higher rated impact player instead of reaching for the QB. One's head spins!!
takes a running back with the #2 pick. Positional value. If he hadn't gone with Josh Allen, he would have traded down.
Again, another good example of the difference between your average fan in the street who tends to think positions and your average actual football person who thinks impact players at impact positions. I agree its high unlikely Schoen or anyone else these days would take a RB with the #2 pick overall. But the Giants didn't take a RB at @2, they took Saquon Barkley, the best player in the draft and to many the best non-qb prospect to come along in years.
PS the only way Schoen or anyone takes Josh Allen at #2 is if they've got 5-6 years of hindsight to work on. In all likellihood Schoen, if he'd taken a QB would have taken the USC guy because he was the next highest rated QB. And I also suspect that they only way Schoen trades down is if he gets a 2019 first rounder as part of the deal and that wasn't happening.
So given that notion of the brakes etc. should the Giants in fact have taken Lawrence Taylor in 1981. At the time he was drafted as a LB on a team the one strength was LB and they had at the time a dreadful offence (in fact worse than what we have now!) My gooodness what a luxury. And then they double down and take another LB with the 3rd pick in 1984. Now that is stupid.
And just to follow up on an earlier comment its hard to keep track. In 2019 the Giants blew it by passing on the higher rated impact player (the DE Allen) to reach a bit for a QB, then blew it again this year by taking the higher rated impact player instead of reaching for the QB. One's head spins!!
Lawrence Taylor was drafted nominally as a LB because the terminology of "edge rusher" didn't exist until 25 years later, but he was drafted where he was because of his potential impact on the game which included (among other things) a premium trait: elite pass rush.
Not only does your case fall apart by virtue of needing to go 40 years backward to make it, it's also just invalid on its face because LT would still be a premium prospect worthy of the #2 overall pick today.
Sometimes it feels like you go out of your way to be wrong.
So given that notion of the brakes etc. should the Giants in fact have taken Lawrence Taylor in 1981. At the time he was drafted as a LB on a team the one strength was LB and they had at the time a dreadful offence (in fact worse than what we have now!) My gooodness what a luxury. And then they double down and take another LB with the 3rd pick in 1984. Now that is stupid.
And just to follow up on an earlier comment its hard to keep track. In 2019 the Giants blew it by passing on the higher rated impact player (the DE Allen) to reach a bit for a QB, then blew it again this year by taking the higher rated impact player instead of reaching for the QB. One's head spins!!
Lawrence Taylor was drafted nominally as a LB because the terminology of "edge rusher" didn't exist until 25 years later, but he was drafted where he was because of his potential impact on the game which included (among other things) a premium trait: elite pass rush.
Not only does your case fall apart by virtue of needing to go 40 years backward to make it, it's also just invalid on its face because LT would still be a premium prospect worthy of the #2 overall pick today.
Sometimes it feels like you go out of your way to be wrong.
As usual, Gator you miss the point. Of course the Giants should have taken LT; he was by far the best player available, but so was Saquon and again by far. Were there other options? Yes. Was there a no-brainer other option. Not really. And my guess in the end if the other 31 GMs in the league had the same choice the large majority would have done the same thing.
As an aside my fave comment along these lines in that we shouldn't have taken Barkley because of positional value, but we should have taken Quentin Nelson, who in case anyone was paying attention plays at the one position of lower value than RB.
As an aside my fave comment along these lines in that we shouldn't have taken Barkley because of positional value, but we should have taken Quentin Nelson, who in case anyone was paying attention plays at the one position of lower value than RB.
1999 called, and he wants his opinion on guards back. LOL - ( New Window )
As an aside my fave comment along these lines in that we shouldn't have taken Barkley because of positional value, but we should have taken Quentin Nelson, who in case anyone was paying attention plays at the one position of lower value than RB.
1999 called, and he wants his opinion on guards back. LOL - ( New Window )
Interesting point. At the same time, though, since 1999, 18 RBs have been chosen with top 10 picks at the draft; half of them in the top 5. (IN fact RBs were chosen with top5 picks in both of the two drafts before 2018) In contrast, in the same period since 1999, exactly ONE OG was chosen in the top 10 - Nelson - and in fact an OG has not been chosen with a top 5 pick since the mid-1970s.
Did Barkley ever have a good o-line to run behind? If Barkley was running behind the Eagles or Dallas lines we'd have seen multiple 1000 seasons. I don't think our team was equipped to use Barkley to the best of his ability.
Did Barkley ever have a good o-line to run behind? If Barkley was running behind the Eagles or Dallas lines we'd have seen multiple 1000 seasons. I don't think our team was equipped to use Barkley to the best of his ability.
We did see multiple 1,000 yard rushing seasons from Barkley.
Did Barkley ever have a good o-line to run behind? If Barkley was running behind the Eagles or Dallas lines we'd have seen multiple 1000 seasons. I don't think our team was equipped to use Barkley to the best of his ability.
Clearly Saquon likely would have put up better numbers on a better team; after all it is a team game. My criticism is that the team itself didn't use Saquon to the best of his abilities. He was a scatback in a 230-pound body, but we tended to use him as a Derrick Henry type ram slamming into 9-10 man fronts. And all bringing in extra blockers did was allow defences to bring more people to the LOS to stop the run.
Saquon didn't need blocking; he needed a little space and he could make people miss. I would have liked the Giants to have taken almost the exact opposite approach. Spread the field, make the defence defend the whole field and try and defend the run with 5-6 people. We should also have been using Saquon as much as a decoy. If the defences played the run, pass the ball; if they dropped off, give it to Saquon aand let him find the creases. Unfortunately we'll never know.
Again I take something of different philosophical approach to team building. Get your impact players wherever you can and fill in the other spots rather than wasting valuable early picks essentially filling holes and hoping to add the impact players once the rest of the roster is filled out.
RE: RE: RE: ... should have taken a QB or trade down.
I was 100% behind taking Barkley in 2018. I didn't like the QBs:
Darnold seemed to me like a low ceiling pick (proved correct)
Rosen seemed like a rich boy / not serious about football (proved correct)
Mayfield seemed like a "one year, one hit wonder" (he isn't a bust, but isn't a franchise QB. Not worth first overall pick)
Allen seemed to be a low floor, high ceiling guy that had a decent bust potential (got the high ceiling right, but I would have missed out on him).
Barkley seemed like a safe pick and the RB market, although down, wasn't where it is today. I thought Barkley could be the kind of player that McCaffery turned out to be.
Although not known at the time, Gettleman refusing to pick up the phone for a potential trade is worthy of the Giants being mocked. He likely could have accrued more picks and still drafted Barkley. With at least 4 QB being considered to 10 QB prospects, not picking up the phone was asinine.
This is a side note. Did DG literally refuse to pick up the phone? I know he said it but he was kind of flamboyant in shit he said. Maybe it was his way to emphasizing how much he liked and believed in Barkley. "I liked this generational player so much that I didn't even pick up the phone when trade proposals came in". Isn't it more likely that he picked up the phone and just thought there wasn't enough value? But saying that wouldn't be very Gettleman like.
Picking Barkley was fine with me at the time IF WE WERE "FORCED" TO KEEP THE PICK. I wanted to trade down if we did not like the QBs. It seems like the pick would have had a lot of value with three QBs on the board. It seems like the Giants correctly assessed Rosen and Darnold but failed to capitalize.
I thought trading back was a good move considering how bad Reese had destroyed the talent base of the franchise. Bigger disappointment with the SB pick was not getting the OL right to maximize his talent.
BBI. Spending on a RB is stupid. No one smart over pays for aRB.
Roseman Signs Barkley for millions s more than anyone else
BBI. Crickets.
Maybe it's important to note some context.
If you're a franchise that believes you're an impact RB away from winning the Super Bowl, the juice may be worth the squeeze.
If you're a franchise desperately clinging to the hope that you can win 9 games and sneak in the playoffs, maybe it's not such a good idea.
What needs no context is the error of drafting a RB #2 overall. That was a mistake from the time that buffoon of a GM unplugged the phones until the card was handed in.
If you were 'convinced' that the Giants were going to take Josh Allen you must be some kind of savant because the Giants had shown very little interest in Allen to that point and nobody in the league was talking about him as being a potential #2 pick. And your little Rogers story is actually a terrible analogy. The Saints mistake as such was that they passed on the best player in the draft to fill a need. In Barkley the Giants did get the best player in that draft.
And the contention that the pick set the franchise back is just silly and thoughtless. Barkley was the best player on this team while he was here and the record showed they had a far better record when he played than when he didn't. The only thing that set the franchise back was that because of injuries he was never able to really duplicate and build on his great first year. In fact what did the set the franchise back was the injury to Odell as he was never the same. Just imagine this team the past 5 or so years, at least offense, with a healthy Odell and a healthy Saquon.
Unfortunately, that's pure fantasy and not relevant.
Beckham's season averages since he left the Giants reflect a player who is neither:
44 rec, 614 yds, 3.8 TDs
Aside from a brief period in 2021 when he flashed with Matthew Stafford (a HOF QB) and the Rams, he's been either injured or largely ineffective.
The people who are hiring the people who are mismanaging the assets are where the issue is.
I get it, but I've asked this on every thread about this lately.
What could the Giants have realistically gotten in return for Barkley at the trade deadline?
Quote:
Just imagine this team the past 5 or so years, at least offense, with a healthy Odell and a healthy Saquon.
Unfortunately, that's pure fantasy and not relevant.
Beckham's season averages since he left the Giants reflect a player who is neither:
44 rec, 614 yds, 3.8 TDs
Aside from a brief period in 2021 when he flashed with Matthew Stafford (a HOF QB) and the Rams, he's been either injured or largely ineffective.
My friend, do you even begin to understand the word 'healthy'! 2014-16 Odell was quite literally the most dynamic player in the entire NFL. However, he's just as clearly been nowhere near the same player since breaking his leg early in the 2017 season.
Let me also address the rather sophomoric nobody should ever draft a RB that early. The Giants didn't draft Saquon because they wanted a RB;they drafted him because he was the best player in the draft and a potential dynamic game changing playmaker for a team that had no playmakers other than an injured Odell.
I also wanted to note that the old 'we have too many holes in the roster to justify taking a playmaker' is just such patent sophomoric nonsense. Teams that win in the NFL aren't teams with the deepest rosters or the fewest holes; they're the teams with the most dynamic playmakers.
Quote:
In comment 16554586 Snorkels said:
Quote:
Just imagine this team the past 5 or so years, at least offense, with a healthy Odell and a healthy Saquon.
Unfortunately, that's pure fantasy and not relevant.
Beckham's season averages since he left the Giants reflect a player who is neither:
44 rec, 614 yds, 3.8 TDs
Aside from a brief period in 2021 when he flashed with Matthew Stafford (a HOF QB) and the Rams, he's been either injured or largely ineffective.
My friend, do you even begin to understand the word 'healthy'! 2014-16 Odell was quite literally the most dynamic player in the entire NFL. However, he's just as clearly been nowhere near the same player since breaking his leg early in the 2017 season.
Let me also address the rather sophomoric nobody should ever draft a RB that early. The Giants didn't draft Saquon because they wanted a RB;they drafted him because he was the best player in the draft and a potential dynamic game changing playmaker for a team that had no playmakers other than an injured Odell.
I also wanted to note that the old 'we have too many holes in the roster to justify taking a playmaker' is just such patent sophomoric nonsense. Teams that win in the NFL aren't teams with the deepest rosters or the fewest holes; they're the teams with the most dynamic playmakers.
Today's word of the day is apparently "sophomoric". Kudos to whoever buys your toilet paper.
I understand the word "healthy". But that's a fantasy. They were not healthy. I don't see how it's a relevant discussion to imagine a scenario that didn't happen.
I'm sure in your imagination, the trio of Daniel Jones, Saquon Barkley and Odell Beckham are responsible for a lethal Giants offense that justifies everything you believe to be true about all of them - especially Jones.
And just to follow up on an earlier comment its hard to keep track. In 2019 the Giants blew it by passing on the higher rated impact player (the DE Allen) to reach a bit for a QB, then blew it again this year by taking the higher rated impact player instead of reaching for the QB. One's head spins!!
Again, another good example of the difference between your average fan in the street who tends to think positions and your average actual football person who thinks impact players at impact positions. I agree its high unlikely Schoen or anyone else these days would take a RB with the #2 pick overall. But the Giants didn't take a RB at @2, they took Saquon Barkley, the best player in the draft and to many the best non-qb prospect to come along in years.
PS the only way Schoen or anyone takes Josh Allen at #2 is if they've got 5-6 years of hindsight to work on. In all likellihood Schoen, if he'd taken a QB would have taken the USC guy because he was the next highest rated QB. And I also suspect that they only way Schoen trades down is if he gets a 2019 first rounder as part of the deal and that wasn't happening.
And just to follow up on an earlier comment its hard to keep track. In 2019 the Giants blew it by passing on the higher rated impact player (the DE Allen) to reach a bit for a QB, then blew it again this year by taking the higher rated impact player instead of reaching for the QB. One's head spins!!
Lawrence Taylor was drafted nominally as a LB because the terminology of "edge rusher" didn't exist until 25 years later, but he was drafted where he was because of his potential impact on the game which included (among other things) a premium trait: elite pass rush.
Not only does your case fall apart by virtue of needing to go 40 years backward to make it, it's also just invalid on its face because LT would still be a premium prospect worthy of the #2 overall pick today.
Sometimes it feels like you go out of your way to be wrong.
Quote:
So given that notion of the brakes etc. should the Giants in fact have taken Lawrence Taylor in 1981. At the time he was drafted as a LB on a team the one strength was LB and they had at the time a dreadful offence (in fact worse than what we have now!) My gooodness what a luxury. And then they double down and take another LB with the 3rd pick in 1984. Now that is stupid.
And just to follow up on an earlier comment its hard to keep track. In 2019 the Giants blew it by passing on the higher rated impact player (the DE Allen) to reach a bit for a QB, then blew it again this year by taking the higher rated impact player instead of reaching for the QB. One's head spins!!
Lawrence Taylor was drafted nominally as a LB because the terminology of "edge rusher" didn't exist until 25 years later, but he was drafted where he was because of his potential impact on the game which included (among other things) a premium trait: elite pass rush.
Not only does your case fall apart by virtue of needing to go 40 years backward to make it, it's also just invalid on its face because LT would still be a premium prospect worthy of the #2 overall pick today.
Sometimes it feels like you go out of your way to be wrong.
As usual, Gator you miss the point. Of course the Giants should have taken LT; he was by far the best player available, but so was Saquon and again by far. Were there other options? Yes. Was there a no-brainer other option. Not really. And my guess in the end if the other 31 GMs in the league had the same choice the large majority would have done the same thing.
As an aside my fave comment along these lines in that we shouldn't have taken Barkley because of positional value, but we should have taken Quentin Nelson, who in case anyone was paying attention plays at the one position of lower value than RB.
1999 called, and he wants his opinion on guards back.
LOL - ( New Window )
Quote:
As an aside my fave comment along these lines in that we shouldn't have taken Barkley because of positional value, but we should have taken Quentin Nelson, who in case anyone was paying attention plays at the one position of lower value than RB.
1999 called, and he wants his opinion on guards back. LOL - ( New Window )
Interesting point. At the same time, though, since 1999, 18 RBs have been chosen with top 10 picks at the draft; half of them in the top 5. (IN fact RBs were chosen with top5 picks in both of the two drafts before 2018) In contrast, in the same period since 1999, exactly ONE OG was chosen in the top 10 - Nelson - and in fact an OG has not been chosen with a top 5 pick since the mid-1970s.
We did see multiple 1,000 yard rushing seasons from Barkley.
Clearly Saquon likely would have put up better numbers on a better team; after all it is a team game. My criticism is that the team itself didn't use Saquon to the best of his abilities. He was a scatback in a 230-pound body, but we tended to use him as a Derrick Henry type ram slamming into 9-10 man fronts. And all bringing in extra blockers did was allow defences to bring more people to the LOS to stop the run.
Saquon didn't need blocking; he needed a little space and he could make people miss. I would have liked the Giants to have taken almost the exact opposite approach. Spread the field, make the defence defend the whole field and try and defend the run with 5-6 people. We should also have been using Saquon as much as a decoy. If the defences played the run, pass the ball; if they dropped off, give it to Saquon aand let him find the creases. Unfortunately we'll never know.
Again I take something of different philosophical approach to team building. Get your impact players wherever you can and fill in the other spots rather than wasting valuable early picks essentially filling holes and hoping to add the impact players once the rest of the roster is filled out.
Quote:
I was 100% behind taking Barkley in 2018. I didn't like the QBs:
Darnold seemed to me like a low ceiling pick (proved correct)
Rosen seemed like a rich boy / not serious about football (proved correct)
Mayfield seemed like a "one year, one hit wonder" (he isn't a bust, but isn't a franchise QB. Not worth first overall pick)
Allen seemed to be a low floor, high ceiling guy that had a decent bust potential (got the high ceiling right, but I would have missed out on him).
Barkley seemed like a safe pick and the RB market, although down, wasn't where it is today. I thought Barkley could be the kind of player that McCaffery turned out to be.
Although not known at the time, Gettleman refusing to pick up the phone for a potential trade is worthy of the Giants being mocked. He likely could have accrued more picks and still drafted Barkley. With at least 4 QB being considered to 10 QB prospects, not picking up the phone was asinine.
This is a side note. Did DG literally refuse to pick up the phone? I know he said it but he was kind of flamboyant in shit he said. Maybe it was his way to emphasizing how much he liked and believed in Barkley. "I liked this generational player so much that I didn't even pick up the phone when trade proposals came in". Isn't it more likely that he picked up the phone and just thought there wasn't enough value? But saying that wouldn't be very Gettleman like.
Picking Barkley was fine with me at the time IF WE WERE "FORCED" TO KEEP THE PICK. I wanted to trade down if we did not like the QBs. It seems like the pick would have had a lot of value with three QBs on the board. It seems like the Giants correctly assessed Rosen and Darnold but failed to capitalize.