2 yards and with Bell and you try a pass 
NFL Thread 2019
- Thread starter RobinLFC
- Start date
OBJ won me my fantasy matchup
MNF coverage is so bad. Instead of talking about Nick Chubb getting blasted there, they're talking with some lame ref about yesterday's poor calls. Don't care to see Booger McFarland LSU highlights either.
They tend to ramble about random shit when it’s not a close game.MNF coverage is so bad. Instead of talking about Nick Chubb getting blasted there, they're talking with some lame ref about yesterday's poor calls. Don't care to see Booger McFarland LSU highlights either.
Don't they know some of us have fantasy players to worry about!
He would have been a guy to develop for the future. If he hits you can contend for 15 years. Barkley did hit and they still arent contending. The best case scenario happened and they are 5-13 with him.
Wait, you're suggesting the Giants would have been better off passing on Saquon and drafting Darnold? Saquon is a can't-miss. I know Darnold was highly rated while at USC, but the list of SC QBs who played great in college and sucked in the NFL is long and distinguished (Cody Kessler, Matt Barkley, Mark Sanchez, John David Booty, Matt Leinart). To find the last great NFL QB from SC, you gotta go all the way back to Carson Palmer.
I am not even a big Darnold fan but absolutely yes. They should have even taken Josh Allen (who I am very skeptical of) over Barkley. A franchise QB lets you contend for 15 years so like @altodevil said you should keep doing anything it takes to get one. Barkley was the 14th ranked running back by DVOA last year and is 5th so far this year.
But lets just say he's the best running back in the league for the sake of argument. Let's say he is the superstar that traditional stats suggest he is. What has that gotten them? They are 5-13 since he was drafted. Adrian Peterson was the best running back of his generation. The Vikings got 7 good years out of him. Tomlinson was the best of his, the Chargers got 7 good years from him. So let's grant 1) that Barkley is the best of his generation and 2) that he will stay healthy enough to give 7 good years to the Giants.
Well last year they went 5-11. This year they are going to be terrible again. Does anything think they contend next year? The year after? An optimistic is that Barkley plays on 3 playoff teams with the Giants. So they are paying (what was at the time they drafted him) top 5 money at his position to not even be a good team. It's insane.
I can show you plenty of great running backs on bad teams. You can't show me great quarterbacks on bad teams in the modern NFL. Running backs simply do not effect wins and losses enough to draft in the first round let alone second overall in a great QB draft when a team has Eli Manning at 37 years old.
This isn't even getting into the godfather offer the Colts got for trading down. The giants could have traded down, got a huge haul of picks and still chosen from Rosen, Allen, Jackson, Nelson, Fitzpatrick, James, etc.
@Eboue Not arguing the value of the QB position. But simply drafting dudes because they play QB in hopes of landing a franchise QB doesn’t seem like a sound strategy.
And while I’m not too familiar with DVOA, I gotta seriously question a rating which ranks Saquon #5 and Carlos Hyde #1. NY’s problems are plentiful and extend way past the QB position.
Also, to properly judge last year’s QB draft class we’ll need to give it some time. Who knows, maybe Daniel Jones will be their answer?
And while I’m not too familiar with DVOA, I gotta seriously question a rating which ranks Saquon #5 and Carlos Hyde #1. NY’s problems are plentiful and extend way past the QB position.
Also, to properly judge last year’s QB draft class we’ll need to give it some time. Who knows, maybe Daniel Jones will be their answer?
I find it a tad funny that you say this yet you draft 4 QBs in your Dynasty League
As @Man of Leisure already said, drafting a QB you're not convinced of with such a high pick is not a good strategy either. And of course it's too early to tell but neither Allen, nor Rosen, nor Darnold (nor Trubisky, nor Winston, nor Mariota) look like franchise QBs at this point and they were all drafted super high as well. Lamar Jackson was the last pick of the first round IIRC and he looks like the best pick of the bunch right now.
I agree with the overall opinion that you don't need to draft an RB that high because there are enough examples of late(r)-round RBs tearing up the league immediately, but just drafting a QB that high as a dart throw seems daft to me as well. Drafting an all-Pro defensive player doesn't solve all your problems in one season either. Derwin James wouldn't have gotten them to the playoffs last season. Jamal Adams is one of the best safeties in the league and he can't turn around the Jets franchise on his own, neither can Barkley with the Giants. You indeed need a great QB, but building around that guy in a smart way is just as important (something the Colts and the Packers repeatedly failed to do with theirs imo).
Yes, if I'm not mistaken very early the Ravens told us that he improved his passing and decision making but they still decided to go run heavy which was a very smart decision. I'm glad that he is turning into a pretty good player, I really liked him at Louisville.
You don't actually have a choice because every year you will have standout rookie RBs which isn't true for QBs, starting caliber QBs are rare and there isn't even 32 of them available. There is also the small issue of contracts, QBs are expensive, QBs that start games are very expensive(regardless of their level), so if you don't have a franchise QB you need to draft one and 99% of starting QBs are drafted very high. Otherwise you end up like the Vikings with a great defense, very good players on offense but a team that is only a playoff contender.
And the same is true for the offensive line, cornerbacks and to some extent pass rushers.
Why the feck are they even risking this if Rothlisberger is out for the season? They could well draft their future QB if its in the top 10, which it will most likely be.
Bolded part is just not true - you only need to look at this year's draft which was considered a very average RB class, let alone with a standout RB like Barkley or Zeke in it.
Zeke was drafted 4th overall and they drafted Dak in the 4th round of that same draft. They went from 4-12 to 13-3 and a playoff bye. Now I realize that finding a franchise QB in the latter rounds is a lottery and far from a sure thing but it does prove that there is no ONE blueprint at building a succesful team. Goff and Wentz were off the board when they had the 4th pick. Would they be better off now having chosen Ramsey instead of Zeke? I'm not convinced of that. Would they be better off now if they had "kept trying to find their franchise QB" and drafted one of the next four QB picked (Hackenberg, Kessler, Brissett or Lynch, of which only 1 player is currently on an actual NFL roster only three years later)? No they wouldn't be.
The Giants are just mismanaged all over the place but if Daniel Jones turns out to be a solid starter he could turn their franchise around rather quickly. Or what if they end up with Tua, Hurts, Herbert and they turn out to be way better than Allen, Darnold or Rosen? A solid overall draft strategy is what defines a good franchise, not repeatedly picking a QB if you have a high draft pick. One player will almost never transform an entire franchise.
I’m guessing they believe Rudolph is the future, which if his college performances are any indication, would be a good guess.
Your first sentence is baseless because we are in week 2 and the rest has little to do with the point made. You need to draft QBs every year if you don't have one and you will need to draft them high too. This has nothing to do with the particular case of the Giants.
The differential between elite RBs and good RBs just isn't anywhere near sufficient to draft them high or pay them huge money.
Saquon is a beast, but taking him when they did was stupid.
Saquon is a beast, but taking him when they did was stupid.
Exactly, they would have been happy with Michel, Chubb or even Lindsay. But you are not going to be happy with the 4th to 7th best QB prospect in a draft year.
Yes, they would. Cornerbacks are the second most valuable players.
Except that the Pats seem happy enough with theirs? The Colts just paid theirs, the Ravens are playing and winning with theirs, and the Steelers seem perfectly happy to continue with theirs.
They wouldn't have been as happy with Michel who dealt with knee problems as soon as he got into the NFL, let alone with Lindsay who had a freak year and has already regressed to the mean, it seems.
They wouldn't. They drafted Byron Jones in the first round of the draft the year before who is an excellent corner himself.
I'm not following you here. The initial post that you quoted specifically said "if you don't have a franchise QB". It's as if you didn't read or care about my post and only wanted to say something.
The initial point I took issue with was that Eboue seemed to imply that you almost always need to spend your first (high) pick on a QB if you don't have a franchise QB, because I simply disagree with that.
You literally said "99% of starting QBs are drafted very high" which also simply isn't true, and that's what I pointed out with Brady, Brissett, Jackson and Rudolph (and you can add Cousins, Dalton, Wilson, Garoppolo, Prescott, Brees and Carr to that list). That's 11 out of 32 starting QBs who were drafted with the last pick of the first round or outside of the first round, i.e. not "very high".
You don't need a great QB to win the Super Bowl.
Most of the QBs you mentioned aren't starting caliber. And surely you realize that 99% wasn't to be taken literally?
As for the last sentence it's disingenuous because you are basing it on exceptional scenarios and not something that is actually planned or repeatable. More of often than not Superbowl champs have very good to great quaterback and are above average on every phase of play.
It's one thing not to be taken literally and another to be some 35% off the mark though.
And in what world are those QBs not starting caliber? There are a few All-Pros in there, and another few veterans like Cousins, Dalton and Carr (even Prescott by now who's in his fourth consecutive starting year). Just because you think Cousins isn't good enough doesn't mean that he's not a starting caliber QB. He's on his way to a fifth full 16-game season which obviously proves he's starting caliber, or better than what his teams were drafting to compete with him for the starting job.
Okay, lets entertain that point. Can these three player make a team win? They have all had support from great players and none of them have influenced their teams positively. If we go back to the initial point these players are the perfect example of why you need to draft QBs over and over until you get a franchise QB because the .500 QBs won't elevate your team and you will most likely not perform in the playoffs, even if you have a great defense or great running backs/receivers. And their contracts when they aren't rookies do not match with their contributions which is also an issue because these players need great support and it costs money that you can't put on their contracts.
Of course there are exceptions like the the Ravens who won Superbowls with all time great defenses.
The Broncos recently did it with Manning, Nick Foles won the Eagles a SB. There are enough examples imo. I agree with the bolded bit, by the way.
Still disagree with the overall point. If you have a capable starting QB, you're not gonna waste first round pick after first round pick because you could potentially have a franchise QB at hand, such a draft strategy would also seriously damage your long-term future. You go for a guy you think is worth it. If the Giants thought that none of those QBs were (I've yet to see anything to suggest otherwise, to their credit), then it was a perfectly fine move to pass up on them. That they should have drafted an RB instead is another debate for me.
Having two good corners is better than one. While it doesn't really matter, who runs behind one of the best offensive lines in the league for the last few years.
I just don't get why the Giants get all the "Barkley at #2" shit when there have been far worse picks in the recent past. The 49ers with Gabbert and Hoyer passed up on Mahomes and Watson. The Jags and Titans with Bortles and Mariota passed up on them. At least those QBs have proven that they're franchise QBs and that almost every team picking someone else ahead of them made a mistake.
I can't for the life of me say that the Giants made a mistake by not picking Josh Rosen or Josh Allen. They've done feck all to suggest they'll be mainstays in the NFL so far.
I can't for the life of me say that the Giants made a mistake by not picking Josh Rosen or Josh Allen. They've done feck all to suggest they'll be mainstays in the NFL so far.
Wentz put the Eagles in the playoffs and their defense/coaching won them a SB. Manning while a shadow of his former self was still a pretty valuable player as a play caller on the field and they had an all time great defense.
And my point has nothing to do with the Giants who still drafted a QB fairely high. But if you want my opinion on Barkley, the good pick was Nelson.
I said you don't need a great QB to win the SB. The Eagles winning it all with their D and coaching despite having Foles proves exactly that. The Broncos just asked Manning not to lose them the game, there are a lot of QBs that could do that paired with that defense. Even Brady last year was just a game manager rather than a game winner for the Patriots.
That would give his high school him, Cordarrelle Patterson, and Johnathan Joseph all as starters in the NFL.
Along with the reigning Miss USA.
But none of that is planned, it's a weird argument when we are talking about team building and draft planning. The Eagles didn't plan for Wentz to be injured and he is the one who went 11-1 during the regular season, not Foles. The Eagles draft QBs regularly until they found Wentz. And the Eagles are an example of the point that I made, they invested heavily on their offensive line, drafted their QB high, spent a lot of money on their secondary and pass rushers, got rid of their great RB and replaced him with a group of cheaper backs.
They took a QB they thought would be good the next year, what's wrong with that? This year they did what you wanted and picked a QB with that high pick. So they actually drafted the way you would have wanted to and they're awful. Nothing wrong with taking Barkley when they did. The Rams picked Gurley high one year, found theirQB the next year and it seemed to work out for them.
Almost as impressive as St. Thomas Aquinas HS in Fort Lauderdale, who have something like 14 players in the NFL, which is more than a number of prominent colleges.
Gurley's contract was hilariously stupid, even more so when they basically ignored him in the Super Bowl.
This is, I must say, a bizarre discussion.
Firstly I agree with the notion that you should not be drafting a running back in the first round unless you’re already a play-off team and you’re a running back away from taking the leap to true contender. Even then, the opportunity cost of making that pick is incredibly big and in the purest view, too much. But in such circumstances is understandable.
Secondly though, the idea of drafting a QB in the first round if you don’t have a franchise QB is also false.
The truth is, this discussion is bizarre because it’s taking a ridiculously binary view on drafting. There are fundamental principles to drafting but the only one that truly matters is having a plan, a robust strategy, and executing it.
The issue with the Giants isn’t that they drafted Barkley (they shouldn’t have) - drafting Barkley is a symptom of the wider issue for them, which is that they appear to have no long term plan or strategy. That’s the real issue with a team like the Giants.
Firstly I agree with the notion that you should not be drafting a running back in the first round unless you’re already a play-off team and you’re a running back away from taking the leap to true contender. Even then, the opportunity cost of making that pick is incredibly big and in the purest view, too much. But in such circumstances is understandable.
Secondly though, the idea of drafting a QB in the first round if you don’t have a franchise QB is also false.
The truth is, this discussion is bizarre because it’s taking a ridiculously binary view on drafting. There are fundamental principles to drafting but the only one that truly matters is having a plan, a robust strategy, and executing it.
The issue with the Giants isn’t that they drafted Barkley (they shouldn’t have) - drafting Barkley is a symptom of the wider issue for them, which is that they appear to have no long term plan or strategy. That’s the real issue with a team like the Giants.
STA is legit. They impressed the hell out of me when they beat Byrnes back in 09.
Saquon keeps the ticket money and fans interested. But they will never win with him.
To win or be competitive:
- Elite quarterback and above average defense (eg Manning on the Colts)
- Above average quarterback and elite defense (eg Patriots)
Running backs are a luxury.
To win or be competitive:
- Elite quarterback and above average defense (eg Manning on the Colts)
- Above average quarterback and elite defense (eg Patriots)
Running backs are a luxury.
I agree wholeheartedly with this.