NFL Thread 2019

Can't argue with the results. His throwing technique while it doesn't look pretty, is certainly effective. Add in his running threat, and he could be devastating.

I think that his throwing motion is generally pretty good, last week I was marvelling at how compact his delivery is with so little wasted movement. He still improvises with sidearms, and he missed a couple of gimmes this week but generally he seems to have really worked on his mechanics and there's some real zip compared to the floaty balls he was delivering last year. He's still going to be more effective between the numbers than outside, but that pass to Brown was perfect in such a tight window.

I've watched years of Flacco locking on to guys, not going through progessions, and taking so long in his delivery that he was a statue back there. I said on another forum that the most promising part of Lamar's passing game was his eyes were always moving, and now he's worked on the mechanical aspect of his delivery it's really paying off. So much criticism of him last year was nonsense, that he would always look to run; he would scan his receivers until he passed the LOS, he didn't look at his first read and then bolt. He wants to pass. He uses his legs when the coverage is tight and he has room to move into. The big gains in the Cards game were because they had tight coverage down the field and the DL/LBs failed to contain the outside, so he had half the field open to him.

Don't get me wrong, I still think he will continue to miss on some easy throws and make some bad decisions, his mechanics will break down under pressure, but when he is as mobile as he is he can make up for it and turn broken plays into gains.
 
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.

It worked for the Rams because it formed part of a bigger picture. They aren’t good because they took Gurley and then Goff. They are good because of the countless other moves they made throughout the franchise to improve.

If you’ve got such a plan in place by all means you can do this. But that doesn’t change the fact that a) it’s the overall strategy that made them successful, and b) that whilst it all has worked out, taking Gurley was not necessarily correct.

The underlying truth that, I think, is sound, is that you rarely should be taking a running back at a high draft pick because finding good running backs in later rounds or in free agency isn’t as hard as other positions. Not to mention, the direct impact on results between the very top running backs and mediocre running backs isn’t as big as many other positions.
 
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.

I didn't suggest that you can only draft a QB in the first round, I said that you will have to draft QBs over and over. And that starters are for the most part drafted very high. What I suggested isn't actually binary because it's based on the idea that you won't be able to afford a .500 QB that isn't on a rookie contract if you want to be a contender, you have to anticipate that contract extension and later round QBs have less chances to be successful which increase the amount of QBs that you will most likely draft.
 
I would have much rather the Giants take Nelson or Ward with that second pick or trade it and get more future picks than draft Barkley or Darnold. Especially if the GM knew Eli gets to decide for how long he's going to continue playing even if he looks like Brandon Weeden out there.
 
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.
Well yeah, this whole discussion stands or falls with the fact that it's the Giants involved of course. It's not solely the Giants that have these structural problems though - the Jags drafted Ramsey 5th overall, achieved feck all with him and now he wants to be traded. It doesn't matter who you pick if you don't have an overall strategy in place indeed.

Should the Giants have picked Barkley #2 overall? Probably not. But let's say it's a franchise with a good organization that knows what it's doing, I wouldn't have that much of a problem with a team like that picking Barkley at #2 (on a stand-alone basis) if they continue to build a solid team, e.g. like the Rams did (went from picking an RB top-10 to the Super Bowl and an NFC powerhouse in a few years thanks to free agency additions and outstanding coaching). Picking an RB in the first round won't make or break your future if you do everything else right. It's just that the Giants very evidently fail to do that part so Barkley suddenly looks like a horrible pick, which he's not imo. They could've picked Nelson to give Manning 2 more seconds to make an errant throw or have Rashad Jennings and Shane Vereen pick up 2 or 3 yards every first down - that wouldn't have made them any better than they are now.
 
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.

There are many different ways to win beyond the two you listed (which BTW involve hall of famers). The Eagles just won the big game with a journeyman backup QB and RB by committee. The Giants can easily get a good QB if they draft wisely at which point they will be in business. They’ve won two of their 4 Super Bowls over the past few decades with average QBs (Simms and Hostedler), so they're capable of doing it again.
 
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.

If a team is a playoff team then a RB won't take you to the promised land. A team would be better off having more depth at corner, wide receiver, d-line or o-line then using a first round pick on a RB.

Well yeah, this whole discussion stands or falls with the fact that it's the Giants involved of course. It's not solely the Giants that have these structural problems though - the Jags drafted Ramsey 5th overall, achieved feck all with him and now he wants to be traded. It doesn't matter who you pick if you don't have an overall strategy in place indeed.

Should the Giants have picked Barkley #2 overall? Probably not. But let's say it's a franchise with a good organization that knows what it's doing, I wouldn't have that much of a problem with a team like that picking Barkley at #2 (on a stand-alone basis) if they continue to build a solid team, e.g. like the Rams did (went from picking an RB top-10 to the Super Bowl and an NFC powerhouse in a few years thanks to free agency additions and outstanding coaching). Picking an RB in the first round won't make or break your future if you do everything else right. It's just that the Giants very evidently fail to do that part so Barkley suddenly looks like a horrible pick, which he's not imo. They could've picked Nelson to give Manning 2 more seconds to make an errant throw or have Rashad Jennings and Shane Vereen pick up 2 or 3 yards every first down - that wouldn't have made them any better than they are now.

Getting Blake Bortles to the playoffs is an achievement.
 
I don't think there is a position in team sport more valuable than QB. So on that basis I would 100% agree with @JPRouve point that you keep drafting a QB , or at least the No. 1 goal of any team should be to find their franchise QB.
 
I don't think there is a position in team sport more valuable than QB. So on that basis I would 100% agree with @JPRouve point that you keep drafting a QB , or at least the No. 1 goal of any team should be to find their franchise QB.

I don’t think anyone’s disagreeing there but I think the point of contention is spending every top draft pick each year on one.
 
It's not solely the Giants that have these structural problems though - the Jags drafted Ramsey 5th overall, achieved feck all with him and now he wants to be traded. It doesn't matter who you pick if you don't have an overall strategy in place indeed.

They made it to the AFC Championship Game with him as first team all pro.
 
I didn't suggest that you can only draft a QB in the first round, I said that you will have to draft QBs over and over. And that starters are for the most part drafted very high. What I suggested isn't actually binary because it's based on the idea that you won't be able to afford a .500 QB that isn't on a rookie contract if you want to be a contender, you have to anticipate that contract extension and later round QBs have less chances to be successful which increase the amount of QBs that you will most likely draft.

I’m not disagreeing that, if you need a QB, chances are the best way to get one is drafting high. Even trading up.

I’m just saying that you can’t review one pick, or a draft, or even multiple drafts, and view it that narrowly. A team might need a QB but it doesn’t make it the top priority every draft. Plenty of good rookie QBs flopped because they didn’t have any support. No targets, no supporting run game, no protection. QB is such a tough and important position that without the right framework you can take an incredibly talented QB and make them redundant and even permanently shit if you don’t have such structure.

Therefore you have to view things collectively. Will the QBs this year work in our system? Will they have time to learn and a platform to succeed? If the answer is no then I think it’s perfectly fine instead to focus your top end picks on building that structure and waiting another year for a QB who will fit better and even have a better chance at success.

I think we can all agree that if you go down that road though, drafting a RB is not the answer.
 
If you don't have a QB you pay up in the draft to get one, and hope you strike gold, but you give them a couple of years to work it out. Even if you have one you perhaps take mid to late round fliers like the Pats do cause you have a backup plan and and something of potential value to trade.
 
@JPRouve

If I think about the Vikings for example, it’s a plausible argument that you should trade up or spend your first rounder on a QB because you’ve got all that “stuff” in place for them to succeed.

But if I think about the Dolphins, drafting the best QB next year isn’t a sure fire success.

Like I said, QB is a complicated position. The same QB drafted by the Dolphins and Vikings could and almost certainly would have vastly different rookie campaigns and even longer term careers in the NFL.
 
I’m not disagreeing that, if you need a QB, chances are the best way to get one is drafting high. Even trading up.

I’m just saying that you can’t review one pick, or a draft, or even multiple drafts, and view it that narrowly. A team might need a QB but it doesn’t make it the top priority every draft. Plenty of good rookie QBs flopped because they didn’t have any support. No targets, no supporting run game, no protection. QB is such a tough and important position that without the right framework you can take an incredibly talented QB and make them redundant and even permanently shit if you don’t have such structure.

Therefore you have to view things collectively. Will the QBs this year work in our system? Will they have time to learn and a platform to succeed? If the answer is no then I think it’s perfectly fine instead to focus your top end picks on building that structure and waiting another year for a QB who will fit better and even have a better chance at success.

I think we can all agree that if you go down that road though, drafting a RB is not the answer.

I see your point but I didn't suggest what you wrote. I didn't suggest that you should consider it the only priority every year which is why I said that my point also applies to the Oline, pass rushers and cornerbacks.
 
They made it to the AFC Championship Game with him as first team all pro.
I'm not doubting his talent, I think he's the best corner in the league just like I think Zeke and Barkley are the best two RBs in the league.

They didn't get to the Championship game because they drafted Ramsey though - they added two Pro Bowl pass rushers and struck gold with later round picks like Ngakoue and Smith. As mentioned, it's the overall plan and rationale behind a pick that makes or breaks your strategy, not one pick in isolation.
 
I don’t think anyone’s disagreeing there but I think the point of contention is spending every top draft pick each year on one.

I’m not disagreeing that, if you need a QB, chances are the best way to get one is drafting high. Even trading up.

I’m just saying that you can’t review one pick, or a draft, or even multiple drafts, and view it that narrowly. A team might need a QB but it doesn’t make it the top priority every draft. Plenty of good rookie QBs flopped because they didn’t have any support. No targets, no supporting run game, no protection. QB is such a tough and important position that without the right framework you can take an incredibly talented QB and make them redundant and even permanently shit if you don’t have such structure.

Therefore you have to view things collectively. Will the QBs this year work in our system? Will they have time to learn and a platform to succeed? If the answer is no then I think it’s perfectly fine instead to focus your top end picks on building that structure and waiting another year for a QB who will fit better and even have a better chance at success.

I think we can all agree that if you go down that road though, drafting a RB is not the answer.

@JPRouve

If I think about the Vikings for example, it’s a plausible argument that you should trade up or spend your first rounder on a QB because you’ve got all that “stuff” in place for them to succeed.

But if I think about the Dolphins, drafting the best QB next year isn’t a sure fire success.

Like I said, QB is a complicated position. The same QB drafted by the Dolphins and Vikings could and almost certainly would have vastly different rookie campaigns and even longer term careers in the NFL.

Regarding your first bolded point, that would be most people's issue with Giants pick.

Couldn't agree more with your 2nd bolded point.

The question then becomes do you get draft a QB first (and hope he is the franchise QB) or the supporting cast first, I guess depends on who is available. You could very well value Nelson more than Darnold and wouldn't be wrong to take Nelson ahead of Darnold, but people will kill you.
 
Regarding your first bolded point, that would be most people's issue with Giants pick.

Couldn't agree more with your 2nd bolded point.

The question then becomes do you get draft a QB first (and hope he is the franchise QB) or the supporting cast first, I guess depends on who is available. You could very well value Nelson more than Darnold and wouldn't be wrong to take Nelson ahead of Darnold, but people will kill you.

I think it also depends on what you have and don’t have currently.

If I’m the Giants, I have Eli Manning. He’s on the way down, but a respected QB. It means 1) you have a veteran who has a lot of experience to teach. 2) you have time. You don’t need to rush bringing your rookie in if they aren’t ready. So for me you go would go QB first.

If I’m the Dolphins really it’s who is available but also you know that you’ll almost certainly be pressured into playing that guy straight away. Essentially what’s happening now with Murray at Arizona. You’re taking a big risk there in my view. I think unless there’s someone you really want, you build support first and eventually take a QB - not necessarily once the whole support structure is there, but once you have some kind of platform at least.
 
Eli benched for week 3

I think it also depends on what you have and don’t have currently.

If I’m the Giants, I have Eli Manning. He’s on the way down, but a respected QB. It means 1) you have a veteran who has a lot of experience to teach. 2) you have time. You don’t need to rush bringing your rookie in if they aren’t ready. So for me you go would go QB first.

If I’m the Dolphins really it’s who is available but also you know that you’ll almost certainly be pressured into playing that guy straight away. Essentially what’s happening now with Murray at Arizona. You’re taking a big risk there in my view. I think unless there’s someone you really want, you build support first and eventually take a QB - not necessarily once the whole support structure is there, but once you have some kind of platform at least.

And my entire post has been rubbished with one sentence :lol: :lol:
 
Eli benched for week 3
Wow, he was on a short leash apparently :eek:

Very interested to see how Danny Dimes will fare. Bucs secondary can be got at. I would've waited for Golden Tate to return, immediately would've given him a nice security blanket.
 
Wow, he was on a short leash apparently :eek:

Very interested to see how Danny Dimes will fare. Bucs secondary can be got at. I would've waited for Golden Tate to return, immediately would've given him a nice security blanket.
Problem with that is if you waited then his first two games would be the Vikings and Patriots. Better to start with against the Bucs and Washington even if you are minus your best receiver. Or even better, they could just have not traded OBJ.
 
Eli benched for week 3

I heard on a podcast this week that if he gets another loss in his next game that he will have a losing career record in the NFL. Whilst I doubt that's a factor it speaks to the inconsistency of his play and the teams teams him over the years.
 
The giants basically could have

Option A: Saquon Barkley and Daniel Jones
Option B: Braden Smith, Kemoko Turay, Jordan Wilkins, Rock Ya-Sin and a choice of the following

Quinten Nelson, Josh Rosen, Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson, Minkah Fitzpatrick Roquan Smith, Derwin James, Leighton Vander Esch

Its delusional to think option A is better unless you are related to Daniel Jones
 
Wow the New York Giants have named Daniel Jones as the teams starting QB. The Eli Manning era at the New York Giants is probably finished. As a fan this feels so strange but it's surely the correct decision so let's see how it all play's out I guess.
 
There are many different ways to win beyond the two you listed (which BTW involve hall of famers). The Eagles just won the big game with a journeyman backup QB and RB by committee. The Giants can easily get a good QB if they draft wisely at which point they will be in business. They’ve won two of their 4 Super Bowls over the past few decades with average QBs (Simms and Hostedler), so they're capable of doing it again.
I would put Foles and Eli as above average. I didn't watch the NFL for the other two bowl wins. Simms was a pro bowl quarterback which suggests at least above average no?

Eagles had an elite defense in 2017. Giantas certainly did in 2007, 2012.
 
Is he still a lock for first ballot do we think?
I am in two minds. It depends on the definition of Fame.

Fame = Best/Elite. Clearly shouldn't be close to it.

Fame = Can you tell the story of the NFL without him? Clearly should be first ballot.

I think it's somewhere down the middle in actuality, so can see him being a sneaky first ballot in a weak year. But a lock overall.
 
Romo had a higher TD rate, a lower INT rate, a much better AY/A. Romo never threw 20 interceptions in a season, Eli did it 3 times. I should have just responded with 10 laughing smilies but I'm not a literal child.
 
Romo was anti clutch though. Eli won 2 SBs against BB defenses on runs that included beating Favre on the cold at Lambeau and a great road win in SF against Harbaughs defense.

Schurmur had to make the change. The only way he saves his job is if Jones looks decent and they spin as they have something to build on next season. If Jones is terrible Gettlean is surely gone as well.
 
In 07 the Giants scored 24, 21, 23, 20 in the playoffs for an average of 22 points per game. The league average that year was 22 points per game.

In 2011 the Giants scored 24, 37, 20, 21 in the playoffs for an average of 26 points per game. The league average that year was 22 points per game.