NFL Thread

Punter and Kicker are the only two positions I wouldn’t deem more important than RB. I’m not even sure about kickers.
 
So people believe Sam Darnold would have the Giants in the playoffs this year? The Giants need help on both lines, linebacker and secondary. They also needed a back before the season started but that's about all they fixed. The FA signings were a disaster, none bigger than Nate Solder. Darnold, Mayfield or whichever QB they would've picked would have gotten destroyed behind that line. Giants had more pressing needs than QB with Eli's contract situation and there was no sure fire pick that everyone agreed on.
 
freeurmind said:
So people believe Sam Darnold would have the Giants in the playoffs this year? The Giants need help on both lines, linebacker and secondary. They also needed a back before the season started but that's about all they fixed. The FA signings were a disaster, none bigger than Nate Solder. Darnold, Mayfield or whichever QB they would've picked would have gotten destroyed behind that line. Giants had more pressing needs than QB with Eli's contract situation and there was no sure fire pick that everyone agreed on.
Click to expand...

then they should have traded down like the colts did.

NYJ sends:

Quenton Nelson
Braden Smith
Kemoko Turay
Daurice Fountain


AND next year's second round pick


IND sends:

Sam Darnold



Nelson is first team all pro as a rookie. Braden Smith started every game since week 5. Kemoko Turay was rated by PFF as "average" (64.2) in his rookie season.
 
Eboue said:
then they should have traded down like the colts did.

NYJ sends:

Quenton Nelson
Braden Smith
Kemoko Turay
Daurice Fountain


AND next year's second round pick


IND sends:

Sam Darnold



Nelson is first team all pro as a rookie. Braden Smith started every game since week 5. Kemoko Turay was rated by PFF as "average" (64.2) in his rookie season.
Click to expand...
No arguments there from me, that's what I would've done. I'm not saying there weren't better things they could've done but it's the idea that Barkely was a bad pick that I disagree with given how good he's looked.
 
freeurmind said:
No arguments there from me, that's what I would've done. I'm not saying there weren't better things they could've done but it's the idea that Barkely was a bad pick that I disagree with given how good he's looked.
Click to expand...

thats the thing, it doesnt matter how he looks. taking gurley #2 would have been a bad idea. im not just against the barkley pick, i was against the elliot and fournette picks too
 
Eboue said:
thats the thing, it doesnt matter how he looks. taking gurley #2 would have been a bad idea. im not just against the barkley pick, i was against the elliot and fournette picks too
Click to expand...
I didn't agree with those picks for those teams either but I disagree with the notion that a team should never be picking a RB that high. It depends on how talented you think the player is and your team's needs.
 
freeurmind said:
I didn't agree with those picks for those teams either but I disagree with the notion that a team should never be picking a RB that high. It depends on how talented you think the player is and your team's needs.
Click to expand...

True. And once the player starts producing on the field, the debate ostensibly ends since he is producing value for the team and thereby validating the decision to select him.
 
I think generally selecting an RB so high is the wrong move. But there Are some red but specific situations where I do think it makes sense.
 
Raoul said:
True. And once the player starts producing on the field, the debate ostensibly ends since he is producing value for the team and thereby validating the decision to select him.
Click to expand...
Not if the team doesn't significantly improve. In a bizzarro world where the eagles got to pick at #2, Barkley would have been 100% the right pick for them. But for the giants, it was a stupid pick
 
rpitroda said:
I think generally selecting an RB so high is the wrong move. But there Are some red but specific situations where I do think it makes sense.
Click to expand...

That's a valid argument to make, especially around draft time. But once the player starts producing results its hard to go back and say "team x should've selected an O-Lineman instead of Barkley", especially when Barkley just finished racking up more yards from scrimmage than any player in the league. At that point you are faced with the question of "would you rather the Giants give up the 2k yards Barkley got them in exchange for a punt on a player who is guaranteed to not make a remotely comparable contribution.
 
giorno said:
Not if the team doesn't significantly improve. In a bizzarro world where the eagles got to pick at #2, Barkley would have been 100% the right pick for them. But for the giants, it was a stupid pick
Click to expand...

The Giants were never going to be in a position the Eagles were in. They are in rebuilding mode and in need of new management.
 
Raoul said:
That's a valid argument to make, especially around draft time. But once the player starts producing results its hard to go back and say "team x should've selected an O-Lineman instead of Barkley", especially when Barkley just finished racking up more yards from scrimmage than any player in the league. At that point you are faced with the question of "would you rather the Giants give up the 2k yards Barkley got them in exchange for a punt on a player who is guaranteed to not make a remotely comparable contribution.
Click to expand...

But the point is they could have quite feasibly have filled two positions for the same draft capital and dropping from Barkley to another RB isn't a big enough miss to make up for overlooking other areas.
 
Raoul said:
That's a valid argument to make, especially around draft time. But once the player starts producing results its hard to go back and say "team x should've selected an O-Lineman instead of Barkley", especially when Barkley just finished racking up more yards from scrimmage than any player in the league. At that point you are faced with the question of "would you rather the Giants give up the 2k yards Barkley got them in exchange for a punt on a player who is guaranteed to not make a remotely comparable contribution.
Click to expand...

I absolutely think you can. Because as CJ Anderson and lots of other running backs prove, to be successful at the RB position you don’t need time to gel and sync and learn and mesh. You can spot in and be successful. That, and the opportunity cost between having runner A and B is not that big in my view because such a significant amount of rushing yards are not purely down to the runner.

I can think of very few scenarios where you should select a RB so high.
 
Raoul said:
That's a valid argument to make, especially around draft time. But once the player starts producing results its hard to go back and say "team x should've selected an O-Lineman instead of Barkley", especially when Barkley just finished racking up more yards from scrimmage than any player in the league. At that point you are faced with the question of "would you rather the Giants give up the 2k yards Barkley got them in exchange for a punt on a player who is guaranteed to not make a remotely comparable contribution.
Click to expand...
Just because you can’t measure Nelson’s contribution in yards, doesn’t mean he’s contributing less than Barkley.
 
Raoul said:
The Giants were never going to be in a position the Eagles were in. They are in rebuilding mode and in need of new management.
Click to expand...
Exactly! And that's why picking barkley was stupid. Baker or Lamar Jackson would have made sense, because they're QBs, and their upside is such that sucking for another year or two is fine when 3 years from now you've got an unstoppable force of nature running the offence

Picking a RB that high only makes sense when you have every other piece already in place, no matter how good he is
 
giorno said:
Exactly! And that's why picking barkley was stupid. Baker or Lamar Jackson would have made sense, because they're QBs, and their upside is such that sucking for another year or two is fine when 3 years from now you've got an unstoppable force of nature running the offence

Picking a RB that high only makes sense when you have every other piece already in place, no matter how good he is
Click to expand...

I can't emphasize how useless Lamar Jackson would have been behind our OL. Jackson isn't the hill to die on in this debate. Probably Baker, but it would have cost us to trade up to him.
 
HTG said:
Just because you can’t measure Nelson’s contribution in yards, doesn’t mean he’s contributing less than Barkley.
Click to expand...

Do you think the Giants would like to go back in time and give up Barkley's 2k season for Nelson ?
 
Raoul said:
Do you think the Giants would like to go back in time and give up Barkley's 2k season for Nelson ?
Click to expand...
I don’t care if they would like to. I think they should. Nelson is a much more valuable and rarer player than Nelson.
 
rpitroda said:
I absolutely think you can. Because as CJ Anderson and lots of other running backs prove, to be successful at the RB position you don’t need time to gel and sync and learn and mesh. You can spot in and be successful. That, and the opportunity cost between having runner A and B is not that big in my view because such a significant amount of rushing yards are not purely down to the runner.

I can think of very few scenarios where you should select a RB so high.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, CJ Anderson is a capable back, but Barkley is on another level. He's a 21 year old who should be in his last year in college and instead just put in a 2k yards from scrimmage season as an NFL rookie. He looks like a Marshall Faulk type transformational player, which is something the Giants wouldn't want to give up
 
adexkola said:
I can't emphasize how useless Lamar Jackson would have been behind our OL. Jackson isn't the hill to die on in this debate. Probably Baker, but it would have cost us to trade up to him.
Click to expand...
Not this season but i think going forward he's going to become a genuine transformational franchise QB
 
Raoul said:
Do you think the Giants would like to go back in time and give up Barkley's 2k season for Nelson ?
Click to expand...

They'd be unbelievably dumb not to swap Barkley for Nelson and let's say Lindsay at RB in this hypothetical situation.
 
HTG said:
I don’t care if they would like to. I think they should. Nelson is a much more valuable and rarer player than Nelson.
Click to expand...

Than Barkley you mean ? If so, not even close. There are 5 o-lineman on a team and only one featured RB.
 
Rado_N said:
They'd be unbelievably dumb not to swap Barkley for Nelson and let's say Lindsay at RB in this hypothetical situation.
Click to expand...

They would of course swap him for Lindsay but that was a massive punt by Elway. 99 other times Elway does that it wouldn't work.
 
Raoul said:
They would of course swap him for Lindsay but that was a massive punt by Elway. 99 other times Elway does that it wouldn't work.
Click to expand...

There's still loads of top class RBs that have gone in later rounds, proving the point that taking one at #2 overall and ignoring the talent of someone like Nelson in a position you desperately need it is stupid.

Edit: and Lindsay wasn't a massive punt, he was undrafted and cost feck all to bring him in to training camp which is where he showed what he's about and forced his way into the 53.
 
Raoul said:
Do you think the Giants would like to go back in time and give up Barkley's 2k season for Nelson ?
Click to expand...
No, but the point is they shouldn't have turned Barkey into one different player, but multiple players
 
adexkola said:
Who should the Cowboys have selected instead of Elliott? They still had Romo at that point
Click to expand...

Another good example was the 94 Colts - where they replaced a feckless Jeff George with journeyman Jim Harbaugh and drafted Marshall Faulk. Neither had better years than Eli did this year.
 
Raoul said:
Than Barkley you mean ? If so, not even close. There are 5 o-lineman on a team and only one featured RB.
Click to expand...
And Nelson is on the field impacting basically every offensive play there is, while Barkley impacts roughly half as many plays.
 
HTG said:
And Nelson is on the field impacting basically every offensive play there is, while Barkley impacts roughly half as many plays.
Click to expand...
And have the likes of Gallman and Stewart run behind him for 2 yards per carry, yay.

There wasn't a great QB available so I don't think it was that bad a pick. The only one I'd switch him for would've been Nelson or maybe Derwin James.
 
HTG said:
And Nelson is on the field impacting basically every offensive play there is, while Barkley impacts roughly half as many plays.
Click to expand...

Much as his other four Oline teammates are. It’s hard to therefore quantify his value relative to what his teammates are doing. Slightly different for a RB where you have some sort of quantitative point of reference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.