Report: Giants players are getting frustrated with Eli Manning's performance

[Superman(DH23)]

OBack in 2017 after a 3-13 season I said this as a Bears fan preparing for the #3 overall pick.  A few days before the draft according to the "experts" the Bears were going to take Marshawn Lattimore or Jamall Adams.

There is a reason you are picking #3 overall.  The idea with this pick is that we are picking here and dont want to pick this high again.  This is when you make a franchise changing move.  Taking Adam's or Lattimore is an 8-8 move.  We've been stuck in qb purgatory for so long bc of 8-8 moves.  If Pace thinks that Watson is a guy who he can build around then it's time to go all in.  You dont go all in by getting cute and trading down and hoping somebody falls to you.  

This is what happened to the Giants. The Giants made an 8-8 move.  Now the Giants might get lucky and get bailed out of their 8-8 move and get to pick in the top 5 again.  But Barkley is good enough he is going to keep your team at .500 and that means if they dont make the move now, they are going to end up stuck in qb purgatory 

[minutemancl]

9 hours ago, Superman(DH23) said:

OBack in 2017 after a 3-13 season I said this as a Bears fan preparing for the #3 overall pick.  A few days before the draft according to the "experts" the Bears were going to take Marshawn Lattimore or Jamall Adams.

There is a reason you are picking #3 overall.  The idea with this pick is that we are picking here and dont want to pick this high again.  This is when you make a franchise changing move.  Taking Adam's or Lattimore is an 8-8 move.  We've been stuck in qb purgatory for so long bc of 8-8 moves.  If Pace thinks that Watson is a guy who he can build around then it's time to go all in.  You dont go all in by getting cute and trading down and hoping somebody falls to you.  

This is what happened to the Giants. The Giants made an 8-8 move.  Now the Giants might get lucky and get bailed out of their 8-8 move and get to pick in the top 5 again.  But Barkley is good enough he is going to keep your team at .500 and that means if they dont make the move now, they are going to end up stuck in qb purgatory 

But Trubisky doesn't look like a franchise QB and now the Bears may be stuck in just a different type of QB purgatory. Picking the wrong QB is worse than not taking one. It sets you back just as much, if not more. The Giants obviously did not feel like Darmold, Rosen, or Allen were franchise QBs. 

[Superman(DH23)]

2 hours ago, minutemancl said:

But Trubisky doesn't look like a franchise QB and now the Bears may be stuck in just a different type of QB purgatory. Picking the wrong QB is worse than not taking one. It sets you back just as much, if not more. The Giants obviously did not feel like Darmold, Rosen, or Allen were franchise QBs. 

First whether or not he looks like a franchise qb is a matter of opinion, but no, in today's NFL world getting a qb wrong is not worse.  Being stuck with a mediocre qb and an 8-8 team is the worst thing you can be.

[Heinz D.]

3 hours ago, minutemancl said:

The Giants obviously did not feel like Darmold, Rosen, or Allen were franchise QBs. 

Are you sure of that? Seems to me just as likely that they thought the'd do what they publicly stated, and roll with Eli. That is, unless they really love Lauretta, which is possible. 

[minutemancl]

4 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

Are you sure of that? Seems to me just as likely that they thought the'd do what they publicly stated, and roll with Eli. That is, unless they really love Lauretta, which is possible. 

Obviously I cant be 100% sure, but considering they didnt pick one of those guys, I'd be willing to bet that that was the case. The Giants did their homework on these QBs. 

[HTTRDynasty]

 

[iknowcool]

1 minute ago, HTTRG3Dynasty said:

 

I mean... that doesn't really prove anything unless you think Jones, Cohen, Carson, etc. are top-tier RBs.

PFF ratings in general aren't something I'd put a lot of stock in, but their RBs rankings have always been the weirdest to me.  There is no measurement that should have Gurley outside of the top three, much less the top 17.

Besides, RB is far from the only position with late-round success.

[RandyMossIsBoss]

4 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

I mean... that doesn't really prove anything unless you think Jones, Cohen, Carson, etc. are top-tier RBs.

PFF ratings in general aren't something I'd put a lot of stock in, but their RBs rankings have always been the weirdest to me.  There is no measurement that should have Gurley outside of the top three, much less the top 17.

Besides, RB is far from the only position with late-round success.

Definitely isn't including Gurley or EE... no way even PFF's bizarre RB grading would leave them out of the top 17. Must be some qualifier to that list that we are missing.

 

 

That being said HTTR, I agree with the sentiment. Having an elite talent at RB surrounded by a good cast is worth the top 10 pick, but rarely are you picking in the top 10 when you already have a good cast in place. Which means gambling by taking the RB, and then building around him (Rams did it, paid off big time. Giants and Jags did it, though in both cases it can be argued they were under assumption they did in fact have an offensive foundation in place, TBD). The other recent top 10 backs I can think of, C-Mac and Zeke, were taken by the teams that already had foundations in place (in the Cowboys case, an OL; in the Panthers case, a franchise QB). This is a passing league though, you win through the air, through your QB. Having a Gurley, Zeke, Barkley, etc., can help tremendously, but that can so easily turn into a wasted pick when you factor in their short shelf life and relatively poor value (no other position has as many booms in the late round. There is just simply a lot of talented RBs coming in every year). 

[HTTRDynasty]

13 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

I mean... that doesn't really prove anything unless you think Jones, Cohen, Carson, etc. are top-tier RBs.

PFF ratings in general aren't something I'd put a lot of stock in, but their RBs rankings have always been the weirdest to me.  There is no measurement that should have Gurley outside of the top three, much less the top 17.

Besides, RB is far from the only position with late-round success.

This is for the 2017 draft class.  It says it in the top left column header.

[iknowcool]

10 minutes ago, HTTRG3Dynasty said:

This is for the 2017 draft class.  It says it in the top left column header.

Gotcha, didn’t notice that.  Still, the point remains.  Who is taking Cohen over CMac for example?  And I like Cohen.

I don’t think it proves much.  I could list a draft where late round guards are outplaying first round guards, or late round receivers over first round receivers.  Same thing with linebacker. Drafting any position other than QB, Tackle, or Pass Rusher in the top 10 is never ideal, but sometimes it’s the best route. RB unfairly gets held to a higher standard, but having a top flight WR isn’t any more of an advantage and doesn’t get the “don’t take in the top ten” rule.

[minutemancl]

4 minutes ago, RandyMossIsBoss said:

Definitely isn't including Gurley or EE... no way even PFF's bizarre RB grading would leave them out of the top 17. Must be some qualifier to that list that we are missing.

 

 

That being said HTTR, I agree with the sentiment. Having an elite talent at RB surrounded by a good cast is worth the top 10 pick, but rarely are you picking in the top 10 when you already have a good cast in place. Which means gambling by taking the RB, and then building around him (Rams did it, paid off big time. Giants and Jags did it, though in both cases it can be argued they were under assumption they did in fact have an offensive foundation in place, TBD). The other recent top 10 backs I can think of, C-Mac and Zeke, were taken by the teams that already had foundations in place (in the Cowboys case, an OL; in the Panthers case, a franchise QB). This is a passing league though, you win through the air, through your QB. Having a Gurley, Zeke, Barkley, etc., can help tremendously, but that can so easily turn into a wasted pick when you factor in their short shelf life and relatively poor value (no other position has as many booms in the late round. There is just simply a lot of talented RBs coming in every year). 

This applies to any position. Having a good team or unit around any player makes that player look better. Will Hernandez is playing very well, but gets grouped in with the Giants overall garbage OL. Josh Rosen isn't playing well, but you don't know how good he actually is since he is playing on a garbage Cardinals team.

Barkley is currently #1 among RBs in receiving yards, receptions, yards after catch (which is actually about 20 yards more than his total receiving yards), and targets. That's in addition to being top 10 in rushing yards (should be top-5 after tonight) despite the Giants running the ball less than any team in the NFL. Barkley is impressive by any measure. The fact that that isn't translating to an impressive offense isn't really surprising considering the glaring issues in other areas, mainly OL and QB.

[RandyMossIsBoss]

1 minute ago, minutemancl said:

This applies to any position. Having a good team or unit around any player makes that player look better. Will Hernandez is playing very well, but gets grouped in with the Giants overall garbage OL. Josh Rosen isn't playing well, but you don't know how good he actually is since he is playing on a garbage Cardinals team.

Barkley is currently #1 among RBs in receiving yards, receptions, yards after catch (which is actually about 20 yards more than his total receiving yards), and targets. That's in addition to being top 10 in rushing yards (should be top-5 after tonight) despite the Giants running the ball less than any team in the NFL. Barkley is impressive by any measure. The fact that that isn't translating to an impressive offense isn't really surprising considering the glaring issues in other areas, mainly OL and QB.

The difference, the monumental difference, is the value. It is easier to find good RBs late than it is any other position. That is simply due to the abundance of RB talent. This can be argued since I am bringing no facts and I am too lazy to do it myself, but I am positive if you settle on a definition of "successful" and bring up 4th-7th round picks for every position, none will have more than RB (keeping in mind there is only 1 starting RB spot).

Even if we want to ignore that since admittedly I'm not willing to provide concrete evidence there, we still have the fact of their short shelf life. Let's put it like this, you can expect Will Hernandez to play for a longer time at a high level (and longer time, period) than Barkley if you expect them to both have the career arc of the average successful player at their respective positions.

[EL Guapo]

If everyone waits to take a RB then there will be good late round picks. I don't know if that's what happened but it probably did in some cases. I think that is changing now 

[minutemancl]

4 minutes ago, RandyMossIsBoss said:

The difference, the monumental difference, is the value. It is easier to find good RBs late than it is any other position. That is simply due to the abundance of RB talent. This can be argued since I am bringing no facts and I am too lazy to do it myself, but I am positive if you settle on a definition of "successful" and bring up 4th-7th round picks for every position, none will have more than RB (keeping in mind there is only 1 starting RB spot).

Even if we want to ignore that since admittedly I'm not willing to provide concrete evidence there, we still have the fact of their short shelf life. Let's put it like this, you can expect Will Hernandez to play for a longer time at a high level (and longer time, period) than Barkley if you expect them to both have the career arc of the average successful player at their respective positions.

I've heard the RB talent level argument a lot, especially leading up to the draft, and it has all been anecdotal. Lots of mentions of Kamara and Hunt. From what I remember reading, the consensus top RBs are normally high picks. I know PFF loves to cite their RB production statistics and how you can get similar production from a late round pick, but we all know PFF isn't the best. I'd like to see if someone can dig up something on the subject from someone else. I don't think the chance of hitting on a late round RB is much higher than hitting on a late round anything else, except QB of course.

The longevity argument I will cede to; RBs have a shorter shelf life than a lot of other positions. Two points on that are 1. Barkley is very good at avoiding contact, so he won't take the type of punishment someone like Fournette does. 2. Paying RBs big money isn't a great idea anyway. You want one on a rookie deal when their legs are fresh, and if they're good, they are the cheapest. Get them for 4 + fifth year option + franchise tag. You see how hesitant the Steelers are to pay Bell.

[iknowcool]

29 minutes ago, RandyMossIsBoss said:

Even if we want to ignore that since admittedly I'm not willing to provide concrete evidence there, we still have the fact of their short shelf life. Let's put it like this, you can expectWill Hernandez to play for a longer time at a high level (and longer time, period) than Barkley if you expect them to both have the career arc of the average successful player at their respective positions.

The longevity argument is the one I understand the most and it makes sense.  However a truly great RB can still give you ~7 good to great years.  As a head coach, how much should you really care about that (potential) difference in career length?  For example, by the time Barkley regresses barring injury, it will probably be about 8 years from now and the Giants will have an entirely new set of weaknesses and strengths.  

It definitely should be considered, but would you rather have good guard play from Hernandez for 10 years (who could very well become great, he's more of just an example) or elite play from Barkley for 7 years?  From a head coaches perspective, I don't think you factor in that much something 8 years down the road.  NFL just changes too much.  

For me it just depends on the RB.  I can kinda understand the criticism with the McCaffrey pick if I'm trying to be unbiased; he's a really good player, who can be great, but he's not someone who is going to take over if nothing else is going well.  But guys like Zeke, Barkley, Gurley, those guys I think shouldn't have their first-round value doubted.  They are game-changers who might not be able to make a bad offense good (but other than a QB, who can?), but can make a good offense great..  I'm taking that over any good, and most great, guards.