The greatness of Saquon Barkley

[iknowcool]

38 minutes ago, AkronsWitness said:

Darnold was still a highly rated prospect regardless of your personal opinion or how well he has been playing this year so far. He was regarded by many as being the best QB prospect in the draft who you can build around long term. Just because he hasnt lit the world on fire as a rookie doesnt mean he was the wrong pick fo rthe Jets or is going to be bad for his whole career. The point is the Giants are going to suck until they take a swing at a highly rated franchise QB in the draft and nothing Saquon Barkley does is going to change how good the Giants are until that point.

The Giants still dont have a QB to groom on their roster because of taking Barkley #2 overall in a QB loaded draft when they desperately needed one. Outside of maybe landing Haskins this year there are little to no future QBs in this draft, so they will likely have to settle for another 5 win season next year until 2020 and hope they can get a QB then.

I can understand taking Barkley top 5 for a team that already had a QB in place or a QBOTF on their team, but the Giants tried to get cute by squeezing another year out of broken down Eli and it potentially set the rebuild back another 3+ years by not just taking their shot at Darnold/Rosen/Allen/Jackson

So you think a teams evaluation of a QB should be irrelevant and that regardless of how they feel, if they need a QB and there is a QB who is considered a top prospect available to them, they should take them?

[KellChippy]

13 hours ago, iknowcool said:

The best left tackle of this generation (Joe Thomas) didn't win a ring, or even start in a playoff game.  DeMarcus Ware didn't win anything.  Antonio Brown hasn't won anything.  Patrick Peterson hasn't won anything.  Rams didn't win with Aaron Donald until their offense started balling out.  There's great players at every position who haven't won anything, it doesn't matter.  

DeMarcus Ware has a ring. Still Plenty of time for PP, Donald, and Brown to get one.  

There is a small chance any given draftee picked anywhere at any position will end up winning a ring, it doesn’t mean you should ignore history and positional importance.

That said, I have no problems with what the Giants did given their roster and the rest of the class. I had a bigger issue with the Boys taking Zeke instead of Ramsey.

[jrry32]

5 hours ago, ET80 said:

You have to admit that McVay has a lot more at his disposal in regards to the passing game, so it makes sense to keep Gurley in. Cooks, Woods, Cupp - that's a lot. None of them are nearly as good as Odell, but there's more to spread around, so it makes sense to keep a back in when you have that much to throw to.

You also have to admit you missed the forest for the trees in all of this (which you have a tendency to do in any topic where a Rams player gets mentioned):

Once again...

One more time, just for the ladies...

Your personal preference is pass protection (or dreadlocks, or guys who wear the #30, or anything that would justify Gurley as the pick). Which is fine. 

Do you, boo. Do you.

Yeah, it's not about personal preference. You can claim that to justify picking anyone you want. "Well, I think Leonard Fournette is the best HB in the NFL. It's just personal preference." When comparing Zeke, Gurley, and Barkley, you have three HBs who are about equals when you take their rushing and receiving abilities together. Zeke and Gurley are both elite pass protectors. Barkley is a liability there. That creates a clear difference between the top two and the third. Nobody is missing the forest for the trees. You simply made a bad pick at this time.

But hey, I must be unreasonable for preferring this:

To that:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000972923/Bradham-squares-up-Manning-for-big-sack

I am fairly sure that Saquon gave up at least another sack or two in games I watched. Simply put, unless you're prepared to argue that Saquon is a superior enough rusher/receiver to compensate for his current issues as a pass protector, there's no justification for choosing him until he improves as a pass protector or takes a sizable enough lead in the other categories.

[Nabbs4u]

4 hours ago, KellChippy said:

That said, I have no problems with what the Giants did given their roster and the rest of the class. I had a bigger issue with the Boys taking Zeke instead of Ramsey

I wish they took Ramsey instead. Would be really fun watching Dak play QB without Zeke while Jalen acts like a 2yr old on the sidelines while they lose. 

Damn please turn back the clock.

[iknowcool]

4 hours ago, KellChippy said:

DeMarcus Ware has a ring. Still Plenty of time for PP, Donald, and Brown to get one.  

There is a small chance any given draftee picked anywhere at any position will end up winning a ring, it doesn’t mean you should ignore history and positional importance.

That said, I have no problems with what the Giants did given their roster and the rest of the class. I had a bigger issue with the Boys taking Zeke instead of Ramsey.

I forgot Ware won a ring, but it was when he was out of his prime at 33 years old on a loaded defense. That is beside the point though.  I could name hundreds of great players at different positions without rings, but for some reason it's only brought up with RBs.

What is the history though?  There is literally no proof of there being a higher correlation between top RBs and no rings than there is any other position excluding QB.  There is no reason to think a top RB is less likely to win a Super Bowl than a top pass rusher, that logic doesn't even really make any sense.

And I'm not sure why Zeke over Ramsey would be a problem considering how much better the Cowboys have been because of Zeke.  Ramsey is great, but they already have an elite defense.  They are worse without Zeke.

[KellChippy]

27 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

I forgot Ware won a ring, but it was when he was out of his prime at 33 years old on a loaded defense. That is beside the point though.  I could name hundreds of great players at different positions without rings, but for some reason it's only brought up with RBs.

What is the history though?  There is literally no proof of there being a higher correlation between top RBs and no rings than there is any other position excluding QB.  There is no reason to think a top RB is less likely to win a Super Bowl than a top pass rusher, that logic doesn't even really make any sense.

And I'm not sure why Zeke over Ramsey would be a problem considering how much better the Cowboys have been because of Zeke.  Ramsey is great, but they already have an elite defense.  They are worse without Zeke.

There was a time in history when an rb was as important as qb and other positions, that time has passed.

The Cowboys roster would likely look a lot different overall had they picked Ramsey over Zeke. You shouldn’t assume they would be better off with Zeke when they had success at the rb position with plenty of players in the last five years alone.  There’s plenty of guys they could have drafted instead the last three years.  It’s harder to find a great cb than rb. 

Its different in Saquons case, but he’s a better prospect than Zeke was. This is also assuming they didn’t think any of the QBs were great prospects.

[ET80]

1 hour ago, jrry32 said:

Simply put, unless you're prepared to argue that Saquon is a superior enough rusher/receiver to compensate for his current issues as a pass protector, there's no justification for choosing him until he improves as a pass protector or takes a sizable enough lead in the other categories.

This is exactly what I am saying.

[KellChippy]

1 hour ago, Nabbs4u said:

I wish they took Ramsey instead. Would be really fun watching Dak play QB without Zeke while Jalen acts like a 2yr old on the sidelines while they lose. 

Damn please turn back the clock.

Imagine that defense with Ramsey though.  I don’t recall anyone thinking Byron Jones was great until their front seven went crazy this year.  With Ramsey on the other side the defense would be insane. 

[jrry32]

16 minutes ago, ET80 said:

This is exactly what I am saying.

Good luck with that argument.

[ET80]

5 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

Good luck with that argument.

20+ yard rushes:

Saquan: 14

Gurley: 11

Zeke: 11

40+ yard rushes:

Saquan: 6

Gurley: 0

Zeke: 1

My personal preference with RBs is with explosive plays, where Saquan is pacing the field. As I've been saying for a while.

[jrry32]

Just now, ET80 said:

20+ yard rushes:

Saquan: 14

Gurley: 11

Zeke: 11

40+ yard rushes:

Saquan: 6

Gurley: 0

Zeke: 1

My personal preference with RBs is with explosive plays, where Saquan is pacing the field. As I've been saying for a while.

Could that have something to do with how teams defend the Giants? For example, Todd Gurley led the NFL in 5 40+ yard rushes as a rookie. Regardless, that's not a strong argument that "Saquon is a superior enough rusher/receiver to compensate for his current issues as a pass protector."

[ET80]

3 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

Could that have something to do with how teams defend the Giants?

Defend the Giants? You mean, this team?

The only player worth defending on this team IS Saquan. 

[Chiefer]

2 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

Could that have something to do with how teams defend the Giants? For example, Todd Gurley led the NFL in 5 40+ yard rushes as a rookie. Regardless, that's not a strong argument that "Saquon is a superior enough rusher/receiver to compensate for his current issues as a pass protector."

Rookie RBs are rarely good pass protectors. The thought is as far as RB goes thats not that important. 

Pretty ticky tack honestly.

[ET80]

5 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

Regardless, that's not a strong argument that "Saquon is a superior enough rusher/receiver to compensate for his current issues as a pass protector."

You provided a nifty stat on pass protection - from 2017, when Saquan was in college. Got updated numbers that show a significant gap, or just a video of one sack?

[jrry32]

Just now, Chiefer said:

Rookie RBs are rarely good pass protectors. The thought is as far as RB goes thats not that important. 

Pretty ticky tack honestly.

Cool. We're not talking about rookie HBs. We're talking about who the best HB in the NFL is. You don't get flaws ignored because you're a rookie. When he fixes that issue, he'll have a very legit argument for being the best in the NFL. And lol at anyone who thinks pass protection skills aren't important for HBs.

1 minute ago, ET80 said:

You provided a nifty stat on pass protection - from 2017, when Saquan was in college. Got updated numbers that show a significant gap, or just a video of one sack?

I gave you videos of two sacks. And I recall two more in games I watched. To my knowledge, Gurley hasn't blown a protection in the past two years.

6 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Defend the Giants? You mean, this team?

The only player worth defending on this team IS Saquan. 

Yeah, there's nobody on that Giants offense worth defending. OBJ, Shepard, and Engram aren't any good. Watching the Giants this year, Eli's deep ball appears to be terrible. When teams don't think you can beat them deep, it becomes easier to break off long runs.