The greatness of Saquon Barkley

[Gmen]

15 minutes ago, KhanYouDigIt said:

Should have taken Darnold.

The guy that had turnover issues in college and currently has more interceptions than touchdowns?

I’ll go with the guy drawing comparisons to Barry Sanders.

[SmittyBacall]

28 minutes ago, Gmen said:

The guy that had turnover issues in college and currently has more interceptions than touchdowns?

I’ll go with the guy drawing comparisons to Barry Sanders.

Using this logic you wouldn't want Peyton Manning after his rookie season. 

Darnold is going to be a good QB in this league. His rookie numbers aren't indicative of the player he will become.

[Chiefer]

25 minutes ago, SmittyBacall said:

Using this logic you wouldn't want Peyton Manning after his rookie season. 

Darnold is going to be a good QB in this league. His rookie numbers aren't indicative of the player he will become.

Peyton Manning had turnover issues in college?

[iknowcool]

Honest question.  To the people who say the Giants should have drafted Darnold... do you say that just because he's a QB or because you actually think he's that good?  

 

At the end of the day, if Barkley turns into a Hall of Fame player, nobody is going to be saying they shouldn't have drafted him.  Nobody sits there and says, "the Lions should have drafted the more important pass rusher Derrick Thomas over Barry Sanders!"  All that matters is if a player is good.  And for all the talk about longevity, there really isn't much reason to think based off other Hall of Famer RBs that Barkley can't have a 8-10 year career.  Beyond that, who cares?  I don't understand why some people think there is some huge advantage to having a great guard or tackle for a hypothetical 12 years (assuming that even happens; I don't think people realize how rare a 10 year career is regardless of position, even Joe Thomas only had 10 years) than a great RB for 8 years.  There is no guarantee you're going to have that player for the entire length of time and no head coach or GM should give a damn about something 8 years down the road.  It's up to the Giants to find the rest of the pieces to make the team better and we've seen teams like the Rams and Bears trade up to get their QBs (in the Rams case, they did it after already drafting a RB and it isn't like they are any further behind than other teams as people seem to suggest will happen to the Giants).  Giants can do the same when/if they believe they have found the right one.

People make too big of a deal about the importance of RBs and they exaggerate the made-up non-importance of them.  I mean, the logic of "Barkley's having all this success and the Giants still aren't winning"  a lot of people have said doesn't make any sense to me.  Browns have their franchise QB AND their #1 pass rusher from a year ago in Myles Garrett, who has 12.5 sacks this year, and the Browns still have a losing record (they only have one more win than the Giants) - is defensive end not that important?  I've seen QBs have great years on bad teams ala Philip Rivers on the Chargers.  But nobody is going to say Rivers isn't valuable.  There is literally hundreds of players across all 22 or whatever positions who have had great years on bad teams, but for some reason it only gets talked about if it's a RB.  No one player is going to make a bad team good other than sometimes the quarterback, and even then they usually get exposed eventually.

[iknowcool]

3 hours ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

And I think the major part of this piece is that everyone (except the Giants, apparently) knew that Eli needed to be replaced ASAP and that if you were going to do it, this was the QB class to do that with.

Was this the QB class to do it though?  We don't know that for sure.  The rookie QBs, whether you want to blame them or the team around them, are not performing all that well outside of Mayfield.  Rookie QBs have their bumps and bruises without a doubt, but it's even worse with this group of QBs.  They all have more INTs than TDs with the exception of Jackson, but he's already fumbled the ball 9 times.

I may have posted this awhile back, but it still is true today: since 2004, there have only been 23 rookie QBs with a min. 200 pass attempts with a sub 75 QB rating (source).  Darnold, Rosen, and Allen are all on that list.  And scroll through the list of QBs on that list.  It's bad.  Really bad.  Excluding the current group, of the other 20 QBs, only Goff and Stafford have proven to be anything better than awful (although I guess Kyle Orton had some decent moments).  

It's far too early to act as if any of those three are going to definitively work out just like it would be too early for me to assume they are going to suck based off statistical precedent.  Maybe the Giants were correct in their evaluations (Gettleman knows talent) and Darnold, Rosen, Allen, and Jackson flame out and Barkley continues to be a superstar?  I just think when we're talking about a clear-cut stud like we are with Barkley, calling him a bad pick after one year where he's looked elite and the QBs behind him haven't seems like a stretch.  

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

2 hours ago, Gmen said:

The Eagles, Rams, Jets all traded up into the top 3 in recent years to get their franchise Quarterback. If the Giants feel like their guy is out there, they could move up too. The Giants will be picking somewhere in the top ten. Probably 6-8. Mahomes went 10th. Deshaun Watson went 12th. So a top quarterback won’t be out of reach. Herbert’s stock is just about where Josh Allen was last year.

And didn’t the Ravens draft a quarterback at the very bottom of round one? Are the ravens screwed for not having a quarterback from the top 5?

The Ravens didn't need Lamar to start this year. We're arguably in the same place the Giants are, but Lamar was a unique situation and still is. If the Ravens had that top pick, 10/10 times we're taking a QB not a RB. It's just common sense, especially with the shelf life of RB's and how they're valued in the NFL.

5 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

Was this the QB class to do it though?  We don't know that for sure.  The rookie QBs, whether you want to blame them or the team around them, are not performing all that well outside of Mayfield.  Rookie QBs have their bumps and bruises without a doubt, but it's even worse with this group of QBs.  They all have more INTs than TDs with the exception of Jackson, but he's already fumbled the ball 9 times.

I may have posted this awhile back, but it still is true today: since 2004, there have only been 23 rookie QBs with a min. 200 pass attempts with a sub 75 QB rating (source).  Darnold, Rosen, and Allen are all on that list.  And scroll through the list of QBs on that list.  It's bad.  Really bad.  Excluding the current group, of the other 20 QBs, only Goff and Stafford have proven to be anything better than awful (although I guess Kyle Orton had some decent moments).  

It's far too early to act as if any of those three are going to definitively work out just like it would be too early for me to assume they are going to suck based off statistical precedent.  Maybe the Giants were correct in their evaluations (Gettleman is not at evaluating talent) and Darnold, Rosen, Allen, and Jackson flame out and Barkley continues to be a superstar?  I just think when we're talking about a clear-cut stud like we are with Barkley, calling him a bad pick after one year where he's looked elite and the QBs behind him haven't seems like a stretch.  

Maybe this will be the case, and if so I am always happy to come back and eat crow. If the Giants get their stud QB next year and have Barkley, good for them. Honestly. I don't see next year's QB class being nearly as good as this one was (on paper), but again maybe we'll all be wrong.

[game3525]

Quote

Honest question.  To the people who say the Giants should have drafted Darnold... do you say that just because he's a QB or because you actually think he's that good?  

This has been my argument since the draft. 

I mean do people think the Jags don't regret taking Gabbert over Watt? How about the Raiders taking Russell over guys like Calvin, AD, Thomas, and Willis? I am fairly confident those teams would rather have those HOF caliber players for 8-10 years over the QB, even though QB is the more valuable position.

If you have the QB ranked highly on your board and you think that guy can become a blue chip player then you should take him. But if the Giants didn't feel that way about Darnold, then they made the right choice with Barkley. 

You can never go wrong by taking player who potentially could end up in the HOF. 

[Gmen]

3 hours ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

The Ravens didn't need Lamar to start this year. We're arguably in the same place the Giants are, but Lamar was a unique situation and still is. If the Ravens had that top pick, 10/10 times we're taking a QB not a RB. It's just common sense, especially with the shelf life of RB's and how they're valued in the NFL.

One can argue the Ravens did take a RB instead of a QB ; )  Not one with particularly good ball security either.

[Malik]

5 hours ago, iknowcool said:

Was this the QB class to do it though?  We don't know that for sure.  The rookie QBs, whether you want to blame them or the team around them, are not performing all that well outside of Mayfield.  Rookie QBs have their bumps and bruises without a doubt, but it's even worse with this group of QBs.  They all have more INTs than TDs with the exception of Jackson, but he's already fumbled the ball 9 times.

I may have posted this awhile back, but it still is true today: since 2004, there have only been 23 rookie QBs with a min. 200 pass attempts with a sub 75 QB rating (source).  Darnold, Rosen, and Allen are all on that list.  And scroll through the list of QBs on that list.  It's bad.  Really bad.  Excluding the current group, of the other 20 QBs, only Goff and Stafford have proven to be anything better than awful (although I guess Kyle Orton had some decent moments).  

It's far too early to act as if any of those three are going to definitively work out just like it would be too early for me to assume they are going to suck based off statistical precedent.  Maybe the Giants were correct in their evaluations (Gettleman knows talent) and Darnold, Rosen, Allen, and Jackson flame out and Barkley continues to be a superstar?  I just think when we're talking about a clear-cut stud like we are with Barkley, calling him a bad pick after one year where he's looked elite and the QBs behind him haven't seems like a stretch.  

I honestly don't get why so many of my fellow Jets fans are so self assured about Sam even with hoping for the best. Ideally he turns it around like Goff or Stafford did, but this is 2018 and not 1998. Most of the QBs that are pretty good now over the past 10 years had significantly better rookie seasons than Sam is having. It hasn't been out of the ordinary for a rookie QB to step in and immediately show high promise.

[bootsy]

Is there an option for no he's not great. There needs to be. Tired of people using the word great to describe something that doesn't deserve. This guy has done nothing great. He rushed for 1000 yards, so what. Countless RB's in NFL history have too.

[Gmen]

24 minutes ago, bootsy said:

Is there an option for no he's not great. There needs to be. Tired of people using the word great to describe something that doesn't deserve. This guy has done nothing great. He rushed for 1000 yards, so what. Countless RB's in NFL history have too.

Can we get this guy banned? Any mods in here?

 

[bootsy]

22 minutes ago, Gmen said:

Can we get this guy banned? Any mods in here?

 

LOL at the person who started this lunacy of a thread.

[Danger]

1 hour ago, bootsy said:

LOL at the person who started this lunacy of a thread.

Barkley has ran for 1155 yards and caught for 800 on 100 receptions. With a garbage offensive line and Quarterback. In his rookie season. But you know, lets overlook those details.

[pnies20]

Mayfield deserves OROY.

[VanS]

18 hours ago, lancerman said:

See the problem is you are trying to hide behind them merely being predictions when at the time you were making these adamant big and bold declarations as if there was no doubt Garrett was going to be the MVP or the Packers the best team. And then you went on to continue to argue them.

Its not like Tony Romo making pre season picks.   And if that’s what you really were doing.... idk I’d probably reevaluate the way you did it.

As far as Barkley, he is not better than Gurley. There is no real way you can look at all the available data on both players and say he’s better than Gurley. So again it’s you making a big bold statement without much to back it up. And him being a top 2 player in the league is comical 

I don't care about stats.  I've watched them play and can see Saquon is better.

This is no diss toward Todd Gurley.  Saquon Barkley might be the most talented RB in NFL history.  He would be the best in almost every era.