Which gm put themselves on the hot seat?

[iknowcool]

Gettleman got criticized for taking Barkley over a QB, because supposedly you can't wait a year to take a QB, then takes a QB and its a problem.

And if it was as simple as people just not thinking Jones is good enough, I would understand.  But nobody was accepting that argument when pro-Barkley people would say there isn't any proof that Darnold is going to turn out to be good either.  I feel like he was in a lose/lose.  And not to suggest I think Jones > Haskins, but I don't think it's THAT big of a gap where its inconceivable Gettleman had him rated higher.  

Edited April 26, 2019 by iknowcool

[DawgX]

8 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

Gettleman drafts Barkley instead of a QB: "Buffoon!  You need a QB."

Gettleman drafts QB:  "Buffoon!  Could have had Josh Allen"

And if it was as simple as people just not thinking Jones is good enough, I would understand.  But nobody was accepting that argument when pro-Barkley people would say there isn't any proof that Darnold is going to turn out to be good either.  So I'm really not getting the hate for Dave right now.  What do people want him to do?  He took the highest rated QB on his board.  He took the position everyone said you had to take, and now it's a problem.

People are criticizing him for passing on who many thought was a great prospect in Darnold for a RB, no matter how talented that RB may be. And most people are critical of them taking Jones at #6 when he likely would have been available at #17. They could have added a great pass rushing prospect in Allen, or they could have taken Haskins, who most view as a better prospect than Jones. I don't even think Jones is a bad prospect, I just think they would have been better off taking Darnold, Haskins or even trading for Rosen.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

21 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

Gettleman got criticized for taking Barkley over a QB, because supposedly you can't wait a year to take a QB, then takes a QB and its a problem.

And if it was as simple as people just not thinking Jones is good enough, I would understand.  But nobody was accepting that argument when pro-Barkley people would say there isn't any proof that Darnold is going to turn out to be good either.  I feel like he was in a lose/lose.  And not to suggest I think Jones > Haskins, but I don't think it's THAT big of a gap where its inconceivable Gettleman had him rated higher.  

So I’ll ask you what I asked another fan.

2 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

So obviously it’s early, but humor me and rank these scenarios based on your preference.

1. Barkley, Jones, Lawrence and Baker

2. Darnold, Josh Allen* (or other player available at 6), Lawrence and Baker 

3. Barkley, Allen*, Lawrence and Rosen

4. Barkley, Haskins, Lawrence and Baker

5. Darnold, Allen*, Baker, and OBJ (assuming he wasn’t disgruntled with Darnold)

6. Barkley, Haskins, Baker and OBJ

 

[iknowcool]

23 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

So I’ll ask you what I asked another fan.

 

I mean, for sure Barkley/Haskins/Baker/OBJ is #1.  But I'm not sure what Beckham has to do with what I said. I'm not defending him for trading Beckham.  

My point is people criticized them for taking Barkley over Darnold.  Fair, but then Darnold had a below average season (even by rookie QB standards) and Barkley had one of the best offensive seasons by a rookie in the last 10-20 years.  And the logic was still, "you have to take a QB".  Almost like it didn't matter how good said QB was (not to suggest Darnold can't/won't improve, but he's shown nothing yet that should have people think Gettleman will regret passing on him), you are just supposed to take them if you need one.  So the Giants view Jones as their #1 QB on the board after Murray and they took him.  

If it was as simple as Haskins >>> Jones, I would understand, but a lot of people seem to think they should have taken Allen and then waited for a QB to drop.  What happens if Haskins goes to the Redskins and another team jumps ahead of the Giants to take Jones?  

Do you  believe the gap between Haskins and Jones is so much that it is inconceivable a team could have Jones ahead of Haskins?  And if you agree that you can see the argument for Jones > Haskins, then what is the problem with them taking their #1 QB (and a first round quality QB) with their pick?  Because the whole "he could have fell to them at 17" doesn't work because nobody knows that for sure.  Who knows how that would have changed the approach of teams like the Broncos, Bengals, etc.

Jones definitely needs to be good or else Gettleman's job is at risk, but literally the same thing would be true if they drafted Haskins.  I guess I don't see the issue with it as much as others do.  It's not like he took Will Grier or a QB obviously not worth taking in the first.  Jones is a first round quality QB.

Edited April 26, 2019 by iknowcool

[iknowcool]

28 minutes ago, DawgX said:

And most people are critical of them taking Jones at #6 when he likely would have been available at #17. 

We don't know that.  If Gettleman took Allen at #6, and then someone leapfrogged him before #17 for Jones and the Redskins took Haskins, the outrage would have been insane.  And we simply don't know how other teams felt about Jones, but it's certainly possible one of the Bengals, Dolphins, or Broncos (not too familiar with who those teams met with during the pre-draft process in all fairness) could have liked him enough to take him and all picked before the Giants next pick.

I agree with you they would have been better off taking Haskins, but I don't think the gap between Haskins/Jones is that huge either.  So I guess from a different POV, if you felt Haskins was considerably better than Jones, I can see the issue with the pick.  But personally I can see why the Giants would have Jones ranked higher, I don't think it's that much of a stretch.  

[Daniel]

6 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

  But personally I can see why the Giants would have Jones ranked higher, I don't think it's that much of a stretch.  

I, and seemingly a lot of other people, think it was a big stretch.  Jones would've been a reach at 17 IMO.

[Danger]

29 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

So I’ll ask you what I asked another fan.

 

You've gotta have Barkley, a decent QB (Not Jones), and Josh Allen IMO

Give me

Barkley, Allen, OBJ, and Rosen

[tab]

i dont really follow the draft, but I feel like if I dont recognize a name in the top 10, especially a QB name, it feels like something's up

[tom cody]

The Giants GM. Picking Jones ahead of Haskins is a big time ? move. 

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

24 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

I mean, for sure Barkley/Haskins/Baker/OBJ is #1.  But I'm not sure what Beckham has to do with what I said. I'm not defending him for trading Beckham.  

My point is people criticized them for taking Barkley over Darnold.  Fair, but then Darnold had a below average season (even by rookie QB standards) and Barkley had one of the best offensive seasons by a rookie in the last 10-20 years.  And the logic was still, "you have to take a QB".  Almost like it didn't matter how good said QB was (not to suggest Darnold can't/won't improve, but he's shown nothing yet that should have people think Gettleman will regret passing on him), you are just supposed to take them if you need one.  So the Giants view Jones as their #1 QB on the board after Murray and they took him.  

If it was as simple as Haskins >>> Jones, I would understand, but a lot of people seem to think they should have taken Allen and then waited for a QB to drop.  What happens if Haskins goes to the Redskins and another team jumps ahead of the Giants to take Jones?  

Do you  believe the gap between Haskins and Jones is so much that it is inconceivable a team could have Jones ahead of Haskins?  And if you agree that you can see the argument for Jones > Haskins, then what is the problem with them taking their #1 QB (and a first round quality QB) with their pick?  Because the whole "he could have fell to them at 17" doesn't work because nobody knows that for sure.  Who knows how that would have changed the approach of teams like the Broncos, Bengals, etc.

Jones definitely needs to be good or else Gettleman's job is at risk, but literally the same thing would be true if they drafted Haskins.  I guess I don't see the issue with it as much as others do.  It's not like he took Will Grier or a QB obviously not worth taking in the first.  Jones is a first round quality QB.

This is a good post and I’m gonna reply, but I’m working now so gimme a bit.

I only have time for short blurbs, but I want to continue this.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

11 minutes ago, Danger said:

You've gotta have Barkley, a decent QB (Not Jones), and Josh Allen IMO

Give me

Barkley, Allen, OBJ, and Rosen

I think this is significantly better than what they actually did.

[mistakey]

Barkley, Haskins, OBJ would be my call

do they have a pass rush?  what the hell is going on over there

[AkronsWitness]

2 hours ago, Kiwibrown said:

I think John Elway gone done messed up by not taking haskins.

Thank You Kiwi. While Fant is a good TE and they got an additional 2nd + 3rd rounder--- Drew Lock needs to be the pick in the 2nd for redemption.

Going into next year trying to sell the fanbase on a Flacco/Rypien combo feels awfully similar to trying to sell Siemian/Osweiler as a good QB room.

Let Paxton Lynch be water under the bridge and keep swinging. Lock is still there, make your move for a legit potential QBOTF

Edited April 26, 2019 by AkronsWitness

[mistakey]

2 minutes ago, mistakey said:

Barkley, Haskins, OBJ would be my call

do they have a pass rush?  what the hell is going on over there

of course assuming that they still go barkley cause ive been told by giants fans that it was def worth it to pass on darnold

[Danger]

29 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

I think this is significantly better than what they actually did.

They could also have still had Damon "Snacks" Harrison too. Wouldn't need Dexter Lawrence then...