Can the Giants seriously pass on a QB at 2??!!

[ET80]

Just now, lancerman said:

Ok great so they really shouldn’t have even been there the year they did. While the Steelers were the best team in the AFC all year

2nd best, actually. But it wasn't because of Ben, who had a pedestrian year by any standards (59% completion percentage, 3,300 yards, 17/15). 

That Steelers team was being carried by guys like James Harrison, Troy Polamalu, James Farrior, Lamarr Woodley, not the offense. 

[RuskieTitan]

32 minutes ago, EliteTexan80 said:

44 minutes ago, RuskieTitan said:

Take a look at that 2004 first round class. Who is still around? Eli Manning (QB), Larry Fitzgerald (WR), Big Ben (QB). Fitzgerald has had a top 5 WR career, so he's the exception more than the rule.

Fitz is a perfect example of what I'm thinking - you have a skill position that seems like he's going to have a similar impact, based on his physical attributes as well as off the field demeanor and work ethic in Saquan Barkley. Do you think the Cardinals re-do that pick, even though we know what Big Ben and Phillip Rivers turned into?

I'm sure they are happy with how Fitzgerald has turned out, but if they could have had Big Ben or Rivers instead (assuming both continue to develop into the players they are today), I believe they would take the quarterback.

[ET80]

8 minutes ago, RuskieTitan said:

I'm sure they are happy with how Fitzgerald has turned out, but if they could have had Big Ben or Rivers instead (assuming both continue to develop into the players they are today), I believe they would take the quarterback.

I have no problems being in the minority on this one. I think Denny Green was locked into Larry from the get go (he had deep insight to Larry during Larry's days as a ball boy for the Vikings) and I don't think anyone regrets the decision. 

My stance on this is twofold - I'm incredibly high on Barkley (passing on him will be like passing on Randy Moss) and I am higher on some of the 2nd tier QBs (Jackson, most notably) then I am on any first tier QB not named Sam Darnold. 

[Forge]

1 hour ago, EliteTexan80 said:

Also - are we really this confident in this QB class outside of Darnold? Is there a world of difference between Rosen at 1.2 vs a guy like Lamar Jackson at 2.2 (or 1.20 via trade up?)

I think there is, but I don't love Jackson at all, and I've been a pretty notable Josh Allen supporter for the last two years (I will die up on that hill alone, apparently lol). Rosen I'm neither high or low on but I'm in line with the majority. He's a tremendous prospect. 

[ET80]

2 minutes ago, Forge said:

I think there is, but I don't love Jackson at all, and I've been a pretty notable Josh Allen supporter for the last two years (I will die up on that hill alone, apparently lol). Rosen I'm neither high or low on but I'm in line with the majority. He's a tremendous prospect. 

See, I'm opposite on both Rosen and Allen. Rosen reminds me a lot of Ryan Tannehill - a good QB, but a guy who needs to be in a perfect situation to succeed (which isn't NYG). 

Allen? Sorry to say this, but I see Gabbert written all over him. I can't trust a QB who can't get a ball to a spot over 60% of the time.

I still like you, though. 

[Phire]

1 hour ago, EliteTexan80 said:

Why? So you can David Carr him into submission with a lack of OL, run game, and a defense that will probably put you in shootout mode early and often?

And the #2 pick is going to solve all of that? You can fix those things through other means. Quarterback is the most important position in the NFL and you might not have the chance to pick top 2 in a long, long time. Draft a guy at #2, let him ride out the rest of Eli's career, and build up the OL and run game during that time. 

[RuskieTitan]

14 minutes ago, EliteTexan80 said:

I have no problems being in the minority on this one. I think Denny Green was locked into Larry from the get go (he had deep insight to Larry during Larry's days as a ball boy for the Vikings) and I don't think anyone regrets the decision. 

My stance on this is twofold - I'm incredibly high on Barkley (passing on him will be like passing on Randy Moss) and I am higher on some of the 2nd tier QBs (Jackson, most notably) then I am on any first tier QB not named Sam Darnold. 

Don't get me wrong, I love Barkley as a prospect and think he's the best back to come out for quite some time, a true stud.

But how long, best case scenario, do you think a stud halfback lasts in the NFL? Adrian Peterson gave the Vikings 8 seasons of 12+ games. That's pretty much top of the line expectation for that position. And with this draft class... as much as I like Barkley, you could find yourself a pretty nice back at the top of the 2nd (or trade back into the first) as well. Meanwhile a franchise quarterback is basically a decade plus. Guys like that just don't leave teams. Cousins is the most recent example, but that's moreso the botched job by the Redskins. Prior to that, it was what, Drew Brees and Dante Culpepper? One of those ended up working out great. But teams just don't have the luxury of acquiring quarterbacks through free agency like any other position out there.

I think your perspective is skewed by your opinion on the quarterbacks, and that influences your decision. Likewise, it'll be up to the Giants to determine whether this draft class has a real franchise quarterback... and whether that guy is available at #2. Myself, I think there could be up to 3 guys who are franchise signal callers for the next decade.

[Forge]

1 minute ago, EliteTexan80 said:

See, I'm opposite on both Rosen and Allen. Rosen reminds me a lot of Ryan Tannehill - a good QB, but a guy who needs to be in a perfect situation to succeed (which isn't NYG). 

Allen? Sorry to say this, but I see Gabbert written all over him. I can't trust a QB who can't get a ball to a spot over 60% of the time.

I still like you, though. 

The funny thing, I usually detest first round prospects like Allen. Big boom / bust guys are not something I typically am all in with. Allen could be Jake Locker for sure...but he could be special. I don't think that I've seen a quarterback with such a disparity in the peak and valley before. I could absolutely see him washing out and being out of the league in 5 years, but I could see him being Big Ben too (well, a slightly less accurate version of him). 

I think Rosen has a place, and I think the team that drafts him is important. I think he's actually more limited than the other guys in his skill set, but if he's in the right situation with the right scheme, he could be very good. 

[ET80]

6 minutes ago, RuskieTitan said:

I think your perspective is skewed by your opinion on the quarterbacks, and that influences your decision

This is a very fair assessment, and I can stand by it. I'll admit, if Cleveland went with either of the Josh QBs, I'd be perfectly OK with suggesting Darnold as the pick at 2.

[Forge]

I don't think that this is a question that necessarily has a right / wrong answer. We have seen teams go about this in both ways, and both have varying levels of success, so they can absolutely bypass quarterback at #2. 

I think the idea that Barkley comes in and beasts it out with this team right from the start is a little off base. Even Barkley needs help. Putting Barkley on the Giants doesn't necessarily fix anything the first year or guarantee some amazing production. Just look at the OSU / PSU game from this year. Monster defensive front against a limited offense with offensive line struggles. He had one big run of 36 yards, then had 20 carries for 8 yards. Again, 20 carries, 8 yards. 

This is a team that is not an immediate impact player away from turning into something formidable. So at that point, it just depends on how they decide they want to build their teams, how they have the guys ranked. If they have Darnold as their #1, and he's there at the second pick, then yeah, go ahead and take him because things like that fall into line so very rarely. But if Darnold is gone, and then you like but don't love the other guys? I have no problem if at that point they want to build their roster in another way. Like I said, teams have done it this way before and I don't think success/failure is any more or less guaranteed at that point. We are talking a multi year "rebuild" here (or "reload" if you don't want to say it's a full on rebuild). Barkley, once the rest of the team is settled, could be special. Nelson seems like he could be a plug and play all pro on the line. There are impact guys to be had there. They could also trade down - the team has enough holes that grabbing picks 12 and 21 from Buffalo is a viable choice. I love the players available in the early 20's. They could definitely land two impact starters with pro bowl level potential there.