Jump to content
Duke5217

What are the G-Men doing at #2?

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Broncofan said:

I'm revising it a little too.   You can have guys who are 3-down guys but pretty meh, and that's not as much of an impact as having a Zeke, Bell or Gurley who can win with the run game, or the pass game (and in Zeke's case, a big plus for great pass protection, and good receiving skills, whereas the other 2 are great <Bell> or schemed to greatness by McVay <Gurley>) in the pass game.    It's why I downgraded Fournette from must-draft Rd1.   He's serviceable in the pass game, but he's not a wheel route / line up wide and beat the ILB/safety kind of threat that Kamara/Bell (and I believe Barkley) will be.

I'm a Rd 1 RB nihilist - unless you can stay on the field for 3-downs, and you have true generational talent.   In the past 7+ years, I count only Zeke, Gurley & Barkley as the 3 (Bell was a different back coming out of college, no one knew he'd slim down and become who he was, DJ was from small school background, so same deal).   I love Sony Michel, but didn't include him (nor Penny lol).  Both can stay on the field IMO, but not quite generational talent.     But I would include Barkley in there.

My problems with Barkley with NYG are 2-fold - I do think Eli's done, I don't think Barkley & OL upgrade will bring that back.  But if I and the others who think the same are wrong, we'll find out soon enough, I'll grant Eli & his supporters that much lol.    The other part I know will be billed as hindsight but I truly think there was no way Barkley wasn't going to be there at 1.5.   DEN apparently was interested in moving up to 1.2 to get Darnold.    Don't get me wrong, if I don't have Darnold (and sadly Elway had ruled out Rosen as a 1.5 option), I'm thrilled we didn't go Allen, and went Chubb.   But I don't see how Gettleman couldn't have extracted more value - and still got his guy.   DEN would have been offering 2.40 and their 2019 2nd, or their 2019 1st to move up.

I get it, Gettleman's never traded back - but if there was a time where it was indicated to break with tradition, this was it.    

I disagree, I seriously doubt Barkley would have got past Cleveland at #4 or Denver at #5. The Giants would have had to trade with Buffalo and lose out on any top 10 talent, a move that rarely turns out to be successful!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Iamcanadian said:

I disagree, I seriously doubt Barkley would have got past Cleveland at #4 or Denver at #5. The Giants would have had to trade with Buffalo and lose out on any top 10 talent, a move that rarely turns out to be successful!

Read the post again - NYG  moving to 1.5 is a trade with DEN, not BUF.  That means DEN moves up to 1.2 to get Darnold.   Which the DEN beat reporters confirmed was the goal.   CLE’s choice of Ward, while I don’t agree, was clearly a need based pick.   And one foreshadowed by Carlos Hyde’s signing in FA with Duke Johnson.   You don’t sign Hyde if you are going to take Barkley as plan A.  

Obv ppl will say there’s still uncertainty in moving to 1.5.   That’s fair.  And we will never know for sure,  esp if reports are true that Gettleman didn’t even take any calls for 1.4 by his choice.    But if he had taken calls, and he had discussions with CLE for 1.4, and found zero interest it would have also been a clear signal CLE was looking at a guy who they didn’t need to move up for beyond 1.4 (Chubb or as we found out, Ward).   Which knowing NYG’s interest in Barkley, combined with the Hyde FA signing and Dorsey’s history, well you get the idea. 

I personally wouldn’t have even signed Hyde given that a difference making rookie RB likely was there at 2.1 and 2.3; but that move is what signaled CLE’s intent about 1.1 loud and clear.   And combined with a lack of interest to move up from 1.2, would have been enough for me for 1.4.   Agree 1.5 is the lowest NYG could fall to and feel they would still get Barkley. 

We’ll never know for sure but if it’s true that Gettleman didn’t even consider moving back to 1.5 that was just a missed opp for added value and still get the guy they wanted (or 1.4 if you want to hold that CLE masked their intent - DEN didn’t think Chubb was going to be there, given the way CLE addressed FA and knowing Dorsey’s MO, FWIW).    That’s the point made.   Agree BUF trade back wasn’t in play but that wasn’t the OP.

Edited by Broncofan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I saw rumors on a Giants forum that the Browns were trying to move up from 1.4 to 1.2, which meant they wanted Barkley.  

I was torn between Barkley and Darnold, but would have been happy with either pick.  Darnold has higher positional value, but Barkley is the best player in the draft, and the best RB prospect we have seen in a while.  Drafting Darnold would be a concession that we are in a rebuilding mode.  By drafting Barkley the Giants give themselves an opportunity to compete now.  For 7 years the running game has been trash.  Drafting Barkley, Hernandez and the free agency additions gives the giants a top 10 running game on paper.  OBJ will be back. Engram is a matchup nightmare.  Suddenly the offense looks respectable.  And if the defense plays closer to 2016 form, the Giants can be serious contenders.  Time will tell.

Ill add to this that one of Eli’s best attributes is his knowledge of the game.  Several ex giants that have been around the league, such as sage rosenfels, rave about Eli in that respect.  With all these weapons around him, Eli just needs to be a game manager at this point in his career.  Read the defense pre-snap, get into the right play, and get the ball to one of the three legitimate playmakers.  If you think Eli can’t be effective in that role, I think you’re underestimating Eli.  The last few years it was all on him and OBJ.  No offensive line, no running game.  Not many QBs would’ve looked any better 

Edited by Gmen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2018 at 1:01 PM, EliteTexan80 said:

Barkley. Final answer.

Nailed it. :D

The Will Hernandez pick in the 2nd made this pick all the more juicy. A good road grader on the inside will open up some big holes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, GSUeagles14 said:

apparently you dont understand. using critical thinking and not being dumb, hopefully we can all realize football is a dependent sport and shouldnt be looked at in a vacuum. thats what he was trying to do, but it just doesnt work in football. it was a poor article to post if were trying to have any realistic discussion.

The writer stated multiple times that you can't just look at the stat as is. There is alot of grey area.Its just one piece of the puzzle. But it does have its use. 

So Im not sure why you're trying to say anyones looking at it in a vaccum. 

The other things the article points out nicely is

- PA isn't effected that much by team rushing success 

- Teams arent signicantly effected if at all by losing their star running backs. 

- RB is a devalued position by the NFL and you can acquire good RB talent via FA or the draft for relatively cheap. 

You start piecing together enough research (not just from this article) and follow the success of the leauges best teams and it becomes clear - Investing a high pick or alot of cap space into the RB position is just not smart or needed to win in this leauge. 

The Giants had two options at 2. Take a QB or trade down. They made a horrible mistake imo. 

They would have been much smarter to do the trade the Jets did with the Colts.

They could have walked away with something like this:

Nelson, Oliver, Guice and a 2019 2nd

I'll take that over Barkely and it isnt even close.

 

Edited by jarren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jarren said:

The writer stated multiple times that you can't just look at the stat as is. There is alot of grey area.Its just one piece of the puzzle. But it does have its use. 

So Im not sure why you're trying to say anyones looking at it in a vaccum. 

The other things the article points out nicely is

- PA isn't effected that much by team rushing success 

- Teams arent signicantly effected if at all by losing their star running backs. 

- RB is a devalued position by the NFL and you can acquire good RB talent via FA or the draft for relatively cheap. 

You start piecing together enough research (not just from this article) plus following the success of the leauges most successful teams, and investing a high pick or alot of cap space into the RB position is just not smart or needed to win in this leauge. 

The Giants had two options at 2. Take a QB or trade down. They made a horrible mistake imo. 

They would have been much smarter to do the trade the Jets did with the Colts.

They could have walked away with something like this:

Nelson, Oliver, Guice and a 2019 2nd

I'll take that over Barkely and it isnt even close.

 

Totally agree. Far too much value in that option.

I think a trade back to get a Guice or a Michel, and nabbing a QB or Nelson would have been far better. Saquon, whilst epic, is at the mercy of an average-to-poor OL, with the possibility that defenses will be stacking box (with Eli's diminishing returns). 

9: Rosen, 29: Michel, then Hernandez and the rest. Or something. I dunno.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

Totally agree. Far too much value in that option.

I think a trade back to get a Guice or a Michel, and nabbing a QB or Nelson would have been far better. Saquon, whilst epic, is at the mercy of an average-to-poor OL, with the possibility that defenses will be stacking box (with Eli's diminishing returns). 

9: Rosen, 29: Michel, then Hernandez and the rest. Or something. I dunno.

Totally agree. If I was in charge I would have made it a point get a QB (Rosen or Jackson).

Imagine the Giants walked away with the same class but instead of Barkley they added Rosen, Oliver/Daniels, Guice and a 2019 2nd.

The future of the Giants would look awesome. 

Instead they punted it so they can attempt a Superbowl run with a slighty above average (debateable) team led by a declining 37 year old QB who isn't even that good. Not smart. 

 

*** Just adding to this. The Giants could have traded down with the Colts and then with the Bills and then with the Saints if they wanted tomove down that far and still walk away with Lamar Jackson.

Imagine having all those assets. Compare that just Saquan and the decision to draft him looks even worse.

 

Edited by jarren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Drafting Barkley at 2 is unbelievably terrible relative value.  And this isn't just Barkley hate from a division rival.  The quote below is what I said in a thread on the Redskins forum when we were contemplating drafting Guice at 13 overall.  It applies much more so to drafting a RB at 2 overall, no matter how good.

Quote

 

I love Guice, but my main issue with the pick is the fact that we would be getting terrible relative value over the next 5 years.

For example, Zeke and Jalen Ramsey are both top 5 players at their position.  Based on talent alone, you could argue that either Zeke (ignoring the off-the-field stuff) or Ramsey was the right pick for the Cowboys at #4 in 2016.  That there was no wrong pick.  However, that extremely underrates the value you get from having Ramsey under contract for 5 years vs. having Zeke under contract for 5 years:

Zeke is the 7th highest paid RB in the league.  That is okay value for a top 5 back.

Ramsey is the 30th highest paid CB in the league. That is unbelievable value for a top 5 CB.  It's a huge reason the Jags are able to pay Calais Campbell, AJ Bouye, and the other studs on that defense so much going forward.  That is the kind of value that leads to winning Superbowls.  Just ask the 2013 Seahawks.  IMO, the Jags hurt themselves last year by drafting Fournette (who is the 5th highest paid RB btw) at 4 rather than just drafting Deshaun Watson or Mahomes in the 1st and drafting a RB like Alvin Kamara, Kareem Hunt, Dalvin Cook, or Joe Mixon later in the draft.  They'd be SB favorites this year.

 

RB is the one position where it's better to get a guy in FA on his second contract than it is to get in the 1st round of the draft.  That is because you probably end up paying less for the FA over the life of the contract than you do a first round draft pick.  RB is pretty much the only position where that is the case.  So that's why, yes, it does matter how I originally phrased my question.  It's not about how many 1st round RBs have won a SB in the last 20 years.  It's about if they won the SB with the team that drafted them and wasted the relative value they would have gotten at a more important position on a 1st round RB.  If you can't find a FA RB, then you're better off drafting one on Day 2.  It's all about value when trying to build a consistent SB contender under the salary cap.

Believe me, I'm tempted to take Guice at 13 too, if only because of the lack of faith I have in the FO to find a premier talent in a later round.  But if the goal is a Superbowl,  then you have to really be cognizant of salary cap management and the relative value between players.  Give me a Jalen Ramsey or a Joey Bosa over Zeke any day.  Or give me a Marshon Lattimore, Deshaun Watson, or Jonathan Allen over Leonard Fournette.  Or, in this case, a Ward, Fitzpatrick, James, or Vea over Guice.  Not because they are more talented than Guice, but because of the relative value in their positions that allows you to spend more money on studs in FA, or gives you the ability to re-sign your own FAs.  Again, this is how I would manage a team if the goal is to win a Superbowl.  With the Redskins, I have a hard time believing that is their goal, so I have resigned myself to being disappointed.

 

 

Barkley is already the 4th highest paid RB in the league, and will soon have the highest guaranteed money at the position: https://overthecap.com/position/running-back/

I am ecstatic that the Giants made this selection.  It was the one choice I was actively rooting for them to make.

Edited by HTTRG3Dynasty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

^ I too am looking forward to watching Barkley and OBJ shred the NFCE.  My goodness what a talented combo.

Edited by Gmen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jarren said:

The writer stated multiple times that you can't just look at the stat as is. There is alot of grey area.Its just one piece of the puzzle. But it does have its use. 

So Im not sure why you're trying to say anyones looking at it in a vaccum. 

The other things the article points out nicely is

- PA isn't effected that much by team rushing success 

- Teams arent signicantly effected if at all by losing their star running backs. 

- RB is a devalued position by the NFL and you can acquire good RB talent via FA or the draft for relatively cheap. 

You start piecing together enough research (not just from this article) and follow the success of the leauges best teams and it becomes clear - Investing a high pick or alot of cap space into the RB position is just not smart or needed to win in this leauge. 

The Giants had two options at 2. Take a QB or trade down. They made a horrible mistake imo. 

They would have been much smarter to do the trade the Jets did with the Colts.

They could have walked away with something like this:

Nelson, Oliver, Guice and a 2019 2nd

I'll take that over Barkely and it isnt even close.

 

 

he may have stated it, but he stilled tried to build an argument around it. Same with the winning thing, he said theres a sample size issue but then goes on to ignore it. Read his reasoning for gurley and the rams and you see just how stupid that how article is. "yea gurley helpoed but it took a smart plan too". Just cause you state the obvious issues with your argument doesnt mean you get to ignore them going forward. As far as being a "devalued position", i imagine your partly pulling that from the average salary by position he included. Whats your thought on corner, devalued? or could it be that at rb your in your prime extremely early in your career and with the amount of physical punishment your taking 2nd and 3rd contracts are far from guarentees. At 30, your career is very likely over, compared to an oline spot or dt you can play deeper into your career and get those more lucrative 2nd or 3rd contracts.i mean, the steelers see bell as so valuable theyre happy to pay him 15 mil this year yet they arent prepared to offer him big guaranteed money in the future cause theyre just waiting for that day for his body to breakdown and his play goes off a cliff.  jerrick mckinnon got to his 2nd contract and just got PAID.

 

giants had tons of options at 2, they picked what they felt was the safest one. we've seen how teams not taking shots and trading out works and its far from a sure thing. would yo trade julio jones for phil brown, greg little, owen marecic and brandon weeden? guessing not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

he may have stated it, but he stilled tried to build an argument around it. Same with the winning thing, he said theres a sample size issue but then goes on to ignore it. Read his reasoning for gurley and the rams and you see just how stupid that how article is. "yea gurley helpoed but it took a smart plan too". Just cause you state the obvious issues with your argument doesnt mean you get to ignore them going forward. As far as being a "devalued position", i imagine your partly pulling that from the average salary by position he included. Whats your thought on corner, devalued? or could it be that at rb your in your prime extremely early in your career and with the amount of physical punishment your taking 2nd and 3rd contracts are far from guarentees. At 30, your career is very likely over, compared to an oline spot or dt you can play deeper into your career and get those more lucrative 2nd or 3rd contracts.i mean, the steelers see bell as so valuable theyre happy to pay him 15 mil this year yet they arent prepared to offer him big guaranteed money in the future cause theyre just waiting for that day for his body to breakdown and his play goes off a cliff.  jerrick mckinnon got to his 2nd contract and just got PAID.

 

giants had tons of options at 2, they picked what they felt was the safest one. we've seen how teams not taking shots and trading out works and its far from a sure thing. would yo trade julio jones for phil brown, greg little, owen marecic and brandon weeden? guessing not.

Zeke + Bell + Fournette teams all had minimal if any decline with them in the line up. Theres enough of a sample size to see elite RBs dont have a HUGE effect on a teams success like other positons.

Really Jerrick McKinnon? Hahaha. Hes getting paid 7.5 mil a year. DJ frickin Hayden is getting paid basically a million dollars less. RBs rarely get "PAID". 

If you want to see how undervalued RBs are get the avg of the #1 RB on each team compared to the #1 at another position (CB, T, WR etc)

The Giants aren't in the same spot Atlanta was. They arent coming off a playoff apperance and sure as hell dont have a young QB. They're essentially trying to open a window for the next 2-3 years with a slighty above average team. Pretty stupid decision. Especially when you consider a RBs shelf life isnt long like you pointed out. 

Drafting Barkley at #2 was a dumb decision for the Giants. Simple as that. You can agree to disagree but it is what it is.  We'll see how it plays out in the years to come.

Edited by jarren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the shelf life of running backs compared to other positions, I'll be honest, I don't care what happens 10 years from now.  To make a decision on which player to draft based on what might happen 10 years from now is silly.  The odds of any of these guys being pro-bowlers 10 years from now are pretty slim anyway.  So if Barkley could play until 30, and give us 4 or 5 probowl quality years during that time frame, he'll be well worth the pick in my opinion.  And as Gil Brandt unequivocally put it, "He has a 100% chance of being an All-Pro".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gmen said:

^ I too am looking forward to watching Barkley and OBJ shred the NFCE.  My goodness what a talented combo.

& Evan Engram. ;D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, CalhounLambeau said:

& Evan Engram. ;D

He's a footnote right now, but he won't be once the season starts. Kyle Rudolph was the #3 receiving option in Shurmur's offense with Minny last year. Rudolph is good, but he isn't in the same league as Engram when it comes to how athletic and explosive they are. If this offense is opened up the way it should be and Shurmur does his job, all of these extremely talented skill position players will have great years, especially Engram. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, jarren said:

Zeke + Bell + Fournette teams all had minimal if any decline with them in the line up. Theres enough of a sample size to see elite RBs dont have a HUGE effect on a teams success like other positons

Really Jerrick McKinnon? Hahaha. Hes getting paid 7.5 mil a year. DJ frickin Hayden is getting paid basically a million dollars less. RBs rarely get "PAID". 

If you want to see how undervalued RBs are get the avg of the #1 RB on each team compared to the #1 at another position (CB, T, WR etc)

The Giants aren't in the same spot Atlanta was. They arent coming off a playoff apperance and sure as hell dont have a young QB. They're essentially trying to open a window for the next 2-3 years with a slighty above average team. Pretty stupid decision. Especially when you consider a RBs shelf life isnt long like you pointed out. 

Drafting Barkley at #2 was a dumb decision for the Giants. Simple as that. You can agree to disagree but it is what it is.  We'll see how it plays out in the years to come.

zeke and fournette arent the same kind of backs that johnson and bell are, and what people think barkley will be. And no, theres not a significant sample size. That is even mentioned in teh article you posted. i mean, 3 games for fournette (who i dont think anyone would call elite yet), if thats your idea of significant sample size then we have bigger problems. In addition to that, what huge impacts do Right guards have on a teams success? Dt's? Free safeties? 

yes mckinnon. not sure what was difficult to understand or funny about that.And thanks for pointing out a corner got paid less than him. as far as an average of #1 pay, thats not how it works. Are those #1;s on rookie contracts or lower 1 year deals for vets? Too many variables. if you want to argue there are less game changing, all around backs than that would actual be a good argument for once, but bell gets paid almost as much as anyone on the team per year and johnson likely will if he can stay healthy. when taclking about good but not elite players, keeping it familair with what we both know, Freeman prob got the most favorable deal outside of Ryan, Jones, Tru, and Mack.

we agree, theyre trying to extend their window. They decided they had a better chance with ELi than a rookie, and im sure theyll either go the cousins route or take a guy in the early rounds of the draft in a few years. Doesnt mean they were wrong, and Eli has shown us when he doesnt have to do everything he can be a pretty good qb. It wasnt dumb at all, if darnold busts and Barkley is a hofer who wins 3 sbs it doesnt make it a genius move either. they decided theyd take the safe, most talented guy, eli is competent enough to be a really good team if things shake right and theyll address qb down the road closer to when they actually have to.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×