RealGM

Manning is cooked, they shouldve drafted Darnold. Then traded OBJR to the Rams for the 23rd pick (and a later pick) and drafted Wynn.

QB and lines win games, lines arnet sexy, but thats the most important part compared to skillset players.

I feel bad for Giants fans, this team is a disaster

Runner up: the Texans signing and then extending Ass Chin.

I don't feel bad for fans who've experienced two championships in last last decade or so. Show me a die-hard Bills fan, Browns fan. Raiders fan. Texans or Dolphins fan.

I don't feel bad for fans who've had to experience a rough four years. Feel bad for the Knicks fans.

I'd rather Barkley, I don't think Darnold is that good. Barkley even as a RB is a way better prospect and Darnold would look like trash behind their line,

bondom34 wrote:I'd rather Barkley, I don't think Darnold is that good. Barkley even as a RB is a way better prospect and Darnold would look like trash behind their line,

I'll take an average QB or solid O-line over a top-5 RB any day. The other problem if you choose to go with the RB, is that you are only getting 5-8 years of quality production. A decent QB can steady the single most important position on your offense for a good 12-15 years. The Giants had an opportunity to grab a QB this year and then let Manning get killed for a year or two until they get the O-line in order. I also agree with Pharmcat that they should have traded OBJ as soon as they found some sucker to take him. That dude was half-kooky before and now his huge contract just validates and emboldens every tendency he has toward being a pain in the locker room's butt.

RavenMad31 wrote:

bondom34 wrote:I'd rather Barkley, I don't think Darnold is that good. Barkley even as a RB is a way better prospect and Darnold would look like trash behind their line,

I'll take an average QB or solid O-line over a top-5 RB any day. The other problem if you choose to go with the RB, is that you are only getting 5-8 years of quality production. A decent QB can steady the single most important position on your offense for a good 12-15 years. The Giants had an opportunity to grab a QB this year and then let Manning get killed for a year or two until they get the O-line in order. I also agree with Pharmcat that they should have traded OBJ as soon as they found some sucker to take him. That dude was half-kooky before and now his huge contract just validates and emboldens every tendency he has toward being a pain in the locker room's butt.

I don't think Darnold is worth a top 2 pick, and there weren't any OL there either. I'd take a guy like Adrian Peterson over Tony Romo too. Barkley's looked like the best RB in the league and having an average QB for 12-15 years isn't that valuable. Having a great one is, but I don't see that in anyone after their pick. Drafting one would have pressured them to play him early and he'd have been killed too.

Also, OBJ is passionate, but he's one of the handful of guys who cares on that team. I'd trade him if value was there, but it would have to blow me away. The pick though was the best available after Baker.

No. You take Barkley or Nelson there. Darnold is not the answer.

bondom34 wrote:

RavenMad31 wrote:

bondom34 wrote:I'd rather Barkley, I don't think Darnold is that good. Barkley even as a RB is a way better prospect and Darnold would look like trash behind their line,

I'll take an average QB or solid O-line over a top-5 RB any day. The other problem if you choose to go with the RB, is that you are only getting 5-8 years of quality production. A decent QB can steady the single most important position on your offense for a good 12-15 years. The Giants had an opportunity to grab a QB this year and then let Manning get killed for a year or two until they get the O-line in order. I also agree with Pharmcat that they should have traded OBJ as soon as they found some sucker to take him. That dude was half-kooky before and now his huge contract just validates and emboldens every tendency he has toward being a pain in the locker room's butt.

I don't think Darnold is worth a top 2 pick, and there weren't any OL there either. I'd take a guy like Adrian Peterson over Tony Romo too. Barkley's looked like the best RB in the league and having an average QB for 12-15 years isn't that valuable. Having a great one is, but I don't see that in anyone after their pick. Drafting one would have pressured them to play him early and he'd have been killed too.

Also, OBJ is passionate, but he's one of the handful of guys who cares on that team. I'd trade him if value was there, but it would have to blow me away. The pick though was the best available after Baker.

Darnold's 3-3 Jets are scoring 8 PPG more than Barkley's 1-5 Giants at the moment.
Tony Romo was an underappreciated QB during his career. Granted, I have a real problem with his durability, but under Romo, who was probably a top 30? 40? 50? all time QB when he retired, Dallas never had a season under .500 in seasons with him as a leading passer. Adrian Peterson is probably a top 10 or 15 all time RB and the Vikings had 3 seasons under .500 with him as their leading rusher. This tells me a Hall of Fame RB is not as capable of carrying a team as well as a good to very good QB.

RavenMad31 wrote:

bondom34 wrote:

RavenMad31 wrote:
I'll take an average QB or solid O-line over a top-5 RB any day. The other problem if you choose to go with the RB, is that you are only getting 5-8 years of quality production. A decent QB can steady the single most important position on your offense for a good 12-15 years. The Giants had an opportunity to grab a QB this year and then let Manning get killed for a year or two until they get the O-line in order. I also agree with Pharmcat that they should have traded OBJ as soon as they found some sucker to take him. That dude was half-kooky before and now his huge contract just validates and emboldens every tendency he has toward being a pain in the locker room's butt.

I don't think Darnold is worth a top 2 pick, and there weren't any OL there either. I'd take a guy like Adrian Peterson over Tony Romo too. Barkley's looked like the best RB in the league and having an average QB for 12-15 years isn't that valuable. Having a great one is, but I don't see that in anyone after their pick. Drafting one would have pressured them to play him early and he'd have been killed too.

Also, OBJ is passionate, but he's one of the handful of guys who cares on that team. I'd trade him if value was there, but it would have to blow me away. The pick though was the best available after Baker.

Darnold's 3-3 Jets are scoring 8 PPG more than Barkley's 1-5 Giants at the moment.
Tony Romo was an underappreciated QB during his career. Granted, I have a real problem with his durability, but under Romo, who was probably a top 30? 40? 50? all time QB when he retired, Dallas never had a season under .500 in seasons with him as a leading passer. Adrian Peterson is probably a top 10 or 15 all time RB and the Vikings had 3 seasons under .500 with him as their leading rusher. This tells me a Hall of Fame RB is not as capable of carrying a team as well as a good to very good QB.

Part of the question is whether you think Darnold is a Super Bowl level QB and whether you can get a better one later. For sure a good QB is worth more that a great RB, but they will be picking at the top the draft again this year and have another opportunity.

Weird timing. Right now Barkley is clearly a better player than Darnold, and it's not close.

Worm Guts wrote:

RavenMad31 wrote:

bondom34 wrote:I don't think Darnold is worth a top 2 pick, and there weren't any OL there either. I'd take a guy like Adrian Peterson over Tony Romo too. Barkley's looked like the best RB in the league and having an average QB for 12-15 years isn't that valuable. Having a great one is, but I don't see that in anyone after their pick. Drafting one would have pressured them to play him early and he'd have been killed too.

Also, OBJ is passionate, but he's one of the handful of guys who cares on that team. I'd trade him if value was there, but it would have to blow me away. The pick though was the best available after Baker.

Darnold's 3-3 Jets are scoring 8 PPG more than Barkley's 1-5 Giants at the moment.
Tony Romo was an underappreciated QB during his career. Granted, I have a real problem with his durability, but under Romo, who was probably a top 30? 40? 50? all time QB when he retired, Dallas never had a season under .500 in seasons with him as a leading passer. Adrian Peterson is probably a top 10 or 15 all time RB and the Vikings had 3 seasons under .500 with him as their leading rusher. This tells me a Hall of Fame RB is not as capable of carrying a team as well as a good to very good QB.

Part of the question is whether you think Darnold is a Super Bowl level QB and whether you can get a better one later. For sure a good QB is worth more that a great RB, but they will be picking at the top the draft again this year and have another opportunity.

I think Darnold will be at worst a QB you can win a Super Bowl with if you get what I'm saying. Basically, a solid, middle of the pack guy that can make the few plays you need in a big game situation when necessary. I think his ceiling is a top five-ten QB in the league. In my draft book, that's worth more to me than any RB you can dangle in front of me given the way QB value has been weighted the last ten or so years. Now if someone tells me that the Giants are willing to just let Manning get beaten into submission for a year or so while they stock more draft picks and that they have a plan to bring a guy in once the rest of the offense is set, then I can play along and agree that it makes sense.

bmurph128 wrote:Weird timing. Right now Barkley is clearly a better player than Darnold, and it's not close.

This begs the classic "better vs. more valuable" question. Barkley is already an elite RB from what I've seen, but the Giants offense is still trash while Darnold has both struggled and had flashes, but has managed to lead the low-expectation-having Jets to a respectable 3-3 record.

Good news is the Giants will be in great position to take a QB this year.

I think there are worse moves than taking a generational RB prospect... like drafting a bust which many teams do. Giants will just have to draft QB later

RavenMad31 wrote:

Worm Guts wrote:

RavenMad31 wrote:
Darnold's 3-3 Jets are scoring 8 PPG more than Barkley's 1-5 Giants at the moment.
Tony Romo was an underappreciated QB during his career. Granted, I have a real problem with his durability, but under Romo, who was probably a top 30? 40? 50? all time QB when he retired, Dallas never had a season under .500 in seasons with him as a leading passer. Adrian Peterson is probably a top 10 or 15 all time RB and the Vikings had 3 seasons under .500 with him as their leading rusher. This tells me a Hall of Fame RB is not as capable of carrying a team as well as a good to very good QB.

Part of the question is whether you think Darnold is a Super Bowl level QB and whether you can get a better one later. For sure a good QB is worth more that a great RB, but they will be picking at the top the draft again this year and have another opportunity.

I think Darnold will be at worst a QB you can win a Super Bowl with if you get what I'm saying. Basically, a solid, middle of the pack guy that can make the few plays you need in a big game situation when necessary. I think his ceiling is a top five-ten QB in the league. In my draft book, that's worth more to me than any RB you can dangle in front of me given the way QB value has been weighted the last ten or so years. Now if someone tells me that the Giants are willing to just let Manning get beaten into submission for a year or so while they stock more draft picks and that they have a plan to bring a guy in once the rest of the offense is set, then I can play along and agree that it makes sense.

If the Giants are looking for a QB they can win a super bowl with, and believe Eli's washed up, then they should just trade for Nic Foles.

Hooplah wrote:

RavenMad31 wrote:

Worm Guts wrote:
Part of the question is whether you think Darnold is a Super Bowl level QB and whether you can get a better one later. For sure a good QB is worth more that a great RB, but they will be picking at the top the draft again this year and have another opportunity.

I think Darnold will be at worst a QB you can win a Super Bowl with if you get what I'm saying. Basically, a solid, middle of the pack guy that can make the few plays you need in a big game situation when necessary. I think his ceiling is a top five-ten QB in the league. In my draft book, that's worth more to me than any RB you can dangle in front of me given the way QB value has been weighted the last ten or so years. Now if someone tells me that the Giants are willing to just let Manning get beaten into submission for a year or so while they stock more draft picks and that they have a plan to bring a guy in once the rest of the offense is set, then I can play along and agree that it makes sense.

If the Giants are looking for a QB they can win a super bowl with, and believe Eli's washed up, then they should just trade for Nic Foles.

If they were to go that route, I wouldn't be surprised if Derek Carr is available. Philly isn't going to trade a franchise QB to the Giants and if they do, I assure you, it's because they know Foles isn't actually a franchise QB. I'd bet a pretty nice chunk of change Darnold will be a better QB than Foles when all is said and done. Foles will be remembered as one of those "can you believe they won a Super Bowl with so and so at QB?" guys.

Still early, but this thread has not aged terribly gracefully in the last two months.

bondom34 wrote:Still early, but this thread has not aged terribly gracefully in the last two months.

Lol exactly. Saquon is a beast. I didnt like Darnold coming out. I still don't.

None of the threads this season has aged at all. I think a worse blunder was the previous year when nine teams passed on Pat Mahomes.

Only baker was good enough prospect for 1st round. Qb over rb is obvious but none of the available qbs were an answer for giants