The "Let's get a QB in the 1st round" group

[CRA]

5 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

The teams that are consistently good (Chiefs, Steelers, Packers, Saints, Seahawks) all have great QBs who they built their offenses around. If we want to be a consistent playoff team, we need to find our QB AND address other needs like the line. If we are sitting in the top 10 and a guy our staff believes can be that guy is there you absolutely take him. It’s the same reason everyone knows the Jets are taking Lawrence when Darnold may be a solid QB with the right players around him. It’s the same reason why the Jags will take one at 2 when Sewell is a pro ready LT. QB is arguably the most important position in all sports. It’s worth a risk of a first round pick to draft one if we think there is a good chance he can become great.

and you probably can still give a nod to the Patriots.  Who just came off 17 straight double digit win seasons (19 straight winning seasons). 

[Khyber53]

31 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Or Cleveland. They had Joe Thomas and Mitchell Schwartz for years and got nowhere until Mayfield. I know they have other talent as well but they sure don’t have two of the best tackles in the game and they are way better than they’ve ever been the past 20 years.

QBs getting hurt like Burrow did are pretty rare occurrences. Yes they need some more protection but aside from the recovery I’d bet they are happy having Burrow and will likely get Sewell.

I don’t recall a team winning a SB without either a top QB or a historic D. Has a team ever won with a middle of the road D and QB but an amazing OL?

You make a good point.

[CRA]

42 minutes ago, stbugs said:

 

I don’t recall a team winning a SB without either a top QB or a historic D. Has a team ever won with a middle of the road D and QB but an amazing OL?

The Giants last win? Guess it depends on how you view Eli.   I'd say they won with an okay defense and okay QB.  

[Khyber53]

3 hours ago, Pimpdaddy said:

QB is mostly a crapshoot.... it is possible to get a good QB in the first round without a top 3 pick but they are far and few between....I think we'll build on the core this year and possibly get one in 22... build the team and the scheme.

There's a lot of truth to this. It is a huge roll of the dice, no matter what QB you pick. Choosing at the top gets you a better chance of a hit, but there's no sure thing (and pairing that top pick with a lousy organization gets you nowhere -- Matthew Stafford, Phillip Rivers, etc...). Picks down in the draft get a slightly smaller chance of success as they go, but you still end up with some kind of chance. 

Aaron Rogers fell precipitously but he has certainly panned out for Green Bay. Russell Wilson made it to the 75th pick of the draft. Tom Brady was possibly the biggest pick ever and he was in the sixth round (talk about a miniscule chance of success with a pick paying off... this is the lottery pick six winner here). 

On the flip side of this discussion, you've got 2010's Sam Bradford, 2007's Jamarcus Russell, 2003's Carson Palmer, 2002's David Carr, 1999's Tim Couch, and 1990's Jeff George as #1 pick QBs who either never made the big time or who were out and out busts. 

Still fortune favors the bold, right?

[Sgt Schultz]

1 hour ago, CRA said:

The Giants last win? Guess it depends on how you view Eli.   I'd say they won with an okay defense and okay QB.  

The Giants defense stepped it up in those games, too.  As did Eli.  But Brady led what was probably their strongest team in their 18 year run, and he was constantly harassed by the Giant pass rush.  The result was he looked rather unremarkable. 

Even the year the Colts won, their defense, which had been somewhere between awful and dreadful during the regular season, stepped up and looked pretty good in the playoffs.  They gave up a ton of points in first half against the Pats in the AFCC game, but otherwise, if you didn't know they had been awful you would not have thought they were awful.

Playoff runs are often made and Super Bowls often won by somebody or some unit stepping up and playing well above the level they had shown for most of the season.

[Sgt Schultz]

48 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I'm simply saying that QB is by far and away the most important position on the roster and if you have the chance you have to jump when you have the opportunity to get one.

No doubt we have plenty of holes on the roster but you're not fixing them all with one pick or even one draft class.

I've started this three times and each time somebody at work interrupts me.  *#@#!.

I really am not picking on you on this one.  But, we have people who believe picking a QB in the #4-#7 range 1) ensures a great QB, and 2) ensures success.  Some of those same people say they are fine picking one and letting him sit next year to learn, or at least part of next year.  Then, on week three, they are going to be posting "why aren't we playing Lipshitz?"  Uh, because we want him to live through the experience without exposing him to so many beatings he has PTSD for the rest of his career?

Since we tore the house down last year, I have expected it would take three years of good drafting and prudent FA signings to assemble a good roster.  And that assumes we do not go down the rat hole of signing FAs whose careers will be over when it all comes together.  That does nothing for the process.....and it is a process......a long, slow, painful one.  Three years is an eternity in the NFL.  The fact that year one was bizarre does not help.

 

[Mr. Scot]

1 hour ago, Sgt Schultz said:

Is simply competing what the Huddle is shooting for? 

There were people fretting over the idea of firing Ron Rivera because they thought we might get worse and hey, at least he won some games, right?

Ditto people defending Marty Hurney in the face of three winning seasons over fifteen years "but he drafted some good players sometimes".

It really does make you wonder...

[CRA]

27 minutes ago, Sgt Schultz said:

The Giants defense stepped it up in those games, too.  As did Eli.  But Brady led what was probably their strongest team in their 18 year run, and he was constantly harassed by the Giant pass rush.  The result was he looked rather unremarkable. 

Even the year the Colts won, their defense, which had been somewhere between awful and readful during the regular season, stepped up and looked pretty good in the playoffs.  They gave up a ton of points in first half against the Pats in the AFCC game, but otherwise, if you didn't know they had been awful you would not have thought they were awful.

Playoff runs are often made and Super Bowls often won by somebody or some unit stepping up and playing well above the level they had shown for most of the season.

Don’t disagree with your post. 

but the Giants D was considered a bad unit on the year.   And Eli IMO has never been viewed as elite.   So in terms of meeting the question posed.  That was the best example I could name. 

[stbugs]

1 hour ago, CRA said:

The Giants last win? Guess it depends on how you view Eli.   I'd say they won with an okay defense and okay QB.  

Problem was their OL wasn’t like a Dallas in their prime OL. There’s kind of the opposite side. Dallas had the best OL for years with Smith, Frederick, Martín, Collins and others and won what 1 playoff game?

The Giants beat the Pats with their DL and Eli did play lights out in the playoffs. In the two SB runs he had 15 TDs and 2 INTs in the 8 games. While we remember his last few years where he was much more mediocre there were years he was solid and he was pretty solid in the playoffs. Same with their DL. Strahan and the rest seemed to pick it up in the playoffs.

[Sgt Schultz]

26 minutes ago, CRA said:

Don’t disagree with your post. 

but the Giants D was considered a bad unit on the year.   And Eli IMO has never been viewed as elite.   So in terms of meeting the question posed.  That was the best example I could name. 

Not rebutting your post, in fact it is quite valid.  Their defense was bottom 25% in almost every category that year.  Then came the playoffs and they and Eli (as stbugs just posted) pulled it together.

I agree, Eli was never in the elite category.  He had some clutch games where he was up to the task, but elite was not a word I would use to describe him overall. 

To me, elite is a group who, like Eli, step it up when they need to in big games.  Unlike Eli, they are good more often than not the rest of the time.  Eli was mostly mediocre the rest of the time, sometimes good, sometimes bad.

 

[Mr. Scot]

To be fair, say what you want about Eli but he's got two Super Bowl rings (same number as his brother)

[Sgt Schultz]

35 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Problem was their OL wasn’t like a Dallas in their prime OL. There’s kind of the opposite side. Dallas had the best OL for years with Smith, Frederick, Martín, Collins and others and won what 1 playoff game?

The Giants beat the Pats with their DL and Eli did play lights out in the playoffs. In the two SB runs he had 15 TDs and 2 INTs in the 8 games. While we remember his last few years where he was much more mediocre there were years he was solid and he was pretty solid in the playoffs. Same with their DL. Strahan and the rest seemed to pick it up in the playoffs.

Let's also not forget, though, while Dallas had a gold-standard OL, they also had............Jerrah Jones. 

On that note, where do we think Romo falls on the scale from elite to Clausen?  He was sort of the opposite of Eli.  He had pretty consistently good regular season games, and then some falloff in the playoffs.  It wasn't off the cliff falloff, but it certainly was not elevating his game.

[CRA]

19 minutes ago, Sgt Schultz said:

Not rebutting your post, in fact it is quite valid.  Their defense was bottom 25% in almost every category that year.  Then came the playoffs and they and Eli (as stbugs just posted) pulled it together.

I agree, Eli was never in the elite category.  He had some clutch games where he was up to the task, but elite was not a word I would use to describe him overall. 

To me, elite is a group who, like Eli, step it up when they need to in big games.  Unlike Eli, they are good more often than not the rest of the time.  Eli was mostly mediocre the rest of the time, sometimes good, sometimes bad.

 

Giants were just weird.  They won the Super Bowl in 2007 and 2011....and defy normal standards/criteria of what you need to win a Super Bowl 

Mannings got a weird resume/history.  Eli did way more to win his rings than Peyton come playoff time.   Peyton was way better than Eli yet Peyton’s defenses largely earned him his rings in his playoff runs to them. 

[beo]

21 minutes ago, CRA said:

Giants were just weird.  They won the Super Bowl in 2007 and 2011....and defy normal standards/criteria of what you need to win a Super Bowl 

Mannings got a weird resume/history.  Eli did way more to win his rings than Peyton come playoff time.   Peyton was way better than Eli yet Peyton’s defenses largely earned him his rings in his playoff runs to them. 

Playoff Eli is no mere mortal

In the 2011 Playoffs, the Giants beat teams with a 10-6, 15-1, 13-3, 13-3 (ATL, GB, SF,  NE) record. Combined, that is a record of 51-13 with the Falcons being nearly half of those losses. 

In those games, Eli went 106-163 with 1219 yards, 9 TDs,  and only 1 interception.