Bet you didn't think Barkley should have been in New York either. Those stats are entirely deceptive. Just tonight on the NFL network they were speaking about Namath's greatness. You're just wrong.
IMO Darnold is not a pro QB
- Thread starter christoph
- Start date
So your definition of a great QB is, win less than half your gAmes, have a QB rating of 65, and throw more INTs than TDs. Got it, and ur correct I must be wrong
A Sluggo loop is forming?
It's a persistent low pressure system that brings rain, winds, and never seems to end.
I get your point and I know it’s a nit but USC only scored 7 in their bowl game and Darnold looked awful against the Ohio St D
Last edited:
Don't quit your day job... I have no idea whether Darnold will have a good career in the NFL or not, but clearly he has some desirable qualities or he wouldn't be a potential number 1 overall pick. I am more doubtful, in general, when RPO or "system" (air raid, etc.) QBs come into the draft. What they did in college is not directly transferable, while Darnold plays in more of a pro style offense which doesn't rely on threats of QB runs or gimmic plays to move the ball.
Agreed...but more super bowls were won with great QBs than defense
hard to throw off your back. USC had zero pass protection. 8 sacks and 14 tackles for loss.
I didn't read this whole thread, but am certain that its genesis is the OP's desire to see Saquon drafted #1 overall, as if that would improve the life of any poster on this board. Objectively, non-PSU fans who just looked at Saquon's stats would not be drooling over him in the manner which we do, as he had several poor outings. If there is one criticism I could offer after watching every snap of his career, it's that sometimes he dances around too much, and makes situations worse rather than better, and that he can get smeared in the NFL if he doesn't correct that. He's absolutely worth a first round pick, but the reality is that the present NFL values: 1. QBs, 2. WRs, 3. Linemen, which means that RB is at best the 4th most crucial position. Moreover, few running backs have proven to be able to sustain their success over a long period, as evidenced by the rapid decline of guys like Adrian Peterson. If I were a GM, I would not be thinking about any RB with the first pick, because ultimately they will likely overpay as a result, and thus see a poor return on their investment.
With that said, if guys like Trubisky, Mahomes, Watson, Goff, Wentz and Lynch can be drafted in the first round, and a guy like Hackenberg can hang on a roster for a few years, then it's ludicrous to suggest that Darnold is a risk. He certainly looked like the real deal to me, especially in the Rose Bowl, and I don't think the USC coaches are very capable, which makes his performance all the more impressive.
Now Saquon going to the Giants makes sense, because they seem to be a few linemen and an RB away from having a really solid offense, and could easily be 11-5 again, as they were in 2016. I could also see him being a good fit with the Broncos. Pretty much every other team in the top 10 is basically a dumpster fire waiting to happen, and likely not the best situation for Saquon to have long-term success.
With that said, if guys like Trubisky, Mahomes, Watson, Goff, Wentz and Lynch can be drafted in the first round, and a guy like Hackenberg can hang on a roster for a few years, then it's ludicrous to suggest that Darnold is a risk. He certainly looked like the real deal to me, especially in the Rose Bowl, and I don't think the USC coaches are very capable, which makes his performance all the more impressive.
Now Saquon going to the Giants makes sense, because they seem to be a few linemen and an RB away from having a really solid offense, and could easily be 11-5 again, as they were in 2016. I could also see him being a good fit with the Broncos. Pretty much every other team in the top 10 is basically a dumpster fire waiting to happen, and likely not the best situation for Saquon to have long-term success.
I know you have a tendency to get all persnickety whenever anyone is anything but "sunshine and rainbows", but I guess I will try to play along for now.
For starters, he only broke 100 yards rushing 5 times in 2017, including the Bowl game.
Same exact thing for 2016.
Same exact thing for 2015, except all 5 were regular season games.
So that means 23 times in his career he failed to reach the threshold commonly used to measure whether a RB had a "good outing".
I get that he's better than average as a Receiver, and had some good kick returns, but those are not the primary functions of a RB, and would likely shorten his career.
I think a few people in this thread are misguided. They believe that individual stats associated with football are as meaningful as they are in a sport like baseball.
When Barkley has three "spies" on him from the opposing team's defense to stop him from gaining 100 yards rushing, but Barkley still makes several receptions, protects his QB by blocking in the backfield, and gains good yardage on kickoff returns, AND HIS TEAM WINS, he had a good game.
Football is a team sport. If the other team develops its entire defensive gameplan to stop Barkley, and Barkley still positively impacts the game in all phases, AND HIS TEAM WINS, maybe he can play just a little bit.
Now you seem to be implying that I said he's not a great RB, which is disingenuous. It's public knowledge that the average NFL RB lasts 3-4 years, and so many GMs employ "RB-by-committee", with a bunch of underpaid youngsters sharing carries. A few people on this thread expect the NFL-wide philosophy to seismically shift based on our perception of our guy. Most teams don't have multiple top 5 picks in consecutive years (the Browns are a different animal), and so they are more likely to instead take a QB or Linemen who will play for 10-15 years if the need exists and the opportunity arises. So sorry for trying to set aside emotional attachment and be objective, and for basing beliefs on precedent!
In the past 5 years there have been 5 RBs selected in the first round, none higher than #4:
Fournette
McCaffrey
Elliott
Gurley
Gordon
It doesn't appear that any of them are clearly "busts" at this point, but maybe the Chargers or Panthers wish they had gone a different route with those picks, especially given the size of the contracts?
No, I am implying that your statement that a RB needs to have a 100 yard game in order to have a good game, is nonsensical.
- Barkley is better than all five of those RBs
- None of those guys are five tool players (run speed, run power, catch, block, fumble). Elliot the closest but has off the field problems.
- Elliot, Gurley and Fournette made substantial improvement to those teams when they arrived.
- The role of the RB has change, and will change more with the new rules for 2018...this will lead to longer careers
That average years stat is pretty much meaningless since it includes so many players who are bounced out of the league every year because they lack talent or are mediocre veterans making too much money. A talented RB like Barkley could easily have a 10+ year career.
- Barkley is better than all five of those RBs
- None of those guys are five tool players (run speed, run power, catch, block, fumble). Elliot the closest but has off the field problems.
- Elliot, Gurley and Fournette made substantial improvement to those teams when they arrived.
- The role of the RB has change, and will change more with the new rules for 2018...this will lead to longer careers
I get "persnickety" when people spout bullshite. You've demonstrated that you haven't a clue about modern offensive football and that you haven't a clue as to how to define "several poor outings" in the offense PSU runs. But thanks for playing. As far as your derogatory "sunshine and rainbows" comment, you haven't seen my basketball posts, have you? I speak what's correct, nothing more. You, however, are wrong in your assessments of Barkley's year.
You're objectivity wasn't very objective. Left a lot of facts out of the equation.
Yeah, I am a complete moron, and no person could ever say such things: http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...eally-take-saquon-barkley-second-overall-pick
Predicting which QBs will make it in the NFL is a very inexact science, and NFL teams get it wrong as often as they get it right.
In fairness, the ESPN guy wasn't being a complete dick about providing his opinion. Maybe that is why his message is clear and coherent, while yours is, um, not.
Similar threads
