Big Blue Huddle

I have to say that Dominiqui was bold in challenging former GM Mike Tannenbaum, but clearly, the NFL has a serious problem drafting QB.  I think Foxworthy is addressing the blind spot of so many in the NFL in terms of not appreciating that QBs need the proper environment to develop.  Either the NFL can't scout a QB to save their lives or their is the flaw Foxworthy pointed to, that is causing well scouting QBs to fail.


https://x.com/FirstTake/status/1781351256490905935

Quote"The situation matters much more than the player."

I think this is true, and I think it led to the downfall of DJ.

Never had a season where both the OL & WR were in the top half of the league.

2019:  Schurmer, Shula
2020:  Judge, Garrett, Schlupinski
2021:  Judge, Garrett/Kitchens, Schlupinski
2022:  Daboll, Kafka, Tierney
2023:  Daboll, Kafka, Tierney
2024:  Daboll, Kafka, Tierney

His first 3 years were hardly a good situation with that cluster flop of changing systems, changing coaches, no real QB coach his rookie year.  Then he got some consistency and showed improvement but was hammered by the almost criminal lack of preparation of the whole team due to the powder puff 2023 off-season program. 

I'm not a big Mars fan but I agree with his statement that the Giants did everything possible to screw the kid up - and I hope he was looking in the mirror when he said it.

Quote from: AZGiantFan on April 20, 2024, 01:36:15 PMI think this is true, and I think it led to the downfall of DJ.

Never had a season where both the OL & WR were in the top half of the league.

2019:  Schurmer, Shula
2020:  Judge, Garrett, Schlupinski
2021:  Judge, Garrett/Kitchens, Schlupinski
2022:  Daboll, Kafka, Tierney
2023:  Daboll, Kafka, Tierney
2024:  Daboll, Kafka, Tierney

His first 3 years were hardly a good situation with that cluster flop of changing systems, changing coaches, no real QB coach his rookie year.  Then he got some consistency and showed improvement but was hammered by the almost criminal lack of preparation of the whole team due to the powder puff 2023 off-season program. 

I'm not a big Mars fan but I agree with his statement that the Giants did everything possible to screw the kid up - and I hope he was looking in the mirror when he said it.

Interestingly enough I think this is the first time since Eli retired that we might have a line and skill position group that won't hold the quarterback back. Don't get me wrong they're not good enough to win the Super Bowl but it won't be like Jones first four years in the league.

The one mistake they could make is to go all in and move up in the draft because we need each of our picks. IMHO if someone offered us two firsts and a second to trade up with us I'd do it to continue to flesh out our roster hoping to go all in on a guy next year with the additional picks.

Quote from: madbadger on April 20, 2024, 02:33:34 PMInterestingly enough I think this is the first time since Eli retired that we might have a line and skill position group that won't hold the quarterback back. Don't get me wrong they're not good enough to win the Super Bowl but it won't be like Jones first four years in the league.

The one mistake they could make is to go all in and move up in the draft because we need each of our picks. IMHO if someone offered us two firsts and a second to trade up with us I'd do it to continue to flesh out our roster hoping to go all in on a guy next year with the additional picks.

Hearing the Broncos are offering teams #12 overall, Patrick Surtain, and a 2025 1st to move up in the draft and I'd be all over that as you'd have bookend corners and edge rushers moving forward.

I understand the point Foxworth is making here, and I know many on this forum share his view, but I just see it differently myself. I think QB is just too important a position in the modern NFL to be messing around with. By that I mean if you're a QB-needy team, and you have an opportunity to get a QB you're very high on, you simply can't pass that up, no matter what the rest of your team looks like. I don't believe any team that is without a good QB has the luxury of doing things in a certain pre-determined order designed to make everything perfect when the new QB arrives. I'd be fine with that approach if I were reasonably confident that I would have a solid chance of getting a very good QB in any draft, as I am with most other positions, no matter where I'm picking, but that just isn't the reality. It's hard enough to get a good QB near the top of the draft. When you're picking say 18th it's just that much harder. If you don't have a good one, and you have one you really believe in in your sights in the draft, you have to pull the trigger there every time in my opinion. If the rest of the offense is so bad that you're worried about it stunting the QB's development or "ruining" him, then you can keep him on ice for a year or two if you want while you make upgrades, but you don't pass up getting him into your organization when you have the opportunity. These opportunities are just too elusive.

As a related point, I found it peculiar that Foxworth brought up three recent history examples of where his point wasn't true. Three is not a small number in this context. There aren't that many great QBs in any given decade. He kind of defeated, or at least significantly weakened, his own point by bringing those guys up.

Quote from: Jclayton92 on April 20, 2024, 06:49:05 PMHearing the Broncos are offering teams #12 overall, Patrick Surtain, and a 2025 1st to move up in the draft and I'd be all over that as you'd have bookend corners and edge rushers moving forward.

They need a quarterback and if they're moving up they want the guy that they want. The million dollar question will be is the guy they covet going to be available at 6. That IMHO is doubtful. I'd take that deal so fast Payton's head would spin.

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on April 20, 2024, 07:48:58 PMI understand the point Foxworth is making here, and I know many on this forum share his view, but I just see it differently myself. I think QB is just too important a position in the modern NFL to be messing around with. By that I mean if you're a QB-needy team, and you have an opportunity to get a QB you're very high on, you simply can't pass that up, no matter what the rest of your team looks like. I don't believe any team that is without a good QB has the luxury of doing things in a certain pre-determined order designed to make everything perfect when the new QB arrives. I'd be fine with that approach if I were reasonably confident that I would have a solid chance of getting a very good QB in any draft, as I am with most other positions, no matter where I'm picking, but that just isn't the reality. It's hard enough to get a good QB near the top of the draft. When you're picking say 18th it's just that much harder. If you don't have a good one, and you have one you really believe in in your sights in the draft, you have to pull the trigger there every time in my opinion. If the rest of the offense is so bad that you're worried about it stunting the QB's development or "ruining" him, then you can keep him on ice for a year or two if you want while you make upgrades, but you don't pass up getting him into your organization when you have the opportunity. These opportunities are just too elusive.

As a related point, I found it peculiar that Foxworth brought up three recent history examples of where his point wasn't true. Three is not a small number in this context. There aren't that many great QBs in any given decade. He kind of defeated, or at least significantly weakened, his own point by bringing those guys up.

You look at the Jags and the Chargers squandering their elite QB prospect cheap rookie years and you have to question the wisdom of grab a QB no matter what

Quote from: MightyGiants on April 21, 2024, 07:20:55 AMYou look at the Jags and the Chargers squandering their elite QB prospect cheap rookie years and you have to question the wisdom of grab a QB no matter what

I get the point about rookie contracts and it being ideal to have a QB in a good situation for four years at a big discount. Still, I would maintain that (1) a top QB is so hard to find that one should not be so preoccupied with timing the order of operations of roster building so perfectly, and (2) a top QB is going to be a 15-plus year investment for your team, so while those four years are certainly important, in my opinion they don't come close to singularly transcending the value of simply finding your guy for the long term.

If your team is bad, and you take a QB with a high first round pick, you still have the rest of that year's draft, free agency, and then future drafts to improve at other positions. It's not like using one single pick in a draft on a QB means you are foregoing all opportunities to build out at other positions.

Quote from: Jclayton92 on April 20, 2024, 06:49:05 PMHearing the Broncos are offering teams #12 overall, Patrick Surtain, and a 2025 1st to move up in the draft and I'd be all over that as you'd have bookend corners and edge rushers moving forward.

I don't think there's any way the Giants would get that package for #6, but I would trip over myself racing for the phone to accept that offer.

What would you be willing to throw in to make that happen? I wouldn't want to trade a pick this year, but I'd throw in a 2025 3rd rounder.

Then at #12, I think my decision would be between Thomas or Murphy. I think they're both going to be studs.

Thomas is a Higgins clone and would pair nicely with Wan'dale and Hyatt. Murphy is a monster up front, and the prospect of him, Dex, Burns, and KT has me drooling. Imagine those 4 up front with Okereke, MM, Simmons, Banks, Surtain?

Then we'd have 2 #1s next year as ammo to move up.

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on April 21, 2024, 07:40:03 AMI get the point about rookie contracts and it being ideal to have a QB in a good situation for four years at a big discount. Still, I would maintain that (1) a top QB is so hard to find that one should not be so preoccupied with timing the order of operations of roster building so perfectly, and (2) a top QB is going to be a 15-plus year investment for your team, so while those four years are certainly important, in my opinion they don't come close to singularly transcending the value of simply finding your guy for the long term.

If your team is bad, and you take a QB with a high first round pick, you still have the rest of that year's draft, free agency, and then future drafts to improve at other positions. It's not like using one single pick in a draft on a QB means you are foregoing all opportunities to build out at other positions.

Jeff,

I think the flaw in your assumption is that QB prospects will prosper no matter the situation.   Take Trevor Lawerance; he was one of the highest-rated QBs coming out of college.   Rated far higher than many of the QBs performing at an elite level.  Yet, because of the poor support system around him since he was drafted, Lawerence has been, at best, a bit above average.  You can see similar issues with Herbert.  Even Joe Burrows' career is less than certain because the Bengals are unable to protect him so he has suffered a great deal of physical punishment resulting in injury.   Our own Daniel Jones is another prime example.

On the other side of the equation, we have seen ideal developmental support result in non-first-round talent thriving with Hurts, Prescott, and Purdy.

The take a QB at any cost school of thought requires the assumption that the environment an NFL QB develops in doesn't have an impact, and we see far too many examples to see that isn't true.

Even CJ Stroud, pointed to as the example of a QB making a difference, fails to account the team he played for was massively better/more talented, than the one the prior season (thanks to free agency and an outstanding draft and massive coaching improvement)

One of my favorite younger GMs, the Colts' Chris Ballard, gets it:

"When you've got a young quarterback, you've got to protect him," Ballard said, via Joel A. Erickson of the Indianapolis Star. "You want to continue to add playmakers around him."



https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/chris-ballard-weve-got-to-protect-anthony-richardson-and-get-him-playmakers

Quote from: MightyGiants on April 21, 2024, 08:04:04 AMJeff,

I think the flaw in your assumption is that QB prospects will prosper no matter the situation.   Take Trevor Lawerance; he was one of the highest-rated QBs coming out of college.   Rated far higher than many of the QBs performing at an elite level.  Yet, because of the poor support system around him since he was drafted, Lawerence has been, at best, a bit above average.  You can see similar issues with Herbert.  Even Joe Burrows' career is less than certain because the Bengals are unable to protect him so he has suffered a great deal of physical punishment resulting in injury.   Our own Daniel Jones is another prime example.

On the other side of the equation, we have seen ideal developmental support result in non-first-round talent thriving with Hurts, Prescott, and Purdy.

The take a QB at any cost school of thought requires the assumption that the environment an NFL QB develops in doesn't have an impact, and we see far too many examples to see that isn't true.

Even CJ Stroud, pointed to as the example of a QB making a difference, fails to account the team he played for was massively better/more talented, than the one the prior season (thanks to free agency and an outstanding draft and massive coaching improvement)

Rich,

I would follow by saying I think the flaw in your assumption is the notion that if a very highly rated QB prospect like Trevor Lawrence is underwhelming in the NFL, it must be because his surrounding cast isn't good enough. I disagree with that. Just because a QB is a top prospect does not mean he will be good in the NFL, and if he isn't, it is not always because he doesn't have enough around him. Some prospects pan out better than others for reasons that extend beyond supporting cast.

The Giants had a bad supporting cast in 2018. If we could go back in time and redo that draft, I think we can agree we wouldn't take Barkley 2nd overall. With the knowledge you have today, whom would you pick if you could redo it? Would you take Josh Allen or Quentin Nelson (or someone else)?

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on April 21, 2024, 01:07:31 PMRich,

I would follow by saying I think the flaw in your assumption is the notion that if a very highly rated QB prospect like Trevor Lawrence is underwhelming in the NFL, it must be because his surrounding cast isn't good enough. I disagree with that. Just because a QB is a top prospect does not mean he will be good in the NFL, and if he isn't, it is not always because he doesn't have enough around him. Some prospects pan out better than others for reasons that extend beyond supporting cast.

The Giants had a bad supporting cast in 2018. If we could go back in time and redo that draft, I think we can agree we wouldn't take Barkley 2nd overall. With the knowledge you have today, whom would you pick if you could redo it? Would you take Josh Allen or Quentin Nelson (or someone else)?

Why do you assume Josh Allen would have thrived with the Giants?

Quote from: MightyGiants on April 21, 2024, 01:13:18 PMWhy do you assume Josh Allen would have thrived with the Giants?

I consider Josh Allen one of the top three or four QB talents in the league and he's still only 27. As of today, he still has more NFL football in his future than in his past. Maybe his development to being a top QB would have taken longer on the Giants, but as I mentioned earlier QBs are not RBs - you aren't drafting a high first round QB with the sense that you only have 5-7 years to work with with him. If you get a legitimately good one it's a 15 year horizon or more. We can agree to disagree on this if you wouldn't take Allen if given the chance to go back.

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on April 21, 2024, 01:22:36 PMI consider Josh Allen one of the top three or four QB talents in the league and he's still only 27. As of today, he still has more NFL football in his future than in his past. Maybe his development to being a top QB would have taken longer on the Giants, but as I mentioned earlier QBs are not RBs - you aren't drafting a high first round QB with the sense that you only have 5-7 years to work with with him. If you get a legitimately good one it's a 15 year horizon or more. We can agree to disagree on this if you wouldn't take Allen if given the chance to go back.

You can insist the support doesn't impact a QBs development, but the NFL is going the opposite way.  Listen to the podcast I linked in the Daniel Jeremiah 3 Ps of support thread.  The NFL is realizing just how important the support a QB has in terms of development and performance.

Also, I think you are framing our disagreement in a less-than-ideal manner.  Our disagreement is over the importance of a QB's support both in development and performance, not if the Giants would have drafted Josh Allen.   You assume he would be the same with the Giants that he was with the Bills, I contend that is an assumption that is more than likely wrong.