Saquon Barkley

[DonnieDarko1023]

Would it be worth giving up a first and a second for Saquon Barkley?........would you do it?

[jvan1973]

. NO

[NewEra]

Omg

[runthepost]

31 minutes ago, DonnieDarko1023 said:

Would it be worth giving up a first and a second for Saquon Barkley?........would you do it?

Go away Ryan Grigson we fired you

[2006Coltsbestever]

I wouldn't do a 1st and a 2nd but why not Brissett and a 1st? We do have 2 2nd Round picks if I am not mistaken as well, so if we gave up a 1st for Barkley that would be like taking Barkley in the 1st and still having 2 2nd Round picks in this upcoming draft. Giants do need a QB. Barkley isn't Trent Richardson - not even close so it would not be a huge mistake and Ballard would still have plenty of draft picks to pick Defense. He would also have his young RB for the future. We will probably end up picking outside of the top 10 this year. I see us winning at least 7 games if we win today because of our schedule. Barkley is a Top 5 pick in any draft.

[2006Coltsbestever]

11 minutes ago, runthepost said:

Go away Ryan Grigson we fired you

That is funny but Trent Richardson couldn't carry Barkley's jockstrap. People are just gun shy in here giving up any kind of pick for a RB because of Trent. Barkley isn't Trent.

[2006Coltsbestever]

On a stinky team with a bad line here is Barkley's numbers through 7 games:

481 Yards Rushing

5 TD's

4.9 a carry

424 Yards receiving

49 Receptions

2 TD's

-That is real impressive. Dude already has 7 TD's and over 900 Yards of total Offense on an absolute dumpster fire of a team. If he isn't worth a 1st rounder nobody is. Imagine what kind of video game numbers he would have with Luck and our Offense??

[shakedownstreet]

Has anyone seen my 1908 World's Fair spoon? Damn hippies!

[Trueman]

.......I'll just never understand.

[Stephen]

Giants would never make that deal

[Luck 4 president]

I’d do it, but no way they would. 

[Dark Superman]

I love Barkley but this thread isn't even realistic.

[runthepost]

4 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

That is funny but Trent Richardson couldn't carry Barkley's jockstrap. People are just gun shy in here giving up any kind of pick for a RB because of Trent. Barkley isn't Trent.

If we were contenders then yes 

[BloodyChamp]

No, with 2006colts's point taken. Is anybody watching the Rams game? For some reason (Bill Belichik plan C strategy?) the Rams are running an even simpler offense than the Giants this week instead of the spread out WRs that burned everybody in the games of theirs I've watched. They always ran Gurley on 1st down yes but they're running him out of a single back 3WR set then dumping off to him on 2nd and 3rd down. He gets 5 yards every 1st down. The game is only close because the Packers have been there on some 2nd and 3rd downs. Anyway Barkley is this good. He is just obviously on a worse team.

[WarGhost21]

4 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I wouldn't do a 1st and a 2nd but why not Brissett and a 1st? We do have 2 2nd Round picks if I am not mistaken as well, so if we gave up a 1st for Barkley that would be like taking Barkley in the 1st and still having 2 2nd Round picks in this upcoming draft. Giants do need a QB. Barkley isn't Trent Richardson - not even close so it would not be a huge mistake and Ballard would still have plenty of draft picks to pick Defense. He would also have his young RB for the future. We will probably end up picking outside of the top 10 this year. I see us winning at least 7 games if we win today because of our schedule. Barkley is a Top 5 pick in any draft.

I agree with you on packaging Brissett and a pick, I would just do Brissett and a second, not a first. NY needs a QB as is, and Brissett has been rumored to be worth around a 2nd round pick, so that's sending 2 seconds for Barkley, maybe adding in a late round pick as well. I feel like we need to keep that first, because, IMHO, contrary to what the scouts are saying, I think this draft class is more top heavy than most classes, so the first would be so much more important. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, WarGhost21 said:

I agree with you on packaging Brissett and a pick, I would just do Brissett and a second, not a first. NY needs a QB as is, and Brissett has been rumored to be worth around a 2nd round pick, so that's sending 2 seconds for Barkley, maybe adding in a late round pick as well. I feel like we need to keep that first, because, IMHO, contrary to what the scouts are saying, I think this draft class is more top heavy than most classes, so the first would be so much more important. 

Yeah Brissett and a 2nd would be much better for us. I love the way Mack is playing but I just wonder if he can stay healthy. Barkley is awesome.

[BOTT]

The colts have run for over 200 yards in each of the last two games.

 

 

 

so, no.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, BOTT said:

The colts have run for over 200 yards in each of the last two games.

 

 

 

so, no.

The only concern I have is, can Mack stay healthy. If so, I agree 100%, then heck no. I am not sure he can stay healthy. Barkley is a machine.

[BOTT]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

The only concern I have is, can Mack stay healthy. If so, I agree 100%, then heck no. I am not sure he can stay healthy. Barkley is a machine.

It's not like the guy has popped his ACL and broken his foot.  

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, BOTT said:

It's not like the guy has popped his ACL and broken his foot.  

True, we should probably just stay put and keep all of our Draft picks and let Free Agency play out. I have no problem with that at this point.

[aaron11]

i dont understand why people hate on running backs so much

 

they are the only other position besides Qbs that win MVPS.  a running back is the front runner this year too

 

heck Barkley could win an mvp in his career too

[aaron11]

4 hours ago, Trueman said:

.......I'll just never understand.

why not?  a back like Barkley is as important as ever. 

[BOTT]

11 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

i dont understand why people hate on running backs so much

 

they are the only other position besides Qbs that win MVPS.  a running back is the front runner this year too

 

heck Barkley could win an mvp in his career too

Patrick Mahomes is a rb?

[aaron11]

11 minutes ago, BOTT said:

Patrick Mahomes is a rb?

gurley

 

 

[SteelCityColt]

14 hours ago, aaron11 said:

i dont understand why people hate on running backs so much

 

they are the only other position besides Qbs that win MVPS.  a running back is the front runner this year too

 

heck Barkley could win an mvp in his career too

 

This has nothing to do with the general trend downwards in the positional value of RBs and what teams are prepared to give up.

 

That said anyone thinking that the Giants would take JB and a 2nd is just mad.

[Cynjin]

14 hours ago, aaron11 said:

gurley

 

 

 

Gurley, while an excellent RB, is not the frontrunner for NFL mvp.

[krunk]

Has anyone seen Marlon Mack lately?  I think I'm quite okay with what we have.

[aaron11]

6 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

Gurley, while an excellent RB, is not the frontrunner for NFL mvp.

he had the top odds before yesterday, second now

[aaron11]

22 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

This has nothing to do with the general trend downwards in the positional value of RBs and what teams are prepared to give up.

 

That said anyone thinking that the Giants would take JB and a 2nd is just mad.

sure it does.  that nfl.com article had them about 7th, i agree with that.  i know they would not take that though, dont think they would trade him for any realistic offer at all

[chad72]

19 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

he had the top odds before yesterday, second now

 

He is still first, IMO. Without Gurley running or catching, that Rams' offense will have a problem putting up points. 

 

It is just me, personally not wanting to give QBs all the accolades, there is always that.  

[SteelCityColt]

1 hour ago, aaron11 said:

sure it does.  that nfl.com article had them about 7th, i agree with that.  i know they would not take that though, dont think they would trade him for any realistic offer at all

 

It really doesn’t. You’re conflating MVP winners with overall positional value. 

[aaron11]

1 minute ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

It really doesn’t. You’re conflating MVP winners with overall positional value. 

sure it does, again

 

have not really heard an argument from you, so thats i that i will say

[aaron11]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000503855/article/ranking-each-positions-importance-from-quarterback-to-returner

 

i agree with this.  not the highest, but not the after thoughts people around here seem to think they are

 

i already said this btw, just putting the link up

[SteelCityColt]

3 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

sure it does, again

 

have not really heard an argument from you, so thats i that i will say

 

You’re saying that outside of a QB the only other position likely to win a MVP is RB correct? Are you also saying this drives up the value of RBs as a whole? 

[aaron11]

5 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

You’re saying that outside of a QB the only other position likely to win a MVP is RB correct? Are you also saying this drives up the value of RBs as a whole? 

who said anything about as a whole?  a good back can be as valuable as anyone 

 

average backs are average, like anything else 

[Luck 4 president]

They took Barkley at 2 and he has lived up to the hype. They won’t trade him for anything less than what they paid to get him. We would have to throw a ridiculous package valued more than a #1 overall pick for them to consider it. He’s the one player on the Giants that is untradeable imo 

[King Colt]

Broken record. Broken record. Broken record.