The Giants get bashed a lot for not drafting a QB, but damn it sure looks like Saquon has the potentially to be one of the 5 greatest RB's of all time.
Then the question becomes what is more valuable to a team. Having a top 5 running back of all time or a franchise QB. Twenty years ago 100% of people would have said the greatest RB but now it's probably 50/50. When you look back at the past 30 years having a great running back has meant pretty much nothing in regards to winning football games. It doesn't seem logical in any way but the results are the results over a pretty large sample size.
Barry Sanders- awesome but never won anything, never came close. Played a bunch of years and never a sniff of winning.
Adrian Peterson- dominant back, never won anything. Was on some playoff teams and decent teams but for the most part the Vikings were always just average when he was at his best.
Emmitt Smith- obviously won many times over. but lots of people doubt he was even that great. He was durable, tough, consistant. But always had a top notch O-Line , great QB and offense in general. Most doubt he was really "great".
Walter Payton- was great for a long time, but only time he won , was with maybe the best defense ever. I'd say that could have switched Payton with the worst RB in the NFL that year and still easily won the Superbowl, without even going out on a limb.
Ladamlian Tomlinson- never won anything despite being easily the best back of his era.
Now there are plenty of backs who were pretty average who put up great numbers on great running teams, but any RB would have done that, see Terell Davis, Bettis, Priest Holmes etc.