Barkley - Pro Comparisons

my argument is that carlos Hyde is a good RB and isn’t making that much money. For only a little morenyou get LeSean McCoy. Both RBs are better than a middling Guard and 1 of them is exceptionally better than a middling Guard.

You clearly don’t want to see another POV. I’m done on this thread.

In comment 13914421 Mike from Ohio said:

Quote:

You wouldn't take a HoF running back with the 2nd pick in the draft? Wow. All I need to know. Nothing else to say here.

Exactly Correct. Whether he is or not is what the discussion should be. If you don't want a HOF talent at any position. Then lack of understanding is hard to explain. Barry Sanders was never Detroit's Problem. Similar to Eli over the past few years, they surrounded him with an average team his whole Career. I would say not much different then they are today.But What do I know, not in Management in NFL.

of posters who keep worrying about having to pay players to 2nd contracts are forgetting how long we have them under their initial contracts. And they severely overestimate the impact of the salary cap.

I'll just restate my amazement that to support the argument about not signing and paying a RB, Todd Gurley accounting for over 2000 yards and a third of his team's scoring is being called the by-product of the OL as if any marginal back could produce the same.

And for some reason, we now have several threads talking about how drafting the best RB is a terrible move.

In comment 13915414 .McL. said:

Quote:

In comment 13915165 UConn4523 said: Quote: 2000+ yards and 19 TDS but yeah, Gurley didn’t play a major role. His cap hit was under $4 million as well. It’s really really hard to take you seriously. I missed this earlier... Ok Gurley here we go... Quote: Rams running backs averaged 1.90 yards before contact https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-ranking-all-32-offensive-lines-from-the-2017-nfl-season Are you kidding me! 1.9 yards before contact... You can't attribute that to anything but the OL... Quote: The 2017 version of the Rams' run blocking afforded backs 0.65 average yards before close, ranking third in the league. [url]http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000916199/article/saints-bills-rams-among-nfls-10-best-offensive-line-units[/ur] For christs sakes, you can get a UDFA to look good behind that kind of blocking. All you have to do is run until contact and fall forward and you will get over 4 YPC! You don't need to spend a top 10 pick and 4 mil a year to get decent production when the line blocks like that! In 2016 Gurley did nothing to help the Rams win. Granted, the line did not block well. But for your argument to hold water, the RB should make a difference even when the line sucks. Gurley didn't! The point is, that you can get cheap RBs that will give you virtually all of what the Rams got from Gurley in 2017 (paying far less than 4 mil per year). Take that money and use it on players/positions that statistics show correlate higher with wins! Of course there is no guarantee that the players you spend on will work out. But it gives you the highest probability. That's all you can ask for. Allocate your resources to give yourself the highest probability of success over the long haul. Look, I am not a young kid, to give you an idea, I have a signed photo of myself and Spider Lockhart. I was an avid fan when the conventional wisdom was pound the rock, limit turnovers and play great defense was the formula for winning. Since the rules started changing in the early 90s and the Salary cap was introduced, that formula has changed radically. As I said, I am not a kid, but I am also a scientist, I was a dual major in physics and computer science. I have a graduate degree in computer science and an MBA in Finance. Needless to say, numbers are my thing. In science if you have a theory that doesn't fit the data, then you need to revise your theory. We see this clearly in physics. Ancients thought that everything revolved around the Earth. Then they realized the Planets were odd, so the came up with epicycles (circles within circles), that didn't work and finally people accepted that the planets including Earth revolved around the Sun, much simpler model and it fit the data really well. But not quite well enough, the planets don't move in circles. Enter Isaac Newton and F=ma. Suddenly the motion of the planets made much more sense and fit the data exceptionally well. Well, err, uh, except for Mercury.... Dammit... But we now have Einstein to save the day and the orbits of all the planets are well explained. And this goes on, relativity doesn't explain the very small, you need Quantum Mechanics for that, etc. Back to football, I have been researching this issue for quite some time. I have probably done too much research on this subject. However, based on this research, I have an answer for every historical case you can bring up. The point is, ALL the historical evidence over the past 25 years supports the narrative that I am proposing. Sure you can come up with individual cases that support your particular narrative, but I seriously doubt that anybody can come up with a narrative that better fits historical data in the NFL over the last 25 years. In this thread I linked about 20 articles and studies on this. This is only a small fraction of the number of studies I have actually read, and only represents what I could easily find on that particular day. Look at the thread, read the links. Its a MOUNTAIN of evidence that supports what I am saying. Sure, give me unlimited cap space, ok then, yes, I will take Barkley... I still think this particular Giants team is far more desperate for OL, ER, CB and likely QB than another skill position player. However, in a cap free environment the argument that a great RB will help make the existing QBs a serviceable part of a winning formula makes perfect sense. Yes I am linking my own thread from the past.... AGAIN... Don't bother with what I wrote... I link it here because it has about 20 links of interest on this topic and I don't want to spend the time to link them all again. http://corner.bigblueinteractive.com/index.php?mode=2&thread=567167 Read the embedded links... Whether you agree or not, you will realize that I am actually making an intelligent argument based on a lot of evidence. Its not an emotional response to seeing a human highlight reel and wanting that bright shiny object on my team, which pretty much sums up the argument that the rest of you have been making.

Isn't this the Browns Model or Analytics?

In comment 13916238 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

thing I've taken away from this thread is that a RB can contribute over 200 yards of offense and factor in to almost a third of the points scored by his team and he's just a by-product of a good OL. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the shit that passes as analysis on BBI these days.

Stop being an obtuse ass!

Nowhere have I said that the production isn't valuable. But can that level of production be achieved without the cost in Draft Capital and Salary Cap Dollars invested at the RB position.

Allow me to to exemplify this in a manner that should hit close to home for all of us.

the 2007 Giants had what most considered a top 10 OL (but not a top 5 OL) That team produced the following
2078 yards rushing by RBs
414 yards receiving by RBs
2492 yards from scrimmage
RBs: Jacobs(4th), Ward (UDFA), Droughns (FA, .75M), Bradshaw (7th)

The 2017 Rams had what most considered a top 3 OL, and produced
1602# 1872* yards rushing by RBs
842# 889* yards receiving by RBs
2444# 2761* yards from scrimmage
RBs: Gurley (1st, 10th overall, $3.77M), Brown (UDFA .5M), Dunbar (FA, 1.5M)

# Without Tavon Austin
* Includes Tavon Austin
Austin is a WR they liked to use for jet sweeps, if included in this analysis, then you have to include his draft position (1, 8th overall) and salary ($7,000,000), I will be generous and not include him!

I don't have the contract details for the 2007 Giants, and of course salaries and cap were lower in 2007. But you know the contracts were minimal for a 4th, UDFA, and a 7th approximately $300,000. Droughns was $750,000.

In the end, the total production was almost identical 2492 for the Giants and 2444 for the Rams, except that the Giants did it with a 4th, UDFA, 7th and a cheap Vet FA, (approximately 1.7M total cap, scaled up to 2017 it would be about 3M cap) VS. 10th overall pick, UDFA and a cheap Vet FA (a little over 6M total cap).

The point is, with a good offensive line you can get similar production for a fraction of the cost in both draft and cap $$$.

In comment 13917848 .McL. said:

Quote:

In comment 13916238 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: thing I've taken away from this thread is that a RB can contribute over 200 yards of offense and factor in to almost a third of the points scored by his team and he's just a by-product of a good OL. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the shit that passes as analysis on BBI these days. Stop being an obtuse ass! Nowhere have I said that the production isn't valuable. But can that level of production be achieved without the cost in Draft Capital and Salary Cap Dollars invested at the RB position. Allow me to to exemplify this in a manner that should hit close to home for all of us. the 2007 Giants had what most considered a top 10 OL (but not a top 5 OL) That team produced the following 2078 yards rushing by RBs 414 yards receiving by RBs 2492 yards from scrimmage RBs: Jacobs(4th), Ward (UDFA), Droughns (FA, .75M), Bradshaw (7th) The 2017 Rams had what most considered a top 3 OL, and produced 1602# 1872* yards rushing by RBs 842# 889* yards receiving by RBs 2444# 2761* yards from scrimmage RBs: Gurley (1st, 10th overall, $3.77M), Brown (UDFA .5M), Dunbar (FA, 1.5M) # Without Tavon Austin * Includes Tavon Austin Austin is a WR they liked to use for jet sweeps, if included in this analysis, then you have to include his draft position (1, 8th overall) and salary ($7,000,000), I will be generous and not include him! I don't have the contract details for the 2007 Giants, and of course salaries and cap were lower in 2007. But you know the contracts were minimal for a 4th, UDFA, and a 7th approximately $300,000. Droughns was $750,000. In the end, the total production was almost identical 2492 for the Giants and 2444 for the Rams, except that the Giants did it with a 4th, UDFA, 7th and a cheap Vet FA, (approximately 1.7M total cap, scaled up to 2017 it would be about 3M cap) VS. 10th overall pick, UDFA and a cheap Vet FA (a little over 6M total cap). The point is, with a good offensive line you can get similar production for a fraction of the cost in both draft and cap $$$.

And that my friends is real numbers, real analysis. Not the angry emotional garbage FMiC is slinging.

In comment 13917848 .McL. said:

Quote:

In comment 13916238 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: thing I've taken away from this thread is that a RB can contribute over 200 yards of offense and factor in to almost a third of the points scored by his team and he's just a by-product of a good OL. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the shit that passes as analysis on BBI these days. Stop being an obtuse ass! Nowhere have I said that the production isn't valuable. But can that level of production be achieved without the cost in Draft Capital and Salary Cap Dollars invested at the RB position. Allow me to to exemplify this in a manner that should hit close to home for all of us. the 2007 Giants had what most considered a top 10 OL (but not a top 5 OL) That team produced the following 2078 yards rushing by RBs 414 yards receiving by RBs 2492 yards from scrimmage RBs: Jacobs(4th), Ward (UDFA), Droughns (FA, .75M), Bradshaw (7th) The 2017 Rams had what most considered a top 3 OL, and produced 1602# 1872* yards rushing by RBs 842# 889* yards receiving by RBs 2444# 2761* yards from scrimmage RBs: Gurley (1st, 10th overall, $3.77M), Brown (UDFA .5M), Dunbar (FA, 1.5M) # Without Tavon Austin * Includes Tavon Austin Austin is a WR they liked to use for jet sweeps, if included in this analysis, then you have to include his draft position (1, 8th overall) and salary ($7,000,000), I will be generous and not include him! I don't have the contract details for the 2007 Giants, and of course salaries and cap were lower in 2007. But you know the contracts were minimal for a 4th, UDFA, and a 7th approximately $300,000. Droughns was $750,000. In the end, the total production was almost identical 2492 for the Giants and 2444 for the Rams, except that the Giants did it with a 4th, UDFA, 7th and a cheap Vet FA, (approximately 1.7M total cap, scaled up to 2017 it would be about 3M cap) VS. 10th overall pick, UDFA and a cheap Vet FA (a little over 6M total cap). The point is, with a good offensive line you can get similar production for a fraction of the cost in both draft and cap $$$.

Before somebody screemas and says the Rams had 5.77M in cap space, they carried another UDFA RB Justin Davis, who as far as I can tell only played on ST. He adds .45M...

Thank you to Thegratefulhead

Quote:

The post McL is referencing was one of the best, well sourced and logically reasoned posts ever on BBI. I learned much reading all of the links. The sources are now bookmarked and I refer to them frequently. I think most people do not read what is linked or presented. They often admit they stop reading once they encounter a single thing they do not agree with. Everyone is in such a rush to prove they are right, or better yet, that you are wrong, that they fail to consider something new that could strengthen their beliefs or allow themselves the discovery of a paradigm changing insight by considering they might themsleves be wrong. How did admitting you are wrong about something become so rare and avoided? IE "I stopped reading once I read XXXX" Too many people turn off their ability to learn because they think they know everything. "Wisdom is the Awareness of Ignorance" Socrates There is so much I do not know about football, it is staggering.

http://corner.bigblueinteractive.com/index.php?mode=2&thread=567562&show_all=1#13917535

the salaries of middle of the road lineman. I guess I’ll keep waiting.

Justin Pugh or Devonta Freeman? One is the 9th highest paid at his position and the other is the 2nd highest paid at theirs. One can’t stay healthy and he other played in a Super Bowl, torching the Patriots until his head coach inexplicably didn’t run the ball in the second half.

I mean it isnt even close who’s more valuable, who produces more, and who actually has to be accounted for on the field.

Not a powerbvack despite elite size/speed combo he's a more finesse player, as Faulk was. May be a more dangerous weapon in the passing game, as Faulk was. Open field is where he'll be at his best, as Faulk was. Extremely elusive and explosive, as Faulk was.

In comment 13917999 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

Justin Pugh or Devonta Freeman? One is the 9th highest paid at his position and the other is the 2nd highest paid at theirs. One can’t stay healthy and he other played in a Super Bowl, torching the Patriots until his head coach inexplicably didn’t run the ball in the second half. I mean it isnt even close who’s more valuable, who produces more, and who actually has to be accounted for on the field.

UConn, I like you as a poster. Generally you are reasonably thoughtful.

In this case I have made my case and continually backed it up with data and analysis.

I have linked several articles in this thread. I have also linked to a post of mine that has about 20 more links. And not links to opinion pieces, links that have detailed statistical analysis. You opened one up from here, went to a table near the end, made an assumption as to what the scholarly paper was showing. You didn't read it. So you completely missed the point. Based on that, I doubt you have read any of the other links.

The links show that Total Yards and Yards per Carry do not correlate with winning.
Explosive plays rushing do not correlate with wins.
When it comes to rushing, getting 1st downs and touchdowns correlates with wins.
Getting stuffed (0 or negative yard plays) correlates with losing.
That running backs, taken as a whole, no matter where they were taken in the draft perform almost identically.
and there is more...

When Gurley was used to refute what I said, I showed data and statistics that suggested the eyeball test that people were using did not necessarily paint an accurate picture. That the OL had a lot to do with the Rams production. I even showed a comparison of similar production with our own bargain basement RBs.

I have backed up my position with facts, not opinion. Now you are asking me to opine on various specific players, when I have said that you can find specific examples to fit whatever narrative you choose. The POV that I am proposing is based on long term statistical analysis and probability. I think I have stated a strong case. And I am tired of debunking every scenario that people choose to come up with. You disagree with the POV I am offering, even though you have not read the papers, analysis and articles. You have chosen a narrative that fits you world view without real supporting details. That's fine. We can agree to disagree.

With regards to Guards vs. RB in general. There is a scarcity of competent offensive lineman in general. Tackles Guards and Centers. There is a glut of RBs. Don't believe me, just read any analysis about how deep this years RB class is. Look at how many good RBs around the league were taken with lower draft picks, or even UDFA. Free market dictates when there is a scarcity of a resource that is in demand, the price of that resource goes up. When there is a glut of the resource and it is not in high demand the price of that resource goes down. Comparing the position of Guards and RBs is apples and oranges, and based on free market economics comparing salaries of Guards and RBs is apples and oranges.

I will say this much, as I did in my original post. RBs that do good things in the passing game are more valuable than ones that don't. There are plenty of cheap RBs out there that can catch the ball and pick up a blitz.

it’s flawed and doesn’t include a massive amount of variables. Even if it were correct you’d then have a full proof blueprint for NFL success which we know isn’t the case.

I’ve given you my own analysis where I have refuted your idea that spending money elsewhere is always a better decision. Well, it’s not. Guards whom are average at best make considerably more than most RBs who impact the game more heavily. You introduced cost and I pointed to several Guards making considerably more money than some of the top RBs in the game. I then asked you several times to look up costs which take about 30 seconds in a google search but you instead write 10 paragraph posts basically saying you are smarter than everyone else.

Have fun with your analysis, you still haven’t proven anything.

Why don't you post the numbers and make your case.
It would seem the NFL disagrees with you since they are paying Guards so much more.

And you have just made your position clear.

Quote:

I don’t care about your statistical analysis it’s flawed

You make that statement without even examining the evidence. And before you say it, of course no statistical model is perfect. In life there are too many variables to be perfect. Its about probability! The models, statistics and analysis are good enough to learn something from them and apply that to increase your probabilities.

You have a POV, and you don't care about learning anything new that might change that POV. Which is what you accuse me of doing. Best defense is a good offense I guess

By the way, I don't believe that LeSean McCoy is worth anywhere near his 8+ million cap hit.

Its a question of economics... Supply and demand. To accurately reply to your scenario would require a deep market analysis. Current supply, current demand, expected future supply and expected future demand, inflationary effects, etc... Far more work than I am willing to put into this. Since you don't care for statistics and mathematical analysis, it would have little impact on you anyway.

I’ve even agreed with some of what your wrote, and have said several times here many ways to build a team. I’m not even making a case that I am correct. My opinion is that your definitive stance is wrong and highly flawed. That’s my POV which has nothing to do with what I’d do with the second pick.

that you give yourself a HIGHER PROBABILITY of success by severely limiting the resources you spend on RB.

The key to that sentence is "HIGHER PROBABILITY". I know its a mathematical term...

Can you get lucky other ways. Sure... You can go to the casino and bet on 00. Chances are you will lose. But every now and then, you will win a nice chuck of change.

By the way, the kind of analysis you are asking me to do with regards to RBs and Guards is the type of thing we have PhDs doing at places like the Fed and Multi Billion Dollar Investment Managers. These guys have to make bets on the economy, and they have to be right far more often that wrong. They bet the probabilities. But I am guessing you think they are full of shit too!

In comment 13918291 .McL. said:

Quote:

that you give yourself a HIGHER PROBABILITY of success by severely limiting the resources you spend on RB. The key to that sentence is "HIGHER PROBABILITY". I know its a mathematical term... Can you get lucky other ways. Sure... You can go to the casino and bet on 00. Chances are you will lose. But every now and then, you will win a nice chuck of change. By the way, the kind of analysis you are asking me to do with regards to RBs and Guards is the type of thing we have PhDs doing at places like the Fed and Multi Billion Dollar Investment Managers. These guys have to make bets on the economy, and they have to be right far more often that wrong. They bet the probabilities. But I am guessing you think they are full of shit too!

Their tool of choice....

Statistics!

Who said that looking at statistics meant you were living in the past...

I say, those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat the failures.

THRILL RIDE CONTINUES TO LOVE YOUR STYLE.

Don't let these simple-minded goons get ya down! Remember these bullet points.

- The game has changed. Perception, clearly has not.

- Passing is always more effective than running [url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/running-backs-are-finally-getting-paid-what-theyre-worth/[/url]

- The gap between passing > running particularly spiked after the '04 DPI rules

- "Establishing the run" and even "stopping the run" have no causal relationship anymore to winning

- Saquon Barkley's rookie contract at #2 overall would make him highest paid RB

- Even if Saquon arrives as Peak Le'Veon Bell (impacting the passing game), RB targets per play are far less valuable than WR targets

- Bell is great. LaDainian Tomlinson was great.. Marshall Faulk was the greatest. Comparison to outlier is awful process

- It's nice to have Todd Gurley, but useful RB talent is plentiful (especially in this draft class) hence the continued trend of decrease in their pay (value). Supply v demand

-Value. Saquon will provide value. AND HIGHLIGHTS (YES). However, at his cap# and opportunity cost (solution at QB / treasure chest of picks), he's unlikely to offer value added above a committee of cheaper RBs

- Having the best dual threat RB in the league *might* be a pathway to titles, but having the highest paid RB certainly is not.

In comment 13917025 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

of posters who keep worrying about having to pay players to 2nd contracts are forgetting how long we have them under their initial contracts. And they severely overestimate the impact of the salary cap. I'll just restate my amazement that to support the argument about not signing and paying a RB, Todd Gurley accounting for over 2000 yards and a third of his team's scoring is being called the by-product of the OL as if any marginal back could produce the same. And for some reason, we now have several threads talking about how drafting the best RB is a terrible move.

In 2016, Todd Gurley had one of the worst RB seasons in the history of the league.

He averaged 3.2 yard per carry. Trent Richardson's career ypa was 3.3

With a new coach and improved team in 2017, Todd Gurley emerged as perhaps the best player in football. Offensive Player of the Year.

It's good demonstration that even the most talented RBs are intrinsically linked to their environment and thus perhaps not the best ROI.

If a league average RB played for the '17 Rams, he probably would have had a nice season and contributed to wins. That's all McL was trying to say -- Gurley was a valuable player but maybe not as much much value added (or value above replacement) as you might initially assume. After all, 2016 Todd Gurley happened, so clearly Todd Gurley by himself was not the reason for the turnaround.

In comment 13918313 One Man Thrill Ride said:

Quote:

In comment 13917025 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: of posters who keep worrying about having to pay players to 2nd contracts are forgetting how long we have them under their initial contracts. And they severely overestimate the impact of the salary cap. I'll just restate my amazement that to support the argument about not signing and paying a RB, Todd Gurley accounting for over 2000 yards and a third of his team's scoring is being called the by-product of the OL as if any marginal back could produce the same. And for some reason, we now have several threads talking about how drafting the best RB is a terrible move. In 2016, Todd Gurley had one of the worst RB seasons in the history of the league. He averaged 3.2 yard per carry. Trent Richardson's career ypa was 3.3 With a new coach and improved team in 2017, Todd Gurley emerged as perhaps the best player in football. Offensive Player of the Year. It's good demonstration that even the most talented RBs are intrinsically linked to their environment and thus perhaps not the best ROI. If a league average RB played for the '17 Rams, he probably would have had a nice season and contributed to wins. That's all McL was trying to say -- Gurley was a valuable player but maybe not as much much value added (or value above replacement) as you might initially assume. After all, 2016 Todd Gurley happened, so clearly Todd Gurley by himself was not the reason for the turnaround.

Thank You again Thrill!

In comment 13918302 One Man Thrill Ride said:

Quote:

THRILL RIDE CONTINUES TO LOVE YOUR STYLE. Don't let these simple-minded goons get ya down! Remember these bullet points. - The game has changed. Perception, clearly has not. - Passing is always more effective than running [url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/running-backs-are-finally-getting-paid-what-theyre-worth/[/url] - The gap between passing > running particularly spiked after the '04 DPI rules - "Establishing the run" and even "stopping the run" have no causal relationship anymore to winning - Saquon Barkley's rookie contract at #2 overall would make him highest paid RB - Even if Saquon arrives as Peak Le'Veon Bell (impacting the passing game), RB targets per play are far less valuable than WR targets - Bell is great. LaDainian Tomlinson was great.. Marshall Faulk was the greatest. Comparison to outlier is awful process - It's nice to have Todd Gurley, but useful RB talent is plentiful (especially in this draft class) hence the continued trend of decrease in their pay (value). Supply v demand -Value. Saquon will provide value. AND HIGHLIGHTS (YES). However, at his cap# and opportunity cost (solution at QB / treasure chest of picks), he's unlikely to offer value added above a committee of cheaper RBs - Having the best dual threat RB in the league *might* be a pathway to titles, but having the highest paid RB certainly is not.

Awesome article... fixing the link

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/running-backs-are-finally-getting-paid-what-theyre-worth

Some quotes from the article Thrill posted

Quote:

Of late, however, top rushers have seen their roles diminished and their pay stagnate. In the modern NFL, teams appear reluctant to commit resources to ball carriers like they used to.

Quote:

But while the RBs’ new situation almost certainly results directly from the league’s shift toward pass-centric offenses, it may also stem from the league ever so slowly wising up to the fundamental math of its own game.

Quote:

Basically, there is pretty much no ordinary situation in which running produces better results than passing.

Quote:

Of course, running the football has ancillary benefits, such as burning time off the clock, avoiding turnovers, gaining positive yards more consistently, picking up shorter yardage a higher percentage of the time, keeping the defenses honest, and so on.

Quote:

Indeed, much like with having a good punter, there’s a danger that a great running back could hurt his team, if he entices them to run too often.

Quote:

note that, when it comes to these things, the quality of your running back — at least by conventional measures like how many yards they gain — is of secondary importance.

Quote:

But committing money to “workhorse” running backs who provide little outside of their ability to grind out a large number of yards inefficiently — a description that arguably fits Peterson as well as any great RB — is like doubling down on buggy whips when everyone else is scrambling to make flying cars.

very nice (and easily understandable) statistics to back itself up.

In comment 13918282 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

I’ve even agreed with some of what your wrote, and have said several times here many ways to build a team. I’m not even making a case that I am correct. My opinion is that your definitive stance is wrong and highly flawed. That’s my POV which has nothing to do with what I’d do with the second pick.

If my case is wrong and highly flawed... Prove it!
Or at least provide evidence to contradict it. I would actually love to see that!

Bringing up some nonsense about Guard Pay vs RB Pay does nothing to further your case. Especially since there is evidence out there why RB pay is decreasing, and its a fact that its happening, while teams are willing to pay Guards more. Based on that alone your case so far is highly contrarian and highly contraindicated.

In comment 13915253 santacruzom said:

Quote:

Because no one else believes that your evidence is as irrefutable as you seem to. In fact, it appears to be tautological or conflating correlation with causation. Furthermore, you simply dismiss any example of an RB contributing to a good team as benefitting from a good OL. What sort of evidence otherwise would satisfy you? I'm guessing none.

You say "no one else believes", as in you, FMiC, Mike in Ohio, Uconn, and PatersonPlank. I would hardly call that quorum. There are plenty of people who believe in the case. There are plenty of scholarly articles, and reputable and thoughtful authors doing statistical analysis out there if you care read them and learn. Thrill found and posted a nice one that I had never seen before. Based on that article, it would seem that the NFL at large agrees with the case as well. Putting the group of doubters in a distinct minority.

In comment 13915388 santacruzom said:

Quote:

In comment 13915312 .McL. said: Quote: In comment 13915307 santacruzom said: Quote: In comment 13914138 .McL. said: Quote: This thread explains why RBs have very little value. No matter how good the RB is he needs a good OL. Once you have a good OL, just about any RB will suffice. This thread show how many negative runs Barley has. These runs kill drives. Explosive runs can't make up for these runs. Oh wait, these are the "studies" you've been referring to? The second link is a thread where the OP says he reads a Tweet about Barkley's percentage of negative runs. He didn't post the stats that show this. He didn't even post the Tweet! Wrong again... Try these 2, they were linked above, just below the Ranaan one you hated. https://www.choregia.org/images/issues/1205.pdf https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=joseph_wharton_scholars And oh the stats on negative runs I have seen elsewhere, I just didn't want to spend the time to find the original link. But the poster's stats are correct... The first "study" does nothing to prove (and really, doesn't even seem to try to claim) that drafting a RB with a high pick is a bad idea. The most damning statement therein is simply: "No indication is provided for benefits of acquiring an elite running back," but since it's a study of salary cap effects, you can conclude that it's strictly talking about allocating a large portion of the salary cap on acquiring a free agent RB. This actually doesn't happen all that often, though I can think of a few RBs who were acquired via trade and immediately helped elevate their team. I'm still not seeing a smoking gun here.

Clearly you missed this sentence from their conclusion on page 65...

Quote:

No indication is provided for benefits of acquiring an elite running back.

In other words, the statistics show that elite running backs provide no benefits above a replacement value player. Benefits is defined as wins!

In comment 13918331 .McL. said:

Quote:

In comment 13918282 UConn4523 said: Quote: I’ve even agreed with some of what your wrote, and have said several times here many ways to build a team. I’m not even making a case that I am correct. My opinion is that your definitive stance is wrong and highly flawed. That’s my POV which has nothing to do with what I’d do with the second pick. If my case is wrong and highly flawed... Prove it! Or at least provide evidence to contradict it. I would actually love to see that! Bringing up some nonsense about Guard Pay vs RB Pay does nothing to further your case. Especially since there is evidence out there why RB pay is decreasing, and its a fact that its happening, while teams are willing to pay Guards more. Based on that alone your case so far is highly contrarian and highly contraindicated.

Supply and demand, ever hear of it? Ohh wait you have, you write about it before but seem to ignore what it actually means. Cost going up doesn’t exactly mean quality rises with it. Can’t believe I even have to explain that to you. Guess Jurassic World was a great movie since it made a ton of money.

Guard pay isn’t nonsense, you are being a complete fool now. You keep talking about positional cost and I keep pointing out that players at a non premium position who aren’t great players are making a lot more money than great RBs who have huge impact on games.

The fact that so simply throw that away tells me all I need to know about you. It contradicts your cost analysis and proves that your theory is at best, questionable. And in what world is Justin Pugh worth his contract but LeSean McCoy isn’t worth his?

I know I won’t get an answer but I’ll ask anyway.

if costs on RBs are going down, that only increases their value to their team. You can pay a middling lineman $8-$10 million per year or pay a top end RB 75% of the cost.

The NFL moving away from paying RBs isn’t synonymous with them being less valuable. When too many teams try to cut corners it eventually backfired which is why there’s been a resurgence in drafting RBs high. The Eagles, Rams, Falcons, Steelers, and Jaguars have all invested heavily in the position whether I’d be draft selection, trade or FA. They clearly value the position and their teams success is predicated on running the ball well.

Looking forward to see how you ignore that.

he’s exactly right, the NFL was trending away from RBs for a while - that isn’t the case anymore, clearly. They are drafted high and the very good ones are paid. The Steels do want to pay LeVeon Bell, despite your claims, but his value is insanely high due to his hybrid positional value. He’s trying to make the case to be franchised and paid like a WR (which isn’t happening) but goes to show you how valuable he is.

Longevity is the only part of your argument that has any merit and even then it’s iffy. I’ll take 4 cost controlled years of a RB that can start week 1 rookie year, I’ll even pay the 5th year option and a 6th year on the tag. By then they’ve already exceeded their value and draft status, and done so very cheaply, so whatever you do after that is gravy. This RB would cost far less than doing the same thing with a Justin Pugh or any other average guard, again, a point you completely ignore.

Quote:

And that my friends is real numbers, real analysis. Not the angry emotional garbage FMiC is slinging

It is numbers - not sure it is a real analysis though. Look - even on this thread being flippant seems like the best way to handle a poster who has multiple post strings in a row basically talking to himself.

There's way too much of an emphasis on Positional value and strength. That isn't angry emotional garbage - it simply isn't paralysis by analysis and a penchant for posting long, rambling dissertations successively.

I think we can all agree that RB investment isn't something to just jump into - you need to weigh the steep decline most backs have with the pay they are seeking in a second contract. But the first contract is cost controlled! It is a relatively cheap way to get the most out of the years when backs have the highest productivity! Hell, we have poster talking about trading Beckham before his 2nd contract because they think he's an ass, when it can be an effective strategy to trade the stud RB before his 2nd contract to get some value back without having to pay a ton of money.

That's where lengthy post after lengthy successive post (often just responding to yourself) misses the mark. Your analysis is too weighted on future cost even though cap management and the options teams have to move players before their second contract makes those hurdles easy to identify and address. You're supposedly a fan of a team that has had hardly any players reach their 2nd contracts and who manages the cap with the best of them.

Regardless of the position played, the first four years on a rookie contract are based solely on the slot where the player is drafted, whereas the 5th year option (for first picks) is based on the position and whether or not you were drafted in the top ten or anywhere between 11 and 32. In the case of a RB or a QB or an Edge Rusher, the difference is significant. This is what it was for players drafted in 2013 (I couldn't find anything for 2014 or 2015 that included RB)...

Quote:

POSITION 1ST 10 PICKS PICKS 11-32 Cornerback $11,913,000 $8,026,000 Defensive End $12,734,000 $8,069,000 Defensive Tackle $10,875,000 $6,757,000 Linebacker $11,925,000 $8,369,000 Offensive Line $11,902,000 $8,821,000 Punter/Kicker $4,123,000 $3,011,000 Quarterback $17,696,000 $11,357,000 Running Back $9,647,000 $5,824,000 Safety $9,116,000 $5,676,000 Tight End $7,713,000 $4,782,000 Wide Receiver $12,268,000 $7,915,000

So the option year is much better deal if you're drafting a RB in the top ten. It's certainly not a reason to draft a RB over a QB, but if the argument against drafting a RB in the top ten is based on comparative savings versus other positions in the first four years of the deal, top ten RBs should at least get credit for (potentially) being a bargain in year five.

In comment 13918353 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

he’s exactly right, the NFL was trending away from RBs for a while - that isn’t the case anymore, clearly. They are drafted high and the very good ones are paid. The Steels do want to pay LeVeon Bell, despite your claims, but his value is insanely high due to his hybrid positional value. He’s trying to make the case to be franchised and paid like a WR (which isn’t happening) but goes to show you how valuable he is. Longevity is the only part of your argument that has any merit and even then it’s iffy. I’ll take 4 cost controlled years of a RB that can start week 1 rookie year, I’ll even pay the 5th year option and a 6th year on the tag. By then they’ve already exceeded their value and draft status, and done so very cheaply, so whatever you do after that is gravy. This RB would cost far less than doing the same thing with a Justin Pugh or any other average guard, again, a point you completely ignore.

"Cost control" is definitely a misnomer. here At pick 1.02, Saquon immediately becomes the 4th highest paid RB in the league.

https://twitter.com/JustinFreeman18/status/986632734142550017

The above tweet says it pretty succinctly. Even if Saquon's everything you dream about, he's not worth both the cap# AND the pick.

Not when 1) the opportunity cost is either a long-term QB or perhaps a transformative collection of premium picks, and 2) useful RB talent is so plentiful and inexpensive - look at this draft class.

Again, Barkley has value. It's probably unsafe to assume he shows up as a fully formed Le'Veon Bell, and it's important to remember that we are a bad team and a bad team can make Todd Gurley look like Trent Richardson. Whereas well-built pass-dominant teams can make average RB talent look like difference-makers (hello Patriots).

It's pass-first league. Stop looking at micro-examples of singular isolated successful seasons ('17 Jags, '16 Cowboys) and look more globally at the annual contenders: Pats, Packers, Steelers, any team with Peyton Manning. Our goal as an organization should be to compete every season for as long as possible, not put together one random playoff run.

Tangentially, youConn have harped on LeSean McCoy's salary vs Justin Pugh. Thrill posits that this argument is a total detour and both are overpaid. Look no further than what appears to be the next dominant multi-year contender: The Philly Eagles, the team that dealt away LeSean McCoy (!) and invested heavy heavy heavy in OL (guard Brandon Brooks $8M; tackles Lane Johnson $11.25M and Peters $9.8M) ~ 22.5% of their cap, 4th highest in the league. They also devoted a ton of money to their 8-man DL rotation. This is a near-term luxury of having Carson Wentz as the 26th highest paid QB in football. That model sure looks good: stability at QB, dominate the LOS.

If NYG wants to take Saquon and become a run-first team (with a bad OL? lol?) then they will continue to be a lose-first team.

In comment 13918426 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

Quote: And that my friends is real numbers, real analysis. Not the angry emotional garbage FMiC is slinging It is numbers - not sure it is a real analysis though. Look - even on this thread being flippant seems like the best way to handle a poster who has multiple post strings in a row basically talking to himself. There's way too much of an emphasis on Positional value and strength. That isn't angry emotional garbage - it simply isn't paralysis by analysis and a penchant for posting long, rambling dissertations successively. I think we can all agree that RB investment isn't something to just jump into - you need to weigh the steep decline most backs have with the pay they are seeking in a second contract. But the first contract is cost controlled! It is a relatively cheap way to get the most out of the years when backs have the highest productivity! Hell, we have poster talking about trading Beckham before his 2nd contract because they think he's an ass, when it can be an effective strategy to trade the stud RB before his 2nd contract to get some value back without having to pay a ton of money. That's where lengthy post after lengthy successive post (often just responding to yourself) misses the mark. Your analysis is too weighted on future cost even though cap management and the options teams have to move players before their second contract makes those hurdles easy to identify and address. You're supposedly a fan of a team that has had hardly any players reach their 2nd contracts and who manages the cap with the best of them.

So in fact you don't disagree with the premise of limiting your investment in RBs gives you a higher probability of winning, its just a matter of degree. That is a debate worth having...

By the way... I don't believe I have said much of anything about rookie contracts vs. second contracts. It is certainly not something central to my position. I'm not sure where you and UConn got that idea from.

Its too bad that my style offends you. I try to make thoughtful posts, with examples and data to support it. Sometimes it can be lengthy... I also try to cover my bases because there are so many posters that will nitpick.

I can tell you that your style, short, dismissive, arrogant, demeaning and generally devoid of any useful information is offensive to a great many posters. But I doubt you care about that any more than I care about the fact you don't like my style.

was a term you used, talk about arrogance.

In comment 13919253 One Man Thrill Ride said:

Quote:

In comment 13918353 UConn4523 said: Quote: he’s exactly right, the NFL was trending away from RBs for a while - that isn’t the case anymore, clearly. They are drafted high and the very good ones are paid. The Steels do want to pay LeVeon Bell, despite your claims, but his value is insanely high due to his hybrid positional value. He’s trying to make the case to be franchised and paid like a WR (which isn’t happening) but goes to show you how valuable he is. Longevity is the only part of your argument that has any merit and even then it’s iffy. I’ll take 4 cost controlled years of a RB that can start week 1 rookie year, I’ll even pay the 5th year option and a 6th year on the tag. By then they’ve already exceeded their value and draft status, and done so very cheaply, so whatever you do after that is gravy. This RB would cost far less than doing the same thing with a Justin Pugh or any other average guard, again, a point you completely ignore. "Cost control" is definitely a misnomer. here At pick 1.02, Saquon immediately becomes the 4th highest paid RB in the league. https://twitter.com/JustinFreeman18/status/986632734142550017 The above tweet says it pretty succinctly. Even if Saquon's everything you dream about, he's not worth both the cap# AND the pick. Not when 1) the opportunity cost is either a long-term QB or perhaps a transformative collection of premium picks, and 2) useful RB talent is so plentiful and inexpensive - look at this draft class. Again, Barkley has value. It's probably unsafe to assume he shows up as a fully formed Le'Veon Bell, and it's important to remember that we are a bad team and a bad team can make Todd Gurley look like Trent Richardson. Whereas well-built pass-dominant teams can make average RB talent look like difference-makers (hello Patriots). It's pass-first league. Stop looking at micro-examples of singular isolated successful seasons ('17 Jags, '16 Cowboys) and look more globally at the annual contenders: Pats, Packers, Steelers, any team with Peyton Manning. Our goal as an organization should be to compete every season for as long as possible, not put together one random playoff run. Tangentially, youConn have harped on LeSean McCoy's salary vs Justin Pugh. Thrill posits that this argument is a total detour and both are overpaid. Look no further than what appears to be the next dominant multi-year contender: The Philly Eagles, the team that dealt away LeSean McCoy (!) and invested heavy heavy heavy in OL (guard Brandon Brooks $8M; tackles Lane Johnson $11.25M and Peters $9.8M) ~ 22.5% of their cap, 4th highest in the league. They also devoted a ton of money to their 8-man DL rotation. This is a near-term luxury of having Carson Wentz as the 26th highest paid QB in football. That model sure looks good: stability at QB, dominate the LOS. If NYG wants to take Saquon and become a run-first team (with a bad OL? lol?) then they will continue to be a lose-first team.

The problem with that is you have to have the right cost-controlled QB. In 2004 most scouts were correct that Eli and Roethlisberger would be the most likely to lead teams to Super Bowls and Rivers was a distant third. How many Super Bowls has Rivers been to? The problem with this year's crop is that, unlike 2004, where two players clearly stood out, each of this year's top 4 QB's has a red flag serious enough to cause the QB to bust. Ultimately my strategy, were I to be a GM, would be to first rank the players assuming all postions were equal. Then I would adjust for relative position value (top P or PK obviously worth much less than top QB). At #2 I would take the highest player on my board unless I get enough value so that it more than makes up for the difference in value between #2 and my new pick. If my highest QB is #5, but Chubb, Barkley, Nelson, etc. is the best player remaining and there is no good trade offer, then I am taking Chubb, Barkley, Nelson, etc.

I don’t disagree but the entire point is that there are exceptions to rules and statistics. If Barkley is indeed that much better than an argument can be made that he trumps statistics. Which is why statistics and computer learning will never replace scouting and coaching as math can’t be used to determine either.

So all the analysis in the world is great but it isn’t the end all be all.

I use to post in. One is being dismissive and curt or downright rude, but if you believe that I'm only posting stuff devoid of facts or analysis then it is likely because you get so caught up in seeing the terse responses.

I'll use statistics often to support or refute an argument. I would provide injury statistics that show probably the most common denominator to winning teams is good health since at least one SB team has been in the Top 5 of health in all but 2 SB's since 2000 (and ironically the two were the Giants-Pats games). I've posted an analysis on why I believe Allen will remain an inaccurate QB. What I won't do is post over and over again to myself to reinforce these points.

FRANKly, I don't know your style. It resembles one from a batshit crazy poster years ago who used to brag about being a guy who used analysis and was "great at numbers" but I've seen you refer to yourself as a scientist above. Maybe in a 10 year period that poster became one, I don't know.

Post solid stuff without it becoming a data dump or some repetitive argument that you'll keep trying to beat through people's heads and you won't take shit from me. You probably don't care one way or another anyway - but that's all I ask of any poster.

In comment 13918349 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

In comment 13918331 .McL. said: Quote: In comment 13918282 UConn4523 said: Quote: I’ve even agreed with some of what your wrote, and have said several times here many ways to build a team. I’m not even making a case that I am correct. My opinion is that your definitive stance is wrong and highly flawed. That’s my POV which has nothing to do with what I’d do with the second pick. If my case is wrong and highly flawed... Prove it! Or at least provide evidence to contradict it. I would actually love to see that! Bringing up some nonsense about Guard Pay vs RB Pay does nothing to further your case. Especially since there is evidence out there why RB pay is decreasing, and its a fact that its happening, while teams are willing to pay Guards more. Based on that alone your case so far is highly contrarian and highly contraindicated. Supply and demand, ever hear of it? Ohh wait you have, you write about it before but seem to ignore what it actually means. Cost going up doesn’t exactly mean quality rises with it. Can’t believe I even have to explain that to you. Guess Jurassic World was a great movie since it made a ton of money. Guard pay isn’t nonsense, you are being a complete fool now. You keep talking about positional cost and I keep pointing out that players at a non premium position who aren’t great players are making a lot more money than great RBs who have huge impact on games. The fact that so simply throw that away tells me all I need to know about you. It contradicts your cost analysis and proves that your theory is at best, questionable. And in what world is Justin Pugh worth his contract but LeSean McCoy isn’t worth his? I know I won’t get an answer but I’ll ask anyway.

Oh boy... You should have quit before... You clearly have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to economic theory. I work in the field!

Economic theory is based on VALUE... Not quality...

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_value_(economics)[/url]

In particulare it is the Subjective Theory of Value that applies here.

Quote:

Subjective theory of value Further information: Subjective theory of value The subjective theory of value is a Theory of Value that believes that an item’s value depends on the consumer. This theory states that an item’s value is not dependent on the labor that goes into a good, or any inherent property of the good. Instead, the subjective theory of value believes that a good’s value depends on the consumers wants and needs.[7] The consumer places a value on an item by determining the marginal utility, or additional satisfaction of one additional good,[8] of that item and deciding what that means to them.[9] The modern subjective theory of value was created by William Stanley Jevons, Léon Walras, and Carl Menger in the late 19th century.[10] The subjective theory contradicted Karl Marx’s Labour Theory which stated an items value depends on the labour that goes into production and not the ability to satisfy the consumer.[11] The subjective theory of value helped answer the “Diamond-Water Paradox,” which many believed to be unsolvable. The diamond-water paradox questions why diamonds are so much more valuable than water when water is necessary for life. This paradox was answered by the subjective theory of value by realizing that water, in total, is more valuable than diamonds because the first few units are necessary for life. The key difference between water and diamonds is that water is more plentiful and diamonds are rare. Because of the availability, one additional unit of diamonds exceeds the value of one additional unit of water.[11] Marginalism Marginalism refers to the study of marginal theories and studies within economics. The topics included in marginalism are marginal utility, marginal gain, marginal rates of substitution, and opportunity costs.[12] Marginalism can be applied to the subjective theory of value because the subjective theory takes into account the marginal utility of an item in order to put a value on it.

Notice the subcategory of Marginalism. It talks about the VALUE of "marginal gain", and "marginal rates of substituion". It is this margin (i.e. incremental value) that determines price.

This is why you see myself and Thrill making statements about the "Value above replacement" or the Value above league average".

you certainly aren’t quitting that.

Keep posting books for me to read. I’ll continue to make the same point - what you are posting isn’t a rule, it’s a guideline and a singular line of thinking. Nothing you post is absolute or has been proven to be absolute. We are discussing the #2 pick in the draft being an exception player who’s ceiling value would be worth whatever analysis you are reposting over and over and over and over again.

It’s that fucking simple.

from the past UConn, his arrogance won't fade.

We'll probably be subjected to a "Bow to the master" thread at some point, but only after his analysis shows that the new QB we take will have 70TD's and 8000 yards passing......

There is the perception in the NFL that the marginal gain of guard play is significantly more valuable than the marginal gain at RB.

It is an excellent topic for study and debate if the perception of marginal gain at the guard position is in fact warranted, and in turn whether the position is currently overpriced or not. I have not researched this.

I will tell you, if you take the water-diamond paradox, Guards are in short supply so they are diamonds and RBs are abundant, they are water.

if Guards are deemed valuable and are making considerably more money without effecting a teams success as much, what the hell is the point of all your babble?

And the league is evolving like it always does, which your analysis can’t predict or determine.

In comment 13919305 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

I don’t disagree but the entire point is that there are exceptions to rules and statistics. If Barkley is indeed that much better than an argument can be made that he trumps statistics. Which is why statistics and computer learning will never replace scouting and coaching as math can’t be used to determine either. So all the analysis in the world is great but it isn’t the end all be all.

Betting on exceptions is very effective way to become bankrupt.

Think about the expectations you're placing upon Saquon for him to return value. Some of the names in this thread. LaDainian Tomlinson scored 31 TDs in a season; Marshall Faulk went 1,000 / 1,000. These are not reasonable baselines.

Thrill's solution? Take Guice or Michel at 34. Or even better, take Nick Chubb at 66 (as a freshman before his knee injury, he was Barkley before Barkley was Barkley).

Saquon (2) 2018 cap hit $5.7M. Averaging $8M over 4 seasons

Guice/Michel (34) 2018 cap hit $1.3M. Total value $7.5M

Chubb (66) 2018 cap hit $745k. Total value $4M


...this isn't an analytical argument but an economic one. Thrill will happily take 80% of Saquon Barkley for a fraction of the cost. And use the excess of savings to fortify my OL/DL, extend my pending FA proven studs (Obj Landon), and ... sure...pay a few bucks to a satellite back to round out a pass-heavy O.

Oh, and obviously use that #2 pick on The QB. Sorry Mike in NY, but positional value is a big deal because good QBs are the hardest commodity to find. If you are gonna be position-agnostic at #2 (!!!) then we will be in the Dave Brown Dark Ages for an interminable time.

Thrill will concede that if The Org's preferred QB goes #1, and no viable trade down options exist, then Barkley vs Chubb is a fair debate.

In comment 13919324 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

you certainly aren’t quitting that. Keep posting books for me to read. I’ll continue to make the same point - what you are posting isn’t a rule, it’s a guideline and a singular line of thinking. Nothing you post is absolute or has been proven to be absolute. We are discussing the #2 pick in the draft being an exception player who’s ceiling value would be worth whatever analysis you are reposting over and over and over and over again. It’s that fucking simple.

When have I ever stated that it was a RULE...
Look at my posts, they are littered with the words like probability. I speak about increasing the probability. I never speak about rules.

You are certainly free to bet against the probabilities.

Perhaps you are right, perhaps there is some value that you perceive that makes the gamble worth it.

Personally, I do not perceive anything about SB that is especially different from what we have seen in the NFL in the past. And therefore what he brings would be covered in the historical data. I would not bet against the probabilities.

With that I am done discussing this with you and FMiC since both of you seem to be more interested in browbeating posters than having a rational debate.

If ignoring positions the top QB would only carry the 15th highest grade, but factoring in positions he jumps to 5th, you should not further take him at 2 because he happens to be your top QB - you factored in the QB position by raising him from 15 to 5

but what you see as a gamble may be more educated than you are admitting. If the Giants feel Barkley will be fantastic outside of fluke injury, he’s worth it. If they can achieve what Pitt has it’s worth it. Obviously and IF but one probably worth risking.

In comment 13919358 Mike in NY said:

Quote:

If ignoring positions the top QB would only carry the 15th highest grade, but factoring in positions he jumps to 5th, you should not further take him at 2 because he happens to be your top QB - you factored in the QB position by raising him from 15 to 5

I agree, you can't force the pick either. Again the value has to be there. The difficult part is determining that value, especially when it comes to QBs.

Personally, I am uncomfortable with these QBs. I don't think its a bad idea to take one, but there needs to be a strong evaluation and conviction.

There is the possibility of a trade down.

But no matter what we do, the move will always be second guessed. We have to opportunity to take all but one of the available players. It is highly likely that there will be somebody that will have a better career that the player we take at 2. People will always look in hindsight ans say we should have done something different. That is a hell of a lot of pressure on Gettleman.

In comment 13919358 Mike in NY said:

Quote:

If ignoring positions the top QB would only carry the 15th highest grade, but factoring in positions he jumps to 5th, you should not further take him at 2 because he happens to be your top QB - you factored in the QB position by raising him from 15 to 5

Take a step back and think about how complicated this process is.

How do you quantitatively compare a quarterback to a guard? How do you intelligently compare Saquon Barkley vs Bradley Chubb? How do you clearly define who is better player and/or who helps your team more?

Certainly, you won't just order than into a list and go to war.

In short, it's all guesswork at the top. if there's a highly graded QB who you believe you can win with ...just fucking draft him. Apologies to the guys who were slightly higher on The List, but this is a unique marketplace and it's not a good model to play offense 10 vs. 11.

He is certainly passing the sniff test