for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

Barkley - Pro Comparisons

Allen in CNJ : 4/14/2018 2:16 pm
I will preface my entire post with an apology to BBI for yet another Saquon Barkley post. I did a search, and couldn't find anything related so this is why I'm adding another amidst the others for the mere purpose of one thing: a pure observation on my part.

So I've been watching a lot of highlight reels on Barkley, and have seen the same ones the rest of BBI has. Overall, he's a truly generational talent that can change any offense and has the skillset to be a 3 down back.

My take on these videos are the following (and many of you have stated the same points):

1) He runs to avoid contact (which is great for his longevity and wear and tear)
2) He runs tremendously well in space
3) He leaps way too much (I really think this is a major negative!)
4) He's great in the passing game - both pass blocking, blitz pick-up, and running routes, screens as well as checkdowns
5) He has sneaky speed
6) He possesses countless intangibles on the field, in the community, and in the locker room.

In looking at all of this, and really jogging my memory, I can say he carries the attributes of a young Rodney Hampton, Tiki, and to a lesser extend LeSean McCoy and Brian Westbrook.

But in really going through my thoughts, the one comparison that won't go away is this: BARRY SANDERS. Yeah, I know, but in watching Barkley, and in watching Sanders, everything basically fits. The running in space, the running to avoid contact, etc. Remember Barry Sanders had a tremendous pro career on a series of crappy teams with little to no supporting cast - and more importantly, he went relatively uninjured his ENTIRE career.

If there ever was a running back to take with the #2, it's this guy, just my opinion.

Let me know your thoughts, and again please accept my apologies for starting another Barkley thread!
A bigger and faster  
KWALL2 : 4/14/2018 2:20 pm : link
Version of Kamara.

That’s a winner.
I thought "Barry Sanders" too for a long time  
JohnB : 4/14/2018 2:43 pm : link
A ton of runs for little or no gain and then he breaks one for 75 yards. I was never a huge fan of BS but I certainly respected him for doing what he did on really bad teams.

Is that what the Giants want out of a RB? Or do they want a thumper, up the middle, drive the pile type of RB?
I found this article to be very fair  
Strahan91 : 4/14/2018 3:07 pm : link
Barkley has the size, acceleration and patience to run between the tackles in the way that Elliott and Leveon Bell do -- as they wait for things to develop and hit the holes hard rather than run straight ahead (something seemingly all of the recent NYG backs have done). The question is why he didn't do that in college. Was he trying to preserve his body? Was he confident that he could bounce to the outside and outrun college defenders and make a big play, and if so will he recognize that in the NFL you want to take the yards and move the sticks? Or does he struggle with vision?

Whatever the answer is, is it something that can be taught by the coaches at the next level? Ideally that's a question you'd want answered before drafting the guy at #2 overall. He'll be a great player regardless but to take a RB at 2, he's got to be the complete package or the value is better in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. I wonder if Gettlemen seemingly making that mistake last year with McCaffrey (not comparing the two players but he's not an every down back and seems to be far more effective as a receiver than he was as a runner last year).

To answer your actual question, He reminds me of both David Johnson and Edgerrin James.
Link - ( New Window )
RE: I thought  
TrueBlue56 : 4/14/2018 3:13 pm : link
In comment 13914095 JohnB said:
Quote:
A ton of runs for little or no gain and then he breaks one for 75 yards. I was never a huge fan of BS but I certainly respected him for doing what he did on really bad teams.

Is that what the Giants want out of a RB? Or do they want a thumper, up the middle, drive the pile type of RB?


I want a gamebreaker, someone who has to be accounted for by defenses. Use a Brandon Jacobs type back to get the tough yards on 3rd and shorts and goal line situations. We had a great combo with jacobs and Bradshaw.
Give me Marshall Faulk production  
Big Blue '56 : 4/14/2018 3:35 pm : link
and I’d be a happy camper. So would Eli
There is no need to apologize.  
DonnieD89 : 4/14/2018 3:35 pm : link
I see the same things you do. I agree with all your assessments. I am in the Barkeley Camp; however, I do understand the need for quarterback. I will not argue against the quarterback, if Dave Gettleman selects one. I don't think he makes a lot of mistakes selecting the first round picks for his teams. My question has always been, can he last the good 8 to 10 years to be worth taken at the #2 pick. The way he runs and avoids being hit, I'm beginning to think he is. I also think that he does not have to be the only player to shoulder the offense. That means he could very well get less touches which I consider a good thing regarding his longevity. His most important attribute in the offense will be his presence.
Another Barkley lover... ugh  
.McL. : 4/14/2018 3:36 pm : link
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.
Reggie Bush  
GoBlue6599 : 4/14/2018 3:40 pm : link
Similar in running style
If the GM, coaches and scouts  
X : 4/14/2018 3:41 pm : link
on the Giants have him rated much higher than anyone else, you pick him. I trust their judgment and so should BBI (except Sy, Dave and any other scouts on here)
RE: If the GM, coaches and scouts  
dune69 : 4/14/2018 3:50 pm : link
In comment 13914143 X said:
Quote:
on the Giants have him rated much higher than anyone else, you pick him. I trust their judgment and so should BBI (except Sy, Dave and any other scouts on here)



^^^^
This
RE: RE: If the GM, coaches and scouts  
.McL. : 4/14/2018 4:14 pm : link
In comment 13914145 dune69 said:
Quote:
In comment 13914143 X said:


Quote:


on the Giants have him rated much higher than anyone else, you pick him. I trust their judgment and so should BBI (except Sy, Dave and any other scouts on here)




^^^^
This


Positional value matters!
RE: I thought  
Zepp : 4/14/2018 4:19 pm : link
In comment 13914095 JohnB said:
Quote:
A ton of runs for little or no gain and then he breaks one for 75 yards. I was never a huge fan of BS but I certainly respected him for doing what he did on really bad teams.

Is that what the Giants want out of a RB? Or do they want a thumper, up the middle, drive the pile type of RB?


Do the Giants want a player that can break a 75 yard run after getting stopped a couple of times or a guy who can get 4 yards a clip? You really have to ask that question?

Not to sound snide but who wouldn't want to have a guy who can break a long one on almost any play. The threat alone puts defenses on their heels. On top of that the Giants have OBJ, Sheppard and Engram. Who are defense going to focus on?

I think the Giants have a real shot of building a very very special team very very quickly.
Bigger, slightly slower CJ2K  
Eric on Li : 4/14/2018 4:27 pm : link
same type of lethal homerun hitter who has the ability to not take big hits. Barkley probably a half step slower but has just as much acceleration and wiggle in the open field. He can put his head down and run between the tackles better than CJ did just based on his pure size.

I think in the right offense Barkley can similarly be a centerpiece that defenses need account for containing on every single touch. I'd also expect his game to age a little more gracefully since he has the extra 30 pounds of mass to handle the game between the tackles.
What if his pro comparision is  
averagejoe : 4/14/2018 4:32 pm : link
Vernon Gholston? I kinda suspect Browns will pick Allen and Barkley and they will both bust. It's the Browns.
As much as I think QB is the way to go  
Dave on the UWS : 4/14/2018 4:50 pm : link
in this spot, if they have Barkley at a whole different level than I guess you have to pick him. Better hope Webb is the goods then because they will NOT be in a position to take a QB high next year and they will have limited draft capital. Looking at it in reverse though, if you KNEW Webb was Eli's successor then Barkley would be the right pick.
RE: Another Barkley lover... ugh  
Mike from Ohio : 4/14/2018 5:10 pm : link
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.


Another guy who thinks building a championship is a formula...ugh.

Thinking outside your tiny, myopic box is fun sometimes. You should think about it.
He’ll be somewhere in between Marshsll Faulk and Reggie Bush  
TD : 4/14/2018 6:24 pm : link
I fear he may be more like Bush.

People forget how good Bush was in college. He won every award and looked like the second coming. They have a similar style and qualities.

https://youtu.be/RQauccrEEuQ
Marshall Faulk  
Sy'56 : 4/14/2018 6:43 pm : link
Before he was big time...fans complained that he "avoided contact" too much. Ha
RE: Another Barkley lover... ugh  
Sy'56 : 4/14/2018 6:44 pm : link
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.


Todd Gurley.
RE: He’ll be somewhere in between Marshsll Faulk and Reggie Bush  
Strahan91 : 4/14/2018 7:08 pm : link
In comment 13914266 TD said:
Quote:
I fear he may be more like Bush.

People forget how good Bush was in college. He won every award and looked like the second coming. They have a similar style and qualities.

https://youtu.be/RQauccrEEuQ


Charlie Casserly said on NFLN that he thinks Barkley is the best player in the draft. Compared him to Tomlinson but said he's a better prospect than Tomlinson was coming out. I bring this up because he caught a lot of flack for taking Mario Williams over Reggie Bush.
RE: RE: Another Barkley lover... ugh  
.McL. : 4/14/2018 7:57 pm : link
In comment 13914192 Mike from Ohio 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.



Another guy who thinks building a championship is a formula...ugh.

Thinking outside your tiny, myopic box is fun sometimes. You should think about it.


Yes there are many ways to build a championship team. Overspending on RBs is NOT part of any of them. Look at the history. It is extraordinarily consistent with regards to RBs. Every championship team that has featured a good running game had a a good offensive line, regardless of the RB. Those teams also had highly efficient passing games. The efficiency of the passing game and of the OL correlates to winning. The efficiency of the running game does not. And it hasn't for over 25 years. That kind of consistency is telling you something. You are just too close minded to listen.
Gettlemen said if you have a surefire HOF caliber player at 2  
Canton : 4/14/2018 8:01 pm : link
You take him. The only one I see you can say that for is Barkley. (Barring injury) If he's available I don't think the Giants blink. They run to the podium and grab him.

If you can say that for any AN with conviction .....let me know.
If you can say that for any QB***  
Canton : 4/14/2018 8:02 pm : link
.
Championships may build a team's legacy through the ages  
Canton : 4/14/2018 8:23 pm : link
But so do legendary players. I'd sign up for it in a heartbeat. Especially if it means taking a QB that doesn't become the franchise or never takes us to another championship.

Who here wouldn't sign up for watching a Barry-esque kind of player for the next 5-10 years (Barring injury) playing along side Beckham and Engram.
Those comparing him to Reggie Bush, few things to point out  
Eric on Li : 4/14/2018 8:46 pm : link
Barkley had 13 more TD's in his college career (in 1 less game). Also had about 700 more yards from scrimmage. That's despite defenses keying on him because his team was far less loaded than those USC teams. All you have to do is look at Bush's year by year stats to see that he basically had 1 big year in college - compared to Barkley posting 3 relatively consistent years.

Barkley also matched or bettered every combine (or pro day) number Bush put up - while being 30 pounds heavier.

1 last point - Reggie Bush was a pretty good NFL RB, his problem was injuries. In the only 4 seasons he played 14 games or more he had 1300+ yards from scrimmage and 7+ TD (including his rookie season).

So to sum up, Reggie Bush when healthy was a good NFL running back (4.3 ypc for his career, among the top receiving RB's during his career despite missing a lot of games). Saquon Barkley has bettered him every way possible as a prospect - with a cleaner injury history and carrying an extra 30 pounds.
RE: Championships may build a team's legacy through the ages  
.McL. : 4/14/2018 9:18 pm : link
In comment 13914365 Canton said:
Quote:
But so do legendary players. I'd sign up for it in a heartbeat. Especially if it means taking a QB that doesn't become the franchise or never takes us to another championship.

Who here wouldn't sign up for watching a Barry-esque kind of player for the next 5-10 years (Barring injury) playing along side Beckham and Engram.


So you want us to be the Lions of the 90s for the next decade... That's awesome... :/

I would rather win it all with the likes of Bradshaw and Jacobs, than be mediocre with Barry Sanders.
RE: RE: He’ll be somewhere in between Marshsll Faulk and Reggie Bush  
.McL. : 4/14/2018 9:22 pm : link
In comment 13914309 Strahan91 said:
Quote:
In comment 13914266 TD said:


Quote:


I fear he may be more like Bush.

People forget how good Bush was in college. He won every award and looked like the second coming. They have a similar style and qualities.

https://youtu.be/RQauccrEEuQ



Charlie Casserly said on NFLN that he thinks Barkley is the best player in the draft. Compared him to Tomlinson but said he's a better prospect than Tomlinson was coming out. I bring this up because he caught a lot of flack for taking Mario Williams over Reggie Bush.


If it was guaranteed that Barkley was as good as Tomlinson, I would still say no thank you. I will spend my resources elsewhere.
RE: RE: Championships may build a team's legacy through the ages  
the mike : 4/14/2018 9:26 pm : link
In comment 13914396 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 13914365 Canton said:


Quote:


But so do legendary players. I'd sign up for it in a heartbeat. Especially if it means taking a QB that doesn't become the franchise or never takes us to another championship.

Who here wouldn't sign up for watching a Barry-esque kind of player for the next 5-10 years (Barring injury) playing along side Beckham and Engram.



So you want us to be the Lions of the 90s for the next decade... That's awesome... :/

I would rather win it all with the likes of Bradshaw and Jacobs, than be mediocre with Barry Sanders.


The right comparison here combining team and talent is Emmitt Smith - great talent who delivers multiple super bowl wins...
McL  
Mike from Ohio : 4/14/2018 9:48 pm : link
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.
When guys get this absurd level of hype  
Ten Ton Hammer : 4/14/2018 9:50 pm : link
my first reaction is skepticism.
Does  
mattyblue : 4/14/2018 9:54 pm : link
anyone else think “sure fire hall of famer” is a ridiculous comment? That’s projecting a little too far and I don’t see how you could say that about anyone. Luck was the biggest “sure thing” I really remember and he is good but unless things start to swing up for him he isn’t going to the Hall of Fame.
Why would getting a Barry Sanders talent  
UConn4523 : 4/14/2018 10:01 pm : link
mean that we would be the Lions? Such a stupid comparison.
I can’t get past his stat lines against ...  
Boy Cord : 4/14/2018 10:04 pm : link
... Rutgers and Indiana.

Although I think James Franklin is a world-class jackass, he did the team that drafts Barkley a favor by keeping him at 15ish carries in a lot of games.
RE: Why would getting a Barry Sanders talent  
DonnieD89 : 4/14/2018 10:07 pm : link
In comment 13914434 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
mean that we would be the Lions? Such a stupid comparison.


Thought the exact thing. Just didn’t want to comment on it up until now.
RE: RE: Why would getting a Barry Sanders talent  
Mike from Ohio : 4/14/2018 10:18 pm : link
In comment 13914440 DonnieD89 said:
Quote:
In comment 13914434 UConn4523 said:


Quote:


mean that we would be the Lions? Such a stupid comparison.



Thought the exact thing. Just didn’t want to comment on it up until now.


There probably aren't many people who didn't think that was ridiculous.
RE: Why would getting a Barry Sanders talent  
.McL. : 4/14/2018 10:30 pm : link
In comment 13914434 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
mean that we would be the Lions? Such a stupid comparison.


Canton said that he would be happy getting a Barry Sanders type of player even if it did not lead to championships...

He said it... Not me!
That isn’t what he said  
UConn4523 : 4/14/2018 10:34 pm : link
.
RE: RE: Why would getting a Barry Sanders talent  
the mike : 4/14/2018 10:43 pm : link
In comment 13914461 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 13914434 UConn4523 said:


Quote:


mean that we would be the Lions? Such a stupid comparison.



Canton said that he would be happy getting a Barry Sanders type of player even if it did not lead to championships...

He said it... Not me!


He may have said it, but I for one vehemently disagree. Every single step we take must be towards winning a championship as quickly as possible... I have had enough of the "flash" of Ron Johnson, Spider Lockhart and Bob Tucker to last several lifetimes. The only thing that matters is winning now! And the best asset in this draft class towards achieving that objective is Barkley...
RE: RE: Why would getting a Barry Sanders talent  
.McL. : 4/14/2018 10:47 pm : link
In comment 13914461 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 13914434 UConn4523 said:


Quote:


mean that we would be the Lions? Such a stupid comparison.



Canton said that he would be happy getting a Barry Sanders type of player even if it did not lead to championships...

He said it... Not me!


I'm sorry, you could give the giants the best running back that will ever be born, if he doesn't lead us to a championship, I don't want him.

I would rather spend resources (draft and cap) on other positions that give a far greater probability of winning a championship.

The history and statistics of the past 25 years show that spending resources on RBs does not lead to championships. What wins championships is an efficient passing game, and a defense that is efficient at stopping the pass. Even championship teams you think of as being "running teams" threw the ball exceptionally well. Look at Seattle's passing statistics when they won. They were awesome. Their OL had multiple pro-bowl/all-pro caliber players. And I wish I still had the link, but there was an article at the time about Seattle that showed that they did not start games just pounding the rock. They threw the ball almost 60% of the time in the first half.

You can go all the way back to the Giants SB win in 1990/91 season. And even then do you know who was leading the NFC in Passer Rating?

Wait for it...

Phil Simms!!!

Yes our beloved pound the rock NYG had the most efficient passing attack in the NFC in 1990... And that was 28 years ago! And the game is far more pass heavy now.
RE: RE: RE: Why would getting a Barry Sanders talent  
.McL. : 4/14/2018 10:52 pm : link
In comment 13914483 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 13914461 .McL. said:


Quote:


In comment 13914434 UConn4523 said:


Quote:


mean that we would be the Lions? Such a stupid comparison.



Canton said that he would be happy getting a Barry Sanders type of player even if it did not lead to championships...

He said it... Not me!



I'm sorry, you could give the giants the best running back that will ever be born, if he doesn't lead us to a championship, I don't want him.

I would rather spend resources (draft and cap) on other positions that give a far greater probability of winning a championship.

The history and statistics of the past 25 years show that spending resources on RBs does not lead to championships. What wins championships is an efficient passing game, and a defense that is efficient at stopping the pass. Even championship teams you think of as being "running teams" threw the ball exceptionally well. Look at Seattle's passing statistics when they won. They were awesome. Their OL had multiple pro-bowl/all-pro caliber players. And I wish I still had the link, but there was an article at the time about Seattle that showed that they did not start games just pounding the rock. They threw the ball almost 60% of the time in the first half.

You can go all the way back to the Giants SB win in 1990/91 season. And even then do you know who was leading the NFC in Passer Rating?

Wait for it...

Phil Simms!!!

Yes our beloved pound the rock NYG had the most efficient passing attack in the NFC in 1990... And that was 28 years ago! And the game is far more pass heavy now.

And who was our RB...

An ancient Ottis Anderson who was expecting part of a rotation, but with the bulk of the work going to Rodney Hampton. Basically Anderson cost the Giants next to nothing at that point. And it was also a few years before the Cap.

It was the OLine that made that running game work!
RE: RE: RE: Why would getting a Barry Sanders talent  
the mike : 4/14/2018 10:56 pm : link
In comment 13914483 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 13914461 .McL. said:


Quote:


In comment 13914434 UConn4523 said:


Quote:


mean that we would be the Lions? Such a stupid comparison.



Canton said that he would be happy getting a Barry Sanders type of player even if it did not lead to championships...

He said it... Not me!



I'm sorry, you could give the giants the best running back that will ever be born, if he doesn't lead us to a championship, I don't want him.

I would rather spend resources (draft and cap) on other positions that give a far greater probability of winning a championship.

The history and statistics of the past 25 years show that spending resources on RBs does not lead to championships. What wins championships is an efficient passing game, and a defense that is efficient at stopping the pass. Even championship teams you think of as being "running teams" threw the ball exceptionally well. Look at Seattle's passing statistics when they won. They were awesome. Their OL had multiple pro-bowl/all-pro caliber players. And I wish I still had the link, but there was an article at the time about Seattle that showed that they did not start games just pounding the rock. They threw the ball almost 60% of the time in the first half.

You can go all the way back to the Giants SB win in 1990/91 season. And even then do you know who was leading the NFC in Passer Rating?

Wait for it...

Phil Simms!!!

Yes our beloved pound the rock NYG had the most efficient passing attack in the NFC in 1990... And that was 28 years ago! And the game is far more pass heavy now.


Yes, we have been through this and I do not disagree with your thesis. But two quick points - the Giants won Super Bowl XXV because of OJ Anderson who was the MVP; Hostetler did a good job controlling the clock, but it was defense and a running game that won that game. And second - just because we need passing efficiency does not mean there are assets available to achieve that objective. Flowers may have been more valuable on paper because he was checking a box called "enhancing passing efficiency", but he is brutal. And Gurley is an all pro player and possible future HOFer. It completely depends on the players in comparison at the time of the selection...
RE: RE: RE: Why would getting a Barry Sanders talent  
.McL. : 4/14/2018 11:01 pm : link
In comment 13914477 the mike said:
Quote:
In comment 13914461 .McL. said:


Quote:


In comment 13914434 UConn4523 said:


Quote:


mean that we would be the Lions? Such a stupid comparison.



Canton said that he would be happy getting a Barry Sanders type of player even if it did not lead to championships...

He said it... Not me!



He may have said it, but I for one vehemently disagree. Every single step we take must be towards winning a championship as quickly as possible... I have had enough of the "flash" of Ron Johnson, Spider Lockhart and Bob Tucker to last several lifetimes. The only thing that matters is winning now! And the best asset in this draft class towards achieving that objective is Barkley...


I agree with you that everything needs to be steps towards winning a Championship.

Where we strongly disagree is whether taking Barkley (or any RB in my mind) at the #2 spot helps us win a championship.

My contention is that it doesn't. The resources you spend on Barkley are far better spent on QB, OL, Edge Rusher or CB. When you have star players at those positions, you chances of winning a championship are far greater than when you have a star at RB. All the statistics and history shows us this with extreme consistency.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Why would getting a Barry Sanders talent  
.McL. : 4/14/2018 11:14 pm : link
In comment 13914490 the mike said:
Quote:
In comment 13914483 .McL. said:


Quote:


In comment 13914461 .McL. said:


Quote:


In comment 13914434 UConn4523 said:


Quote:


mean that we would be the Lions? Such a stupid comparison.



Canton said that he would be happy getting a Barry Sanders type of player even if it did not lead to championships...

He said it... Not me!



I'm sorry, you could give the giants the best running back that will ever be born, if he doesn't lead us to a championship, I don't want him.

I would rather spend resources (draft and cap) on other positions that give a far greater probability of winning a championship.

The history and statistics of the past 25 years show that spending resources on RBs does not lead to championships. What wins championships is an efficient passing game, and a defense that is efficient at stopping the pass. Even championship teams you think of as being "running teams" threw the ball exceptionally well. Look at Seattle's passing statistics when they won. They were awesome. Their OL had multiple pro-bowl/all-pro caliber players. And I wish I still had the link, but there was an article at the time about Seattle that showed that they did not start games just pounding the rock. They threw the ball almost 60% of the time in the first half.

You can go all the way back to the Giants SB win in 1990/91 season. And even then do you know who was leading the NFC in Passer Rating?

Wait for it...

Phil Simms!!!

Yes our beloved pound the rock NYG had the most efficient passing attack in the NFC in 1990... And that was 28 years ago! And the game is far more pass heavy now.



Yes, we have been through this and I do not disagree with your thesis. But two quick points - the Giants won Super Bowl XXV because of OJ Anderson who was the MVP; Hostetler did a good job controlling the clock, but it was defense and a running game that won that game. And second - just because we need passing efficiency does not mean there are assets available to achieve that objective. Flowers may have been more valuable on paper because he was checking a box called "enhancing passing efficiency", but he is brutal. And Gurley is an all pro player and possible future HOFer. It completely depends on the players in comparison at the time of the selection...


I think far more of the credit belongs to the OL than to Anderson... But they don't give SB MVPs to OL!

And that is my contention, the resources need to be spent on OL, DL, CB and QB (we have more than enough at WR and TE for now).

Everybody loves to bring up Gurley... What did the Rams do in his first year... Not much. But they were much better in the 2nd. What else was better in the 2nd year? DId by chance their QB start playing orders of magnitude better? An oh they just a few decent OL. In fact their OL was widely regarded as on of the best.

Here is ajust one blurb..
Quote:
It's a familiar refrain league-wide, but the offensive line didn't get quite enough credit for the Los Angeles Rams' turnaround. Sean McVay's influence, Todd Gurley's revival and Jared Goff's progression were storylines throughout the 2017 season, but we didn't hear about how the Rams' offensive line turned into a strength. Back in 2016, the constantly stuffed Gurley averaged -0.1 yards before a defender closed within a yard of him, well below the 0.29 league average. The 2017 version of the Rams' run blocking afforded backs 0.65 average yards before close, ranking third in the league. Los Angeles was also a top-flight pass-blocking line, as well. The addition of veteran left tackle Andrew Whitworth paid dividends across the entire front line, stabilizing not only the blindside (where he operated) but making life easier for the players already in place.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000916199/article/saints-bills-rams-among-nfls-10-best-offensive-line-units

The majority of the time, Gurley was already more than a yard beyond the line of scrimmage before he was even touched. All he had to was fall forward and he would have over 4 yards per carry! You guys atrying to hold Gurley up as some sort of proof are simply making my case for me.

and notice this comment  
.McL. : 4/14/2018 11:17 pm : link
Quote:
Los Angeles was also a top-flight pass-blocking line, as well


This is what you do if you want to win....

Block well, and it doesn't matter who the RB is!
Don't block well, and it still doesn't matter who the RB is, except now you are on the losing side!
RE: RE: Why would getting a Barry Sanders talent  
Canton : 4/14/2018 11:18 pm : link
In comment 13914461 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 13914434 UConn4523 said:


Quote:


mean that we would be the Lions? Such a stupid comparison.



Canton said that he would be happy getting a Barry Sanders type of player even if it did not lead to championships...

He said it... Not me!


Not even remotely what I said.

"Championships may build a team's legacy through the ages
Canton : 8:23 pm : link : reply
But so do legendary players. I'd sign up for it in a heartbeat. Especially if it means taking a QB that doesn't become the franchise or never takes us to another championship.

Who here wouldn't sign up for watching a Barry-esque kind of player for the next 5-10 years (Barring injury) playing along side Beckham and Engram."
Ok Barkley lovers...  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 2:15 am : link
Read and learn!!!

Realize its not just about the draft capital, but the cap dollars as well. It's VERY bad team design to pay a RB this much...

Scouts say not wise to draft Barkey at 2

These are linked in the other thread I included before, but since you clearly haven't read it...

Two studies that show that paying RBs too much is bad for winning.
Salary Cap Impact on Success

Optimizing cap funds
Its bad for winning  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 2:21 am : link
Irrespective of how transcendent the player is...

The positional value is just not there for RB. I keep saying this, if somebody from the future can hand me a piece of paper that shows that Barkley will b e the best RB in the league for 10 years and be All Pro every one of those years. I will still say NO! Emphatically! I still say that it is irresponsible to use all those resources on a RB. RBs are simply not worth it no matter what they do at the position.
Obviously I have hard stance against RBs  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 2:47 am : link
But to further the point about Barkley specifically, 1/6 (16.7%) of his runs were for negative yards. Based on that, and adding in the 0 yard runs, it was probably between 22 and 25% (but I can't find the official statistic).

In the thread I linked (the long one with about 20 links embedded), there is a link in there that talks about efficient running games. It shows that winning running games limit the 0 or negative yard runs to 5% or less...

Barkley has 4 to 5 times that number of stuffed runs!!!

He is exactly the type of running back you DON'T want. He will look great in the box score, and the ESPN highlights, but those stuffed runs will kill drives and his team will lose football games.
It’s pointless arguing with you  
UConn4523 : 4/15/2018 7:05 am : link
if you aren’t going to factor in the talent on Barkley’s team into your analysis than it’s worthless.
RE: It’s pointless arguing with you  
Mike from Ohio : 4/15/2018 7:47 am : link
In comment 13914559 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
if you aren’t going to factor in the talent on Barkley’s team into your analysis than it’s worthless.


Some people come to this site to talk football, and some come to be told they're smart. McL is clearly in the second grouping. If you point out a team that wins running the ball he will just claim the OL was responsible and they would have won with any back. There is no point in trying to discuss rational things with people who don't consider any view but their own. This guy is linking to his own posts as "proof" that his views are right!
It’s funny because I can go back to Adrian Peterson’s  
UConn4523 : 4/15/2018 8:04 am : link
Sophomore season and simply quote that he failed to hit 100 total yards in 5 of his first 6 games. Great analysis, right?

As for Barkley’s negative runs, what does that even suggest other van he had a bad OLine? Is he getting the ball and just refusing to move forward or is he already having to avoid contact?

I’ve always been against drafting a RB high, but that’s also because most of the RBs considered for the first round just aren’t in this class of player. The NFL is also a constantly evolving league when it comes to effective schemes which is why I don’t care to quote history when we can easily make our own. Why wouldn’t we want our own version of Bell and Brown? Why wouldn’t we want a Beckham, Barkley, Engram foundation for years to come? Why can’t we also bolster the OLine with our other picks and future free agency?
I just want the Giants coming out of this draft  
Mike from Ohio : 4/15/2018 8:23 am : link
with a difference maker. The problem with the Giants offense last year wasn't just a poor offensive line, but aside from OBJ there was really nobody you had to worry about. The offense was predictable and easy to defend. Creating matchup problems and multiple threats keep a defense off balance and more likely to make a mistake.

A top tier QB makes everybody on the field better and more dangerous. If that guy isn't there, RB is the one skill position on offense where the Giants don't have anyone a defense needs to pay attention to. Putting a talent like Barkley in there creates matchup and scheme problems because he is just as dangerous running pass routes as he is running the ball. With a talented play caller like Shurmur, that should instantly make this offense much more dynamic.

All of us want the OLine fixed and nobody is dismissing the need to do that. But drafting a guy like Nelson at #2 fixes one position on the line, it doesn't fix the line. The #2 pick has to be an impact guy, and Barkley certainly looks like that.
Here is Greg Cosell's full scouting report on Barkley.  
mittenedman : 4/15/2018 8:44 am : link


IMO Cosell is the best in the business and the concerns about Barkley bouncing everything outside are legit. That's the 1 hesitation - is this guy physical enough to be an every down back in the NFL? I think he is - but it freaks me out.
And is he bouncing outside because  
UConn4523 : 4/15/2018 8:50 am : link
his team sucked or because he doesn’t know any better? How good was his coaching?

Cosell can’t answer that.
And I’m not saying it’s wrong  
UConn4523 : 4/15/2018 8:53 am : link
but just adding some color on why I take some of these knocks with a grain of salt. Some issues are issues, some are perception without knowing the root cause. That’s why you need good scouts and coaching.
"In 2017 he was much more decisive running downhill..."  
Eric on Li : 4/15/2018 9:25 am : link
isn't that saying Barkely showed improvement on the only negative people have called out? I also really like Cossell and reading that scouting report that was what jumped out to me (other than the 1.47 split on the first 10 yards of his 40, which is the fastest I think I've ever seen - Beckham was 1.57 for reference).
RE: And I’m not saying it’s wrong  
Milton : 4/15/2018 10:05 am : link
In comment 13914618 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
but just adding some color on why I take some of these knocks with a grain of salt.
Matt Waldman believes Barkley is an exciting, dynamic, multi-purpose RB with huge potential to be successful, but he is critical of his decision-making and football maturity and he references LeSean McCoy, Jamal Charles, and Alvin Kamara as RBs who overcame similar issues to shine at the NFL level and CJ Spiller and Laurence Maroney as two talented college RBs who failed to overcome those same issues.

I recommend you watch the whole 23 minute video for the full picture, but if you're short on time, I cued up two specific plays to give you an idea of the maturity/decision-making issue being discussed....
1st and goal from 9-yard line
1st and 10 from own 6-yard line
Milton  
UConn4523 : 4/15/2018 10:15 am : link
I watched the two clips. It’s great to critique that and say what he should have done, but a lot of that is hindsight. It’s no different than when during game threads BBIers talk about a cut a WR should have made if he were “smarter” or “more aware”. If a great WR or RB makes a couple bad decisions on film, that doesn’t mean he has “maturity issues”, IMO. It COULD mean a lot of things, however, not all of which would be a big concern. Like I said earlier, great coaching can make average players look great - what can it do for great players?
RE: RE: Championships may build a team's legacy through the ages  
Dr. D : 4/15/2018 11:02 am : link
In comment 13914396 .McL. said:
Quote:

So you want us to be the Lions of the 90s for the next decade... That's awesome... :/

I would rather win it all with the likes of Bradshaw and Jacobs, than be mediocre with Barry Sanders.


So if we get a RB that runs like Barry Sanders that means our org is going turn stupid and incapable of constucting a great team?

Was it Sanders fault that the Lions management couldn't put together a good team around him? Also, consider the Sanders years were the best years the Lions have had in almost 60 years.

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but think that a great RB, coupled with better less predictable playcalling, will make our OL look better (not to mention the new additions). And it's also possible Barkley shouldn't be considered just a RB, but a great all around weapon.

If DG and Shurmer pick Barkley im good with it and will even get excited for the season.
RE: RE: It’s pointless arguing with you  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 2:31 pm : link
In comment 13914573 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
In comment 13914559 UConn4523 said:


Quote:


if you aren’t going to factor in the talent on Barkley’s team into your analysis than it’s worthless.



Some people come to this site to talk football, and some come to be told they're smart. McL is clearly in the second grouping. If you point out a team that wins running the ball he will just claim the OL was responsible and they would have won with any back. There is no point in trying to discuss rational things with people who don't consider any view but their own. This guy is linking to his own posts as "proof" that his views are right!


I linked to my own post because in that post I have about links to about 20 studies that support the point. It has a MOUNTAIN of evidence supporting what I am saying...

I just don't feel like having to format all the links again.
RE: RE: It’s pointless arguing with you  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 3:43 pm : link
In comment 13914573 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
In comment 13914559 UConn4523 said:


Quote:


if you aren’t going to factor in the talent on Barkley’s team into your analysis than it’s worthless.



Some people come to this site to talk football, and some come to be told they're smart. McL is clearly in the second grouping. If you point out a team that wins running the ball he will just claim the OL was responsible and they would have won with any back. There is no point in trying to discuss rational things with people who don't consider any view but their own. This guy is linking to his own posts as "proof" that his views are right!

And no, I don't factor any RBs talents into the analysis because the evidence shows that RB talent does not matter. RBs simply do not have the positional value to support picking so high.

I can say the same about you, you refuse to factor into your analysis just how devalued the RB position is, no matter how much evidence you are presented with. At least I present evidence to support my position. You have provided exactly zero evidence to show that a RB really does make a difference.

The fact is you cannot find an example showing that having supreme RB talent leads to championship teams without superior OL and passing attacks because it simply does not exist. But you can find examples where superior passing attacks with poor running attacks led to a championship. There a re plenty of examples of that. Especially when you factor in that there are very good RBs that will give you 80 to 90% of the production of a great RB for next to nothing.

You have to think of it in a wholistic team building way. You simply cannot win a championship without a superior passing attack. To have a superior passing attack you first need a QB and an OL. A by product of building a superior OL for the passing attack is that usually that same OL will be above average running the ball. Once you have a superior QB with a superior OL you can win without a great RB. But you still need to pay other positions on defense.

You simply can't pay every position. You have to make compromises. Once you realize that you have to make compromises the question is where do you compromise.

The most obvious place to compromise is RB because you can get decent ones cheap. Its difficult to get decent WR and TE cheap. On defense you need edge rushers and CBs. You also need safeties but they cost less. You can skimp on LB if you have good interior DL, or you can skimp a little on interior DL if your LB are decent.

If you pay at RB, then you have to skimp at a position that is going to hurt your team.

I am not willing to skimp on other parts of the team to pay for a great RB when I get 80 to 90% of the production with an RB that costs next to nothing.
You must not read when I post  
UConn4523 : 4/15/2018 3:51 pm : link
I never actually said anything other than Barkley is a great player and while I wouldnt normally draft a RB this high, he’s the lone exception because of how much better he is than the rest of the recent RBs that have come out.

I’m actually pretty middle of the road and looking at it objectively, unlike you.

I’m not really interested in going back and forth with you on this. The NFL is an always evolving league, having Barkley will only help us, and possibly alter how how the league does things if he’s paired with Beckham.

Don’t know what else to tell you.
RE: RE: RE: He’ll be somewhere in between Marshsll Faulk and Reggie Bush  
santacruzom : 4/15/2018 4:00 pm : link
In comment 13914398 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 13914309 Strahan91 said:


Quote:


In comment 13914266 TD said:


Quote:


I fear he may be more like Bush.

People forget how good Bush was in college. He won every award and looked like the second coming. They have a similar style and qualities.

https://youtu.be/RQauccrEEuQ



Charlie Casserly said on NFLN that he thinks Barkley is the best player in the draft. Compared him to Tomlinson but said he's a better prospect than Tomlinson was coming out. I bring this up because he caught a lot of flack for taking Mario Williams over Reggie Bush.



If it was guaranteed that Barkley was as good as Tomlinson, I would still say no thank you. I will spend my resources elsewhere.


But what if acquiring a back of that caliber doesn't somehow preclude you from acquiring talent elsewhere? I know, this is some crazy shit but stay with me -- what if you can take that generational talent at RB, and then surround him with other talented players later in the same draft, or even in later years through the draft and free agency?
Also curious how we are getting  
UConn4523 : 4/15/2018 4:08 pm : link
80%-90% of a top RBs production for next to nothing.

You keep saying stuff like this and t makes it very difficult to take your posts seriously.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Why would getting a Barry Sanders talent  
jpennyva : 4/15/2018 4:16 pm : link
In comment 13914494 .McL. said:
Quote:
Where we strongly disagree is whether taking Barkley (or any RB in my mind) at the #2 spot helps us win a championship.


The part of the quote above where I bolded sums up exactly where many differences of opinions lie. SB isn't just any other running back. By many accounts, he is a generational talent. I think he is worth the pick but I will accept whatever decision DG and PS make in the draft.
RE: You must not read when I post  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 4:19 pm : link
In comment 13915012 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
I never actually said anything other than Barkley is a great player and while I wouldnt normally draft a RB this high, he’s the lone exception because of how much better he is than the rest of the recent RBs that have come out.

I’m actually pretty middle of the road and looking at it objectively, unlike you.

I’m not really interested in going back and forth with you on this. The NFL is an always evolving league, having Barkley will only help us, and possibly alter how how the league does things if he’s paired with Beckham.

Don’t know what else to tell you.


I am not sure what to tell you. I am not debating how good Barkley is.

Its like this. You have $2500 a month to spend, and you need to spend per month on the following items:

Really cheap non nutritious Food $400 (makes you sick, you miss significant periods of work)
or Modest but Nutritious Food $600
or Luxury Dining $1000
Utilities $300
Gas $100
Rent cheap crime ridden neighborhood: 600 (you get robbed and beaten missing significant periods of work)
or modest apt in a safe neighborhood: 1000
or Upscale apt in a safe neighborhood: 1500
Car unreliable junker: $50
used but reliable compact: $100
Luxury SUV: $750 (including extra $50 for gas)

What choices do you make! Think of the food as you OL, your apartment as your QB and the car as your RB.

You simply cannot survive with cheap food or a cheap place to live, the bad food makes you sick and lose time at work, the bad neighborhood results in bodily harm and you lose time from work. Lose time from work and you are fired and have 0 money.

So you have to get minimum modest nutritious food, an apartment in a decent neighborhood. That brings you to $2000, if you buy the SUV, then you have to skimp on the Food or the Apt and we know that means failure.

You can go for the Apt in the Upscale neighborhood with the compact car, that gets you to $2500 and you do well!

The SUV is absolutely fantastic, it can do other worldly things. But if you buy it, you simply can't make your finances work. In the end, it simply doesn't matter how great a car the SUV is, you need to allocate your money elsewhere.
The problem with that cute analogy is that it’s based off of  
UConn4523 : 4/15/2018 4:57 pm : link
only 1 line of thinking, which we all know isn’t the case with the NFL, or any sport for that matter. The only constant, or almost constant in the NFL is great QB play trumps everything else. For that reason I’m fully on board the QB train but if DG doesn’t agree and likes Barkley instead, so be it. 2018 isn’t the only draft, his job is to build a better future for the NYG.
One of the things UConn mentioned  
Dr. D : 4/15/2018 5:08 pm : link
is that the NFL is a constantly evolving league. Five years ago, RBs were barely taken in the first round, but in the last few years some have been taken within the first 5 picks. Are all those GMs stupid?

The Jaguars didn't win it all last year, but Fournette sure made a difference (when he was healthy) and it's not like they had a late round QB. Bortles was a high 1st rd pick, he just hasn't turned out to be that good.

The cowpies are a much different team, a potential playoff team with Zeke. Pretty mediocre without him.

You think Gurley didn't help Goff and the Rams become a playoff team?

As I said, I'm totally open minded about this and whether we take a QB or Barkley I'll be on board. If it's Chubb or Nelson, I hope it's after a trade down.

RE: One of the things UConn mentioned  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 7:26 pm : link
In comment 13915077 Dr. D said:
Quote:
is that the NFL is a constantly evolving league. Five years ago, RBs were barely taken in the first round, but in the last few years some have been taken within the first 5 picks. Are all those GMs stupid?

The Jaguars didn't win it all last year, but Fournette sure made a difference (when he was healthy) and it's not like they had a late round QB. Bortles was a high 1st rd pick, he just hasn't turned out to be that good.

The cowpies are a much different team, a potential playoff team with Zeke. Pretty mediocre without him.

You think Gurley didn't help Goff and the Rams become a playoff team?

As I said, I'm totally open minded about this and whether we take a QB or Barkley I'll be on board. If it's Chubb or Nelson, I hope it's after a trade down.


None of those teams have won anything yet. They each have serious holes. Lets see if they ever do. I have my doubts.

With regards to Gurley, I have already stated my case about him rather emphatically. No I don't think Gurley played a major role in the Rams resurgence. I think it is more directly tied to the quality of the OL and the play of the QB. I believe you could put a player like Ajayi on the Rams instead of Gurley and you would have pretty much the same results, but now you have more money to spend elsewhere.
Hahaha  
UConn4523 : 4/15/2018 7:33 pm : link
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.
RE: RE: RE: He’ll be somewhere in between Marshsll Faulk and Reggie Bush  
chopperhatch : 4/15/2018 8:22 pm : link
In comment 13914398 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 13914309 Strahan91 said:


Quote:


In comment 13914266 TD said:


Quote:


I fear he may be more like Bush.

People forget how good Bush was in college. He won every award and looked like the second coming. They have a similar style and qualities.

https://youtu.be/RQauccrEEuQ



Charlie Casserly said on NFLN that he thinks Barkley is the best player in the draft. Compared him to Tomlinson but said he's a better prospect than Tomlinson was coming out. I bring this up because he caught a lot of flack for taking Mario Williams over Reggie Bush.



If it was guaranteed that Barkley was as good as Tomlinson, I would still say no thank you. I will spend my resources elsewhere.


What a dumb fucking statement. You would turn your nose up at the guy who is 3rd on the all time TD list.
He’d spend his resources on other players  
UConn4523 : 4/15/2018 8:31 pm : link
that he’s be able to guarantee success for. Simple.
I love it, guys like Gurley, Fournette, Zeke, and Kamara,  
PatersonPlank : 4/15/2018 8:36 pm : link
are all not worth it. That's rediculous. The impact those guys had on their teams is unmeasurable.
RE: I love it, guys like Gurley, Fournette, Zeke, and Kamara,  
UConn4523 : 4/15/2018 8:38 pm : link
In comment 13915226 PatersonPlank said:
Quote:
are all not worth it. That's rediculous. The impact those guys had on their teams is unmeasurable.


All on rookie contracts getting pennies, but you can replace them for even cheaper and only lose 10% production, who knew!
RE: RE: RE: RE: He’ll be somewhere in between Marshsll Faulk and Reggie Bush  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 8:59 pm : link
In comment 13915205 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
In comment 13914398 .McL. said:


Quote:


In comment 13914309 Strahan91 said:


Quote:


In comment 13914266 TD said:


Quote:


I fear he may be more like Bush.

People forget how good Bush was in college. He won every award and looked like the second coming. They have a similar style and qualities.

https://youtu.be/RQauccrEEuQ



Charlie Casserly said on NFLN that he thinks Barkley is the best player in the draft. Compared him to Tomlinson but said he's a better prospect than Tomlinson was coming out. I bring this up because he caught a lot of flack for taking Mario Williams over Reggie Bush.



If it was guaranteed that Barkley was as good as Tomlinson, I would still say no thank you. I will spend my resources elsewhere.



What a dumb fucking statement. You would turn your nose up at the guy who is 3rd on the all time TD list.


You haven't read the whole thesis Chopper.

The point is to have a RB like that you have to use to many resources. Draft and Cap. Those resources are better spent elsewhere. That is the point. If you pay a RB, then you have to take from a premium position. Taking from a premium position will hurt the team more that the premium RB can help it.

Tell me. How many Championships did Tomlinson's teams win?

I have linked mountains of evidence to support my position.

The best people can do is say that its dumb...

Based on what? Make a case and back it up with evidence.
I have made mine and backed with plenty of evidence.

People claim that my position is wrong. Yet not a single person has been able to produce a shred of evidence to dispute it.

If a team wins despite paying a premium at RB, they are lucky, not good. It means they got an elite performance at a premium position from a player not payed at an elite level. What's more is that its unsustainable. As soon as that player can, they will demand elite pay.

Next year the Giants will have to pay Collins and Beckham. They freed some space, but this team still has plenty of holes. After paying them we will likely be up against the cap the way we are now. We need another edge rusher, we need better OL, we need another CB, not to mention a long term answer at QB. Where do we get the cap dollars to fill all these holes? We are blindly hoping that a UDFA like Wheeler suddenly becomes a quality starting RT. If you ask me, that is not a smart way to build a team. Very low probability of success. Granted its the best we can do for now. This team has tried for years to build a winner by going cheap on the OL. It doesn't work! We can't keep praying for elite performance at premium positions without paying for it. Paying for Solder is a step. But this line is still not significantly better than the line that started the season last year.

This team has lots of weapons at skill positions. With guys like Beckham, Shepard, and Engram, any premium RB would be 3rd or 4th choice... We simply cannot afford that luxury and keep ignoring other positions.
Terrell Davis, wasn’t worth it  
UConn4523 : 4/15/2018 9:02 pm : link
Marshawn Lynch, wasn’t worth it.

And then there’s Brady, Manning’s, Brees and Rodgers dominating the last 20 years so of course there isn’t much.

Look forward, the league is changing and those QBs will be gone soon. And when that happens teams will need to take all the pressure they can off of QBs, like they have already started to do.
Your evidence isn't disputed by other evidence  
santacruzom : 4/15/2018 9:10 pm : link
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.
in fact  
santacruzom : 4/15/2018 9:16 pm : link
it seems a bit odd that you so vehemently deflect all RB contributions towards a winning team as merely being the beneficiary of a good offensive line, while not also considering that a losing team with an elite RB might be a losing team because of other factors.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: He’ll be somewhere in between Marshsll Faulk and Reggie Bush  
chopperhatch : 4/15/2018 9:31 pm : link
In comment 13915246 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 13915205 chopperhatch said:


Quote:


In comment 13914398 .McL. said:


Quote:


In comment 13914309 Strahan91 said:


Quote:


In comment 13914266 TD said:


Quote:


I fear he may be more like Bush.

People forget how good Bush was in college. He won every award and looked like the second coming. They have a similar style and qualities.

https://youtu.be/RQauccrEEuQ



Charlie Casserly said on NFLN that he thinks Barkley is the best player in the draft. Compared him to Tomlinson but said he's a better prospect than Tomlinson was coming out. I bring this up because he caught a lot of flack for taking Mario Williams over Reggie Bush.



If it was guaranteed that Barkley was as good as Tomlinson, I would still say no thank you. I will spend my resources elsewhere.



What a dumb fucking statement. You would turn your nose up at the guy who is 3rd on the all time TD list.



You haven't read the whole thesis Chopper.

The point is to have a RB like that you have to use to many resources. Draft and Cap. Those resources are better spent elsewhere. That is the point. If you pay a RB, then you have to take from a premium position. Taking from a premium position will hurt the team more that the premium RB can help it.

Tell me. How many Championships did Tomlinson's teams win?

I have linked mountains of evidence to support my position.

The best people can do is say that its dumb...

Based on what? Make a case and back it up with evidence.
I have made mine and backed with plenty of evidence.

People claim that my position is wrong. Yet not a single person has been able to produce a shred of evidence to dispute it.

If a team wins despite paying a premium at RB, they are lucky, not good. It means they got an elite performance at a premium position from a player not payed at an elite level. What's more is that its unsustainable. As soon as that player can, they will demand elite pay.

Next year the Giants will have to pay Collins and Beckham. They freed some space, but this team still has plenty of holes. After paying them we will likely be up against the cap the way we are now. We need another edge rusher, we need better OL, we need another CB, not to mention a long term answer at QB. Where do we get the cap dollars to fill all these holes? We are blindly hoping that a UDFA like Wheeler suddenly becomes a quality starting RT. If you ask me, that is not a smart way to build a team. Very low probability of success. Granted its the best we can do for now. This team has tried for years to build a winner by going cheap on the OL. It doesn't work! We can't keep praying for elite performance at premium positions without paying for it. Paying for Solder is a step. But this line is still not significantly better than the line that started the season last year.

This team has lots of weapons at skill positions. With guys like Beckham, Shepard, and Engram, any premium RB would be 3rd or 4th choice... We simply cannot afford that luxury and keep ignoring other positions.


Generally theses are supposed to be one or two sentences. Im not reading more than that when the point is idiotic.
Oh 3/18...  
chopperhatch : 4/15/2018 9:36 pm : link
Worst class in over a decade.
RE: Oh 3/18...  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 9:38 pm : link
In comment 13915261 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
Worst class in over a decade.


Wrong... I was here long before you... Just lost access to my account, had to create a new one. Been here since long before there were logins. When this was called Pete's Corner and you had to type in your handle every time...

Don't think you were here then!
RE: Another Barkley lover... ugh  
djm : 4/15/2018 9:50 pm : link
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.


What bullshit. You’re actually saying that there is no such thing as a good or talented rb. It’s all the ol. Total Fucking. Bullshit! Sorry it just is.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: He’ll be somewhere in between Marshsll Faulk and Reggie Bush  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 9:54 pm : link
In comment 13915258 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
In comment 13915246 .McL. said:


Quote:


In comment 13915205 chopperhatch said:


Quote:


In comment 13914398 .McL. said:


Quote:


In comment 13914309 Strahan91 said:


Quote:


In comment 13914266 TD said:


Quote:


I fear he may be more like Bush.

People forget how good Bush was in college. He won every award and looked like the second coming. They have a similar style and qualities.

https://youtu.be/RQauccrEEuQ



Charlie Casserly said on NFLN that he thinks Barkley is the best player in the draft. Compared him to Tomlinson but said he's a better prospect than Tomlinson was coming out. I bring this up because he caught a lot of flack for taking Mario Williams over Reggie Bush.



If it was guaranteed that Barkley was as good as Tomlinson, I would still say no thank you. I will spend my resources elsewhere.



What a dumb fucking statement. You would turn your nose up at the guy who is 3rd on the all time TD list.



You haven't read the whole thesis Chopper.

The point is to have a RB like that you have to use to many resources. Draft and Cap. Those resources are better spent elsewhere. That is the point. If you pay a RB, then you have to take from a premium position. Taking from a premium position will hurt the team more that the premium RB can help it.

Tell me. How many Championships did Tomlinson's teams win?

I have linked mountains of evidence to support my position.

The best people can do is say that its dumb...

Based on what? Make a case and back it up with evidence.
I have made mine and backed with plenty of evidence.

People claim that my position is wrong. Yet not a single person has been able to produce a shred of evidence to dispute it.

If a team wins despite paying a premium at RB, they are lucky, not good. It means they got an elite performance at a premium position from a player not payed at an elite level. What's more is that its unsustainable. As soon as that player can, they will demand elite pay.

Next year the Giants will have to pay Collins and Beckham. They freed some space, but this team still has plenty of holes. After paying them we will likely be up against the cap the way we are now. We need another edge rusher, we need better OL, we need another CB, not to mention a long term answer at QB. Where do we get the cap dollars to fill all these holes? We are blindly hoping that a UDFA like Wheeler suddenly becomes a quality starting RT. If you ask me, that is not a smart way to build a team. Very low probability of success. Granted its the best we can do for now. This team has tried for years to build a winner by going cheap on the OL. It doesn't work! We can't keep praying for elite performance at premium positions without paying for it. Paying for Solder is a step. But this line is still not significantly better than the line that started the season last year.

This team has lots of weapons at skill positions. With guys like Beckham, Shepard, and Engram, any premium RB would be 3rd or 4th choice... We simply cannot afford that luxury and keep ignoring other positions.



Generally theses are supposed to be one or two sentences. Im not reading more than that when the point is idiotic.


Ok let me dumb this down for your two lonely brain cells!

Do not pay too much for RB, you can them on the for less, and use the cash to pay for QBs, OLs, ERs, and CBs...

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: He’ll be somewhere in between Marshsll Faulk and Reggie Bush  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 9:55 pm : link
In comment 13915277 .McL. said:
Quote:

Do not pay too much for RB, you can them on the for less, and use the cash to pay for QBs, OLs, ERs, and CBs...


Nice, I did that in one sentence without using anything more than 4 letters!
RE: RE: Another Barkley lover... ugh  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 10:02 pm : link
In comment 13915270 djm 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.



What bullshit. You’re actually saying that there is no such thing as a good or talented rb. It’s all the ol. Total Fucking. Bullshit! Sorry it just is.


I never said there wasn't such a thing as a talented RB... I said that you need a talented OL before your talented RB can perform. As long as you have a talented OL, the added benefit you get from a talented RB doesn't not warrant the cost.

Its not just me saying this... Have you bothered to read anything that I have linked.

I am guessing not.

I am not talking out of my ass, I have linked a mountain of evidence to support my position. If you are unwilling to read it it says more about your willingness to remain uninformed, than it says about my position.

In this thread I linked a couple of studies, but I also linked another thread where I linked about 20 that back up what I am saying. Try reading them, and understanding them... Yes they use real mathematics, perhaps that's the problem.
Also, I'm not so sure you can just say  
santacruzom : 4/15/2018 10:05 pm : link
"Barkley has some negative runs, and negative runs kill drives and aren't negated in any way by his explosive plays. QED!"

You might as well say a receiver who sometimes drops balls or a QB who sometimes gets sacked or a lineman who sometimes gets penalized for holding can't possibly contribute to a winning team because these negative plays are just impossible to overcome.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: He’ll be somewhere in between Marshsll Faulk and Reggie Bush  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 10:07 pm : link
In comment 13915279 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 13915277 .McL. said:


Quote:



Do not pay too much for RB, you can [i]get[get] them on the for less, and use the cash to pay for QBs, OLs, ERs, and CBs...


Sorry had to fix that...
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: He’ll be somewhere in between Marshsll Faulk and Reggie Bush  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 10:08 pm : link
In comment 13915287 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 13915279 .McL. said:


Quote:


In comment 13915277 .McL. said:


Quote:



Do not pay too much for RB, you can [i]get[i] them on the for less, and use the cash to pay for QBs, OLs, ERs, and CBs...




Sorry had to fix that...

Whoops...
Also  
santacruzom : 4/15/2018 10:08 pm : link
I bothered to read one of the things you linked, which was basically Jordan Ranaan saying two scouts he spoke with wouldn't take Barkley at 2. If I had to venture a guess, it would be that Ranaan is already predisposed to be against drafting Barkley, decided to write an article justifying it, and found two scouts to corroborate his opinion.

I just today read a quote from a scout who says the Browns would be dumb not to draft Barkley at 1. But I'm not linking to it, because my standards for evidence aren't that low.
RE: Also  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 10:17 pm : link
In comment 13915290 santacruzom said:
Quote:
I bothered to read one of the things you linked, which was basically Jordan Ranaan saying two scouts he spoke with wouldn't take Barkley at 2. If I had to venture a guess, it would be that Ranaan is already predisposed to be against drafting Barkley, decided to write an article justifying it, and found two scouts to corroborate his opinion.

I just today read a quote from a scout who says the Browns would be dumb not to draft Barkley at 1. But I'm not linking to it, because my standards for evidence aren't that low.


Fine you don't like Ranaan... What about the other 2 SCHOLARLY articles. You know the ones that posted on graduate university sites for such articles!

And how about the 18 others from the other thread I linked... Most of them are either scholarly or using advanced math as well.
If you draft Barkley at 1 or 2  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 10:23 pm : link
I believe he would be the highest paid RB in the league, getting an average of about 8 mil per year ALL GUARANTEED!

Pittsburgh is balking at paying even 7mil for Bell who is a known commodity.
RE: Another Barkley lover... ugh  
santacruzom : 4/15/2018 10:26 pm : link
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!
RE: RE: Another Barkley lover... ugh  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 10:35 pm : link
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...

I am not sure why I keep seeing Reggie Bush's name pop up  
Ten Ton Hammer : 4/15/2018 10:39 pm : link
in Barkley threads. They're really not very good comparisons whatsoever.
RE: RE: RE: Another Barkley lover... ugh  
santacruzom : 4/16/2018 1:11 am : link
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.

The second undergrad essay *also* doesn't particularly argue that drafting (or even acquiring through FA) an RB is a poor decision. It merely states that one model suggests it's better to allocate few salary cap dollars towards them, while two other models suggest the opposite.

I'm still not seeing a smoking gun here.

Every year 30 teams don't make it to the Super Bowl. I'd say that in any given year, no less than half of those are staffed by at least one key person who is in over his head -- they only have a chance to advance far into the playoffs if everything breaks just right. The remaining teams that are competently run can fail to advance due to any number of events and circumstances. I wouldn't say that having a well-paid and/or highly-drafted RB is among the most insurmountable of them.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Another Barkley lover... ugh  
.McL. : 4/16/2018 2:41 am : link
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.

The second undergrad essay *also* doesn't particularly argue that drafting (or even acquiring through FA) an RB is a poor decision. It merely states that one model suggests it's better to allocate few salary cap dollars towards them, while two other models suggest the opposite.

I'm still not seeing a smoking gun here.

Every year 30 teams don't make it to the Super Bowl. I'd say that in any given year, no less than half of those are staffed by at least one key person who is in over his head -- they only have a chance to advance far into the playoffs if everything breaks just right. The remaining teams that are competently run can fail to advance due to any number of events and circumstances. I wouldn't say that having a well-paid and/or highly-drafted RB is among the most insurmountable of them.


Ok, first of all, that one was a "Dissertation" from a Wharton School of business. Dissertations are done by students seeking a Master's degree. And I doubt that anybody here will argue that something coming from the Wharton School of Business is trash to ignored!

Seconf, they themselves realized the fault in their original premise laid out with the first two models (the ones that gave a high allocation to RBs). So they cam up with a third they felt was more accurate.

Quote:
A shortcoming of our modeling approaches are that they assume that every
team will achieve the same win contribution return from investment at each given
position as another team with an equal investment (i.e. every player is paid exactly
efficiently according to their win contribution), which is not actually the case.
Therefore, we also created univariate models by player at each position to consider
which players produce more or less than the win contribution that would be
expected from their salary. Thus, we can observe what teams are getting a higher
return than expected (i.e. more uncompensated win contribution) from the players
that they are paying.


Summarizing that long winded verbage...
Once we took POSITIONAL VALUE into account!!!

Quote:
Overall, we believe that if a team focuses their salary allocation towards the
positions with a higher optimal salary in our univariate model (unless they have
players on their rookie contracts at those positions) and is able to draft players who
can quickly make an impact in the league, that team will be expected to win the most
games. Optimally, a team can create prediction models for player win contributions,
use those projections to observe the expected efficient salary for each player, and
attempt to sign players whose salary implied by the existing free agent market is
lower than what was determined to be their expected efficient salary. If a team is
able to sign many players for salaries below efficient value, they will achieve many
uncompensated wins and then have the salary cap space to invest more money in
key positions where a high return of compensated wins is expected, and thus
achieve maximal expected wins.


Summary: In order to win, you should efficiently focus your cap dollars on players who generate wins. Be happy if you are lucky enough to have players that generate wins on their rookie contract!

Yes they focused on Free Agency... However, drafting Barkley at #2 would make him the highest paid RB in the league... I think that fall within the purview of this study...

So finally, they felt the "Univariate" model was the best!

Here is the allocation to RB they suggest under the 3 models... Keep in mind their conclusion was the Univariate was the best

Multivariate: 7.2%
Sequential: 6.7%
Univariate: 1.4%

Yes they concluded that the optimal usage of cap space allocates ONLY 1.4% of available cap space to RBs.

Now the paper is not focused on RBs alone. It provides a breakdown of all positions.

Some Highlights:
for WR:
Multivariate: 28.4%
Sequential: 29.0%
Univariate: 9.6%

I am guessing that about this point they realized there was something wrong with Multivariate and Sequential...

CB:
Multivariate: 3.1%
Sequential: 2.5%
Univariate: 12.4%

I will say this that their numbers for interior lineman seem crazy (both on offense and defense) Univariate suggests 18.4% for Guards and 17.6% for DTs).
And their numbers for Offensive Tackles are way too low.
But if you flip the Guards with OTs and the DTs with Edge Rushers (DEs). The rest seems pretty accurate.
That study further points out  
.McL. : 4/16/2018 2:55 am : link
That while Seattle had a sub-optimal allocation of dollars, they were extremely lucky to get a inordinate contribution from their 3rd round draft choice of a QB on his rookie contract.

So the SINGULAR case where a RB was paid too much, the team hit the lotto on a lower round QB they paid next to nothing. Seattle wasn't smart, they got lucky as hell!

What's more is that if you look at Seattle's stats from 2013, Lynch did not have as good a season as he did the year before or the year after. Russell Wilson was on fire 2013, and Seattle, to take advantage of this fact, eschewed the run in favor of the pass to a certain degree.

In the end, Seattle was unable to sustain that model.
RE: That study further points out  
.McL. : 4/16/2018 3:18 am : link
In comment 13915403 .McL. said:
Quote:
That while Seattle had a sub-optimal allocation of dollars, they were extremely lucky to get a inordinate contribution from their 3rd round draft choice of a QB on his rookie contract.

So the SINGULAR case where a RB was paid too much, the team hit the lotto on a lower round QB they paid next to nothing. Seattle wasn't smart, they got lucky as hell!

What's more is that if you look at Seattle's stats from 2013, Lynch did not have as good a season as he did the year before or the year after. Russell Wilson was on fire 2013, and Seattle, to take advantage of this fact, eschewed the run in favor of the pass to a certain degree.

In the end, Seattle was unable to sustain that model.


I don't know what Jamal Lewis was paid on the 2000 Ravens. However, he was a rookie in 2000. But that team is also a statistical outlier in that they had arguably the best defense in the history of the NFL.

Marshall Faulk was still on his rookie contract when he was traded to the Rams in 1999. I don't know what he made either, but I am betting it wasn't crazy. He got a new deal in 2000. The Rams returned to the big show in 2001 but we all know how that story ended!
RE: Hahaha  
.McL. : 4/16/2018 5:16 am : link
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.
fixing the 2nd link regarding the Rams OL  
.McL. : 4/16/2018 5:17 am : link
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000916199/article/saints-bills-rams-among-nfls-10-best-offensive-line-units
In other words  
Mike in NY : 4/16/2018 5:30 am : link
The univariate model is the be all and end all when it says what you want it to say (not allocating a lot of space to RB), but sucks when it doesn’t go your way (you arbitrarily flip OG with OT and DT with edge rushers). The fact is teams are finally seeing how important interior play is. The shortest distance to a QB is a straight line. DT’s have that straight line. QB’s also don’t like pressure in their face. By being able to consistently get pressure up the gut you can disrupt plays before they even start. Forcing the QB to improvise also allows you to funnel into the arms of awaiting pass rushers, even if they may not be highly paid.
Oh, one more thing  
.McL. : 4/16/2018 5:44 am : link
There is an argument that can be made for Barkley. Though none of you have made it yet. I am wondering if anybody will. Seems unlikely at this point.

I will come back tomorrow and hand you the argument you should be making with regards to Barkley.
RE: In other words  
.McL. : 4/16/2018 5:51 am : link
In comment 13915416 Mike in NY said:
Quote:
The univariate model is the be all and end all when it says what you want it to say (not allocating a lot of space to RB), but sucks when it doesn’t go your way (you arbitrarily flip OG with OT and DT with edge rushers). The fact is teams are finally seeing how important interior play is. The shortest distance to a QB is a straight line. DT’s have that straight line. QB’s also don’t like pressure in their face. By being able to consistently get pressure up the gut you can disrupt plays before they even start. Forcing the QB to improvise also allows you to funnel into the arms of awaiting pass rushers, even if they may not be highly paid.


You may actually be right here, I don't really disagree. I do think this study shows the importance of the interior and I did consider that.

However, The numbers are still a bit too skewed for my liking. I would think it should be more balanced on the OL. I suspect that a number of teams were successful with tackles on rookie contracts and had to get interior OL in FA. I suspect its a bit of an anomaly, but it may in fact tell us something more. Perhaps there are long term issues with tackles maintaining a high level of play beyond their rookie contract. This is a point I have not researched, but it does warrant looking into.
RE: RE: In other words  
.McL. : 4/16/2018 5:54 am : link
In comment 13915421 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 13915416 Mike in NY said:


Quote:


The univariate model is the be all and end all when it says what you want it to say (not allocating a lot of space to RB), but sucks when it doesn’t go your way (you arbitrarily flip OG with OT and DT with edge rushers). The fact is teams are finally seeing how important interior play is. The shortest distance to a QB is a straight line. DT’s have that straight line. QB’s also don’t like pressure in their face. By being able to consistently get pressure up the gut you can disrupt plays before they even start. Forcing the QB to improvise also allows you to funnel into the arms of awaiting pass rushers, even if they may not be highly paid.



You may actually be right here, I don't really disagree. I do think this study shows the importance of the interior and I did consider that.

However, The numbers are still a bit too skewed for my liking. I would think it should be more balanced on the OL. I suspect that a number of teams were successful with tackles on rookie contracts and had to get interior OL in FA. I suspect its a bit of an anomaly, but it may in fact tell us something more. Perhaps there are long term issues with tackles maintaining a high level of play beyond their rookie contract. This is a point I have not researched, but it does warrant looking into.


That said, I wanted to point out that the Univariate seems to have flaws as well, but it is the best model and I didn't want to divert the conversation too much from the main point about RB.

To be fair 1.4% seems low for RB even to me.
RE: Oh, one more thing  
Mike in NY : 4/16/2018 6:05 am : link
In comment 13915418 .McL. said:
Quote:
There is an argument that can be made for Barkley. Though none of you have made it yet. I am wondering if anybody will. Seems unlikely at this point.

I will come back tomorrow and hand you the argument you should be making with regards to Barkley.


This is not a statistical argument, but a practical one. Winning teams prevent pressure up the middle and have a RB who is capable of making a LB miss in space. The problem with the Giants rushing offense has been that we have allowed too much pressure from a minimum of DL and guys like Orleans Darkwa just don’t scare DC’s if they get past the initial pressure. The best analogy I have for this is actually from Baseball. It is late in a game and the score is tied (or you may be up one) and a runner on third with less than two outs and a play at the plate appears likely based on the batter and the position of the other runners. Teams will pinch, especially at the corners, because they want to get the play at home on a ground ball. The danger to playing in is that the trade off for the fielder is range. If you have Bartolo Colon at 3B you do not need to pinch as much (or at all) versus someone like Billy Hamilton. It is like that in football with LB’s. Opposing teams were dropping their LB’s more than they ordinarily would have knowing that if they guessed wrong, the LB’s would still have plenty of time to crash down to stop our running game. A RB like Barkley, with the improvements we have made on OL, forces opposing coordinators to commit more to stopping the run because Barkley will make a LB miss in space. Taking that LB out of coverage opens more room for Engram, OBJ, etc.
RE: In other words  
.McL. : 4/16/2018 6:06 am : link
In comment 13915416 Mike in NY said:
Quote:
The univariate model is the be all and end all when it says what you want it to say (not allocating a lot of space to RB), but sucks when it doesn’t go your way (you arbitrarily flip OG with OT and DT with edge rushers). The fact is teams are finally seeing how important interior play is. The shortest distance to a QB is a straight line. DT’s have that straight line. QB’s also don’t like pressure in their face. By being able to consistently get pressure up the gut you can disrupt plays before they even start. Forcing the QB to improvise also allows you to funnel into the arms of awaiting pass rushers, even if they may not be highly paid.


One more thing... The conclusion that the Univariate was the best was theirs!!! Don't play this that I am cherry picking.
RE: RE: Oh, one more thing  
.McL. : 4/16/2018 6:21 am : link
In comment 13915424 Mike in NY said:
Quote:
In comment 13915418 .McL. said:


Quote:


There is an argument that can be made for Barkley. Though none of you have made it yet. I am wondering if anybody will. Seems unlikely at this point.

I will come back tomorrow and hand you the argument you should be making with regards to Barkley.



This is not a statistical argument, but a practical one. Winning teams prevent pressure up the middle and have a RB who is capable of making a LB miss in space. The problem with the Giants rushing offense has been that we have allowed too much pressure from a minimum of DL and guys like Orleans Darkwa just don’t scare DC’s if they get past the initial pressure. The best analogy I have for this is actually from Baseball. It is late in a game and the score is tied (or you may be up one) and a runner on third with less than two outs and a play at the plate appears likely based on the batter and the position of the other runners. Teams will pinch, especially at the corners, because they want to get the play at home on a ground ball. The danger to playing in is that the trade off for the fielder is range. If you have Bartolo Colon at 3B you do not need to pinch as much (or at all) versus someone like Billy Hamilton. It is like that in football with LB’s. Opposing teams were dropping their LB’s more than they ordinarily would have knowing that if they guessed wrong, the LB’s would still have plenty of time to crash down to stop our running game. A RB like Barkley, with the improvements we have made on OL, forces opposing coordinators to commit more to stopping the run because Barkley will make a LB miss in space. Taking that LB out of coverage opens more room for Engram, OBJ, etc.

First you are assuming that the Giants have fixed the OL... At this point I could not disagree more.

Are they taking steps in the right direction, sure... LT is the most important and most difficult position to fill. But fixed... Far from it.

Comparing to the OL that started last season (which we know sucked big time)
LT Vast improvement (but Solder is a decent LT but he is middle of the pack with regards to starting LT, he is not a top 10 LT)
LG Significant downgrade (A healthy Pugh at the start of last season is far better than Omameh, you can argue that Pugh could not stay healthy but I want to compare the production of specific lines)
C even, We saw about the same from Jones as we saw from Richburg
RG Same person, one year older
RT Small upgrade if at all, our failed LT now playing out of position, if he even stick around, next up is a UDFA (Wheeler)

So the gain in LT is almost offset by the loss at LG and a small gain at RT. This line will be incrementally better than the line that started last year...

Defenses will still be stunting leaving Jerry's head spinning.

History shows that RBs get stuffed behind lines like this no matter how good the RB. Gurley is the perfect example. So, unfortunately I have to wholehearted disagree with your premise that Barkley will be getting to the second level and making LBs miss. He won't have the chance.

Besides, so far Barkley has not proven to be that type of runner. When he sees traffic near the hole he tries to bounce to the outside. Sometimes it works and we get a fantastic highlight, more often it fails miserably. Barkley led all college RBs in Negative Running play percentage.

I mentioned Barkley's penchant for bouncing outside  
.McL. : 4/16/2018 6:34 am : link
But I don't want to make this an argument where I am in the position of saying Barkley is not a stellar RB prospect. He is.. I am willing to grant that he is...

But Barkley is a luxury that the Giants just cannot afford. We already have some decent skill players. Honestly I am not worried about opening up room for Beckham, Engram and Shepherd. All 3 are good enough to create their own opportunities, the don't need more help than what is already on the team.

The Giants have major holes to plug. I don't even want to get into the QB controversy. Avoiding that the Giants still need another Edge Rusher, another CB, and at least 3 more OL in my mind. They could use help at FS as well. We are up against the cap now. Next year we need to pay Beckham and Collins. After that its Shepard... Where is all the cap space coming from to plug all these holes?
This is the core of the dilemma  
.McL. : 4/16/2018 6:39 am : link
when you chose to pay a RB about 8 mil a year!

Quote:
The Giants have major holes to plug. I don't even want to get into the QB controversy. Avoiding that the Giants still need another Edge Rusher, another CB, and at least 3 more OL in my mind. They could use help at FS as well. We are up against the cap now. Next year we need to pay Beckham and Collins. After that its Shepard... Where is all the cap space coming from to plug all these holes?


You need to use that money and that draft capital on trying to plug the holes.
Seems like a lot of words to overstate the obvious  
Bill L : 4/16/2018 7:18 am : link
the best RB in the world would look awful standing on the field by himself. A modest Rb with a team of Angels would be successful.

the best QB in the world would look awful standing on the field by himself. A modest Qb with a team of Angels would be successful.

the best OL in the world would win few championships with nobody to run, pass, or catch the ball. Championships have been won by lunchpail, journeymen type guys with a stellar surrounding cast.

A lot of words to say you need a sum and not just parts.
Wow  
Dr. D : 4/16/2018 9:13 am : link
One BBIer is going to be severely bummed if we take Barkley. Glad it's not me.
I usually just stop taking threads like these seriously  
UConn4523 : 4/16/2018 9:21 am : link
once someone expresses the unwillingness to even entertain another POV. This is one of them. I guess it’s not even worth debating anymore, Barkley would be a waste and the team that takes him high will be making a bid mistake. Great talk.
RE: I usually just stop taking threads like these seriously  
.McL. : 4/16/2018 2:42 pm : link
In comment 13915568 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
once someone expresses the unwillingness to even entertain another POV. This is one of them. I guess it’s not even worth debating anymore, Barkley would be a waste and the team that takes him high will be making a bid mistake. Great talk.


What alternate POV have you offered. All you said is Barkley is great. Ok Barkley is great, I will grant it.

You haven't offered me anything at all that changes the POV that that the RB position is so devalued, that its simply not worth spending the draft capital and cap dollars on him. Nothing. You haven't even tried.

Yesterday I promised that there is an argument, just to show you that I have considered other POV let me make it for you.
Argument in favor of Barkley  
.McL. : 4/16/2018 3:16 pm : link
Ok, a few have started the argument by saying that the league is evolving and runners are coming back in "fashion".

That is a very lazy and incomplete argument. To make it you need to answer,

Why would the league evolve to more of a run based attack

Right now there is a crisis in the NFL. Colleges are not producing offensive lineman capable of playing in the NFL.

There is a huge variation of talent level on the field at any given time in college. Offenses try to take advantage of the weak links on defense by dictating the flow. Get in and out of play so fast the defense can't substitute or adjust. This way the offense can force favorable matchups and repeatedly take advantage of them. This is the evolution of the spread offense, spread the defense out and isolate the weak links.

In this system what you are asking players to do is very limited, especially at QB and OL. OL players have spent there entire career in HS and college without ever going into a 3 point stance. They have not been trained in the basics of OL play. They haven't learned proper footwork, balance, leverage, hand positioning, technique for punching, etc.

With much less disparity in talent and much more sophistication, the College approach doesn't work in the NFL.

What this means is that when these players move from college to the Pros they need to be stripped down and retaught the basics. This can take a very long time, especially to teach both run blocking and pass blocking techniques. By the time you teach both, the player is probably coming off their rookie contract and you lose him. Its much easier and faster to teach run blocking and get these guy productive in that aspect. Pass blocking takes more time.

So, if there is a trend towards running the ball more this is the likely driver, and if true then RB are going to become much more valuable in the near future. WRs much less valuable.

I can add plenty of links detailing the demise of the offensive lineman and how it has affect OL play in the NFL, but I am assuming that everybody is aware of this by now.

This is the argument that those who wish to take Barkley should be making. Donn't gush about how transcendent a player he, because history tells it that transcendent RBs don't correlate with wins. Don't talk about how having yet another skill players will open up defenses, because it wont until the line is fixed. Don't try discount the significance of what history has taught about devaluing the RB. These are emotional arguments based on seeing a bright shiny object that you want, and they are losing arguments.

Given the current situation, going forward it is going to be easier to teach the run game is a well reasoned argument with factual evidence to back it up.
RE: Argument in favor of Barkley  
.McL. : 4/16/2018 3:23 pm : link
In comment 13916206 .McL. said:
Quote:
Ok, a few have started the argument by saying that the league is evolving and runners are coming back in "fashion".

That is a very lazy and incomplete argument. To make it you need to answer,

Why would the league evolve to more of a run based attack

Right now there is a crisis in the NFL. Colleges are not producing offensive lineman capable of playing in the NFL.

There is a huge variation of talent level on the field at any given time in college. Offenses try to take advantage of the weak links on defense by dictating the flow. Get in and out of play so fast the defense can't substitute or adjust. This way the offense can force favorable matchups and repeatedly take advantage of them. This is the evolution of the spread offense, spread the defense out and isolate the weak links.

In this system what you are asking players to do is very limited, especially at QB and OL. OL players have spent there entire career in HS and college without ever going into a 3 point stance. They have not been trained in the basics of OL play. They haven't learned proper footwork, balance, leverage, hand positioning, technique for punching, etc.

With much less disparity in talent and much more sophistication, the College approach doesn't work in the NFL.

What this means is that when these players move from college to the Pros they need to be stripped down and retaught the basics. This can take a very long time, especially to teach both run blocking and pass blocking techniques. By the time you teach both, the player is probably coming off their rookie contract and you lose him. Its much easier and faster to teach run blocking and get these guy productive in that aspect. Pass blocking takes more time.

So, if there is a trend towards running the ball more this is the likely driver, and if true then RB are going to become much more valuable in the near future. WRs much less valuable.

I can add plenty of links detailing the demise of the offensive lineman and how it has affect OL play in the NFL, but I am assuming that everybody is aware of this by now.

This is the argument that those who wish to take Barkley should be making. Donn't gush about how transcendent a player he, because history tells it that transcendent RBs don't correlate with wins. Don't talk about how having yet another skill players will open up defenses, because it wont until the line is fixed. Don't try discount the significance of what history has taught about devaluing the RB. These are emotional arguments based on seeing a bright shiny object that you want, and they are losing arguments.

Given the current situation, going forward it is going to be easier to teach the run game is a well reasoned argument with factual evidence to back it up.


This is an argument I cannot readily dispute or disagree with.

All I can say is that the situation is still evolving, and this may come to pass. As for now its still a passing league. By the time it might truly flip to a running league, things may change again.

There is a new CBA coming. Owners would be wise to address this situation by somehow allowing coaches to spend more time teaching in the off season (in a non contact sort of way of course).

From this point of view, I cannot predict the future. If the game reverts back to running the ball more, then WRs are less valuable. In that case it would not make financial sense to pay both Barkley and Beckham. But that is another debate.
My argument is right in front of you  
UConn4523 : 4/16/2018 3:32 pm : link
which you choose to ignore. Teams only looking to the past will likely stay there. Teams that pick up on new trends early or even better, create the new trend, will have a leg up on the pack.

You say the RB position is devalued. I would agree that it WAS the case as I’ve said repeatedly I’d never usually entertain taking on this high. However, as you see with Bell and Brown, having a top player at both positions is devestating.

I’m sure the retort will be that Pitt hasn’t won, so spare me. A lot needs to go right in order to win a SB, which means a lot can and usually does go wrong.

Point being I want more weapons not less. If we aren’t going QB I want the best player thats going to make the opposing team have to account for said player on almost every down. That player can certainly be Barkley.

As for the cap, I’ll leave that to the pros who’d probably laugh at your grocery analogy, especially since Barkley would be on a rookie deal for 4 years before getting paid.

You also don’t even address the surplus or or scarcity of acquiring talent in your equation. Andrew Norwell, whom we almost gave a top Guard contract to, was undrafted. Zeitler, 27th overall.Osemele, 60th overall. Trai Turner, 92nd overall. Gabe Jackson, 81st overall. Those are the top paid Guards in the NFL and none were taken remotely close to the top 10, not even top 25. In other words, “finding RBs late in the draft” can be said for Guards as well.
The only..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 4/16/2018 3:37 pm : link
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.
.....  
FatMan in Charlotte : 4/16/2018 3:37 pm : link
2000 yards.
RE: The only..  
santacruzom : 4/16/2018 3:43 pm : link
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.


And LaDainian Tomlinson did not present optimum value because his very good mid-2000's Chargers teams never won a Super Bowl.
which, by the way,  
santacruzom : 4/16/2018 3:47 pm : link
very possibly wouldn't have been the case were it not for a pretty damn bizarre ending to the divisional playoff game against the Pats.

Very few components can reliably elevate a very good football team to a sure-fire Championship one, and not being such a component isn't an indictment. There's just too many things that can't be accounted for that can thwart a championship run. That doesn't diminish the value of a player or position that contributes to the team's status as playoff-caliber.
RE: My argument is right in front of you  
.McL. : 4/16/2018 4:09 pm : link
In comment 13916227 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
which you choose to ignore. Teams only looking to the past will likely stay there. Teams that pick up on new trends early or even better, create the new trend, will have a leg up on the pack.

For christs sakes, I just completed this argument for you. You were either too ill informed to too lazy to make it.

Quote:

You say the RB position is devalued. I would agree that it WAS the case as I’ve said repeatedly I’d never usually entertain taking on this high. However, as you see with Bell and Brown, having a top player at both positions is devestating.

I’m sure the retort will be that Pitt hasn’t won, so spare me. A lot needs to go right in order to win a SB, which means a lot can and usually does go wrong.

Pitt had a good season... And no the they didn't win a championship. They are however balking at paying Bell big bucks beyond his rookie contract. If chosen with #2, Barkley will be getting the kind of contract that Bell is seeking and Pittsburgh is balking at. Let see how it plays out.

Quote:

Point being I want more weapons not less. If we aren’t going QB I want the best player thats going to make the opposing team have to account for said player on almost every down. That player can certainly be Barkley.

As for the cap, I’ll leave that to the pros who’d probably laugh at your grocery analogy, especially since Barkley would be on a rookie deal for 4 years before getting paid.

It certainly helps to have more "weapons". However, there is only one ball to go around. How do you distribute the touches to all those weapons? And if you take touches away from some players to give them to another, aren't you devaluing the players you are taking the ball away from?

You can't keep paying big bucks for skill positions on offense without leaving big holes elsewhere. Saying you will leave it to the cap guys is laughable. There isn't an infinite amount of money. Building football team is a zero sum game. To pay here you have to take away from there.
Quote:

You also don’t even address the surplus or or scarcity of acquiring talent in your equation. Andrew Norwell, whom we almost gave a top Guard contract to, was undrafted. Zeitler, 27th overall.Osemele, 60th overall. Trai Turner, 92nd overall. Gabe Jackson, 81st overall. Those are the top paid Guards in the NFL and none were taken remotely close to the top 10, not even top 25. In other words, “finding RBs late in the draft” can be said for Guards as well.


I don't even know what your point is here... I helped your case by making the argument for you that good O lineman are becoming scarce. OL play across the NFL has deteriorated. Do you need evidence of this? There are plenty of articles out there discussing it. Do you need more evidence than the fact that Giants first unit still includes Jerry? Making the argument that good guards are easy to find, undermines your case. But ok, lets go with it... Guards are found deeper in the draft.

Historically, guards have been less valued than tackles. Yes I agree with that. However that seems to be changing for multiple reasons. Defenses are trying to get to the QB faster, coming up the middle stops them from stepping up and into throws, and its the shortest distance to the QB. Inside pressure is the latest defensive fad. This is driving up the value of guards. Did you see the contracts that Pugh and Norwell got? Teams are now willing to pay for guards. Ok, so we have that out there. I am really not sure how saying that guards can be gotten lower in the draft (which I am not so sure is still true) hurts or helps the case you are making.
My point is you keep talking about dollar allocation of a 2nd contract  
UConn4523 : 4/16/2018 4:19 pm : link
and it seems like average lineman are the worst offenders. Carlos Hyde is like the 10th highest paid RB which is basically the same cost as what we just paid Omameh. LeSean McCoy, the 3rd highest paid RB is only a few million more.

Who impacts games more, LeSean McCoy, or an average at best Guard?

Can’t wait to hear your response.
RE: My point is you keep talking about dollar allocation of a 2nd contract  
.McL. : 4/16/2018 4:46 pm : link
In comment 13916311 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
and it seems like average lineman are the worst offenders. Carlos Hyde is like the 10th highest paid RB which is basically the same cost as what we just paid Omameh. LeSean McCoy, the 3rd highest paid RB is only a few million more.

Who impacts games more, LeSean McCoy, or an average at best Guard?

Can’t wait to hear your response.

I don't have the contracts of those players readily at hand. But I am uncertain as to your point. You say that Omameh is paid like the 10th highest paid RB, Carlos Hyde. But then you switch and want to compare him to the 3rd highest paid RB making a few million more. Seems to me you are trying to compare apples and oranges. I don't understand.

I will say this. Guard pay is trending upwards fast. There is a shortage of guards.
Well go look the contracts up  
UConn4523 : 4/16/2018 5:26 pm : link
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.
RE: McL  
Alex_Webster : 4/17/2018 8:02 am : link
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.
The number..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 4/17/2018 8:22 am : link
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.
RE: RE: Hahaha  
Alex_Webster : 4/17/2018 8:46 am : link
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?
RE: The only..  
.McL. : 4/17/2018 5:08 pm : link
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 $$$.
RE: RE: The only..  
.McL. : 4/17/2018 5:12 pm : link
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.
RE: RE: The only..  
.McL. : 4/17/2018 5:36 pm : link
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...
From somebody who actually read the information I linked  
.McL. : 4/17/2018 6:30 pm : link
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
Still waiting for you to look up  
UConn4523 : 4/17/2018 7:36 pm : link
the salaries of middle of the road lineman. I guess I’ll keep waiting.
Who’s more valuable  
UConn4523 : 4/17/2018 7:45 pm : link
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.
Marshall Faulk is the best comp for Barkley imo  
Torrag : 4/17/2018 7:53 pm : link
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.
RE: Who’s more valuable  
.McL. : 4/17/2018 9:20 pm : link
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.
I don’t care about your statistical analysis  
UConn4523 : 4/17/2018 9:52 pm : link
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.
Since you seem to know  
.McL. : 4/17/2018 10:49 pm : link
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.
Wrong again  
UConn4523 : 4/17/2018 11:01 pm : link
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.
My stance is  
.McL. : 4/17/2018 11:15 pm : link
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!
RE: My stance is  
.McL. : 4/17/2018 11:16 pm : link
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!
Not sure if it was you or somebody else  
.McL. : 4/17/2018 11:17 pm : link
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.
McL (Lovin)  
One Man Thrill Ride : 4/17/2018 11:29 pm : link
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.
RE: The number..  
One Man Thrill Ride : 4/17/2018 11:43 pm : link
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.
RE: RE: The number..  
.McL. : 4/17/2018 11:54 pm : link
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!
RE: McL (Lovin)  
.McL. : 4/18/2018 12:08 am : link
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
Apparently the NFL at large agrees with my position!  
.McL. : 4/18/2018 12:21 am : link
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.



The article has some  
.McL. : 4/18/2018 12:24 am : link
very nice (and easily understandable) statistics to back itself up.
RE: Wrong again  
.McL. : 4/18/2018 1:58 am : link
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.
RE: Your evidence isn't disputed by other evidence  
.McL. : 4/18/2018 2:38 am : link
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.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Another Barkley lover... ugh  
.McL. : 4/18/2018 6:05 am : link
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!
RE: RE: Wrong again  
UConn4523 : 4/18/2018 6:26 am : link
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.
Ohh and 1 more thing  
UConn4523 : 4/18/2018 6:36 am : link
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.
Thrill talks about trends  
UConn4523 : 4/18/2018 6:51 am : link
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.
LOL...  
FatMan in Charlotte : 4/18/2018 8:24 am : link
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.

One advantage to drafting a RB in the top ten...  
Milton : 4/18/2018 8:29 am : link
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.
RE: Thrill talks about trends  
One Man Thrill Ride : 4/18/2018 3:27 pm : link
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.
RE: LOL...  
.McL. : 4/18/2018 3:47 pm : link
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.

“Over their heads”  
UConn4523 : 4/18/2018 3:54 pm : link
was a term you used, talk about arrogance.
RE: RE: Thrill talks about trends  
Mike in NY : 4/18/2018 3:59 pm : link
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.
As for Thrill  
UConn4523 : 4/18/2018 4:04 pm : link
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.
There are basically two styles..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 4/18/2018 4:05 pm : link
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.
RE: RE: RE: Wrong again  
.McL. : 4/18/2018 4:07 pm : link
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".
Arrogance  
UConn4523 : 4/18/2018 4:14 pm : link
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.
If this is the poster..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 4/18/2018 4:17 pm : link
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......
So as of right now  
.McL. : 4/18/2018 4:19 pm : link
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.
And I don’t care what the NFL deems valuable  
UConn4523 : 4/18/2018 4:25 pm : link
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.
RE: As for Thrill  
One Man Thrill Ride : 4/18/2018 4:39 pm : link
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.
RE: Arrogance  
.McL. : 4/18/2018 4:40 pm : link
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.
I am not saying being position agnostic  
Mike in NY : 4/18/2018 4:41 pm : link
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 don’t disagree  
UConn4523 : 4/18/2018 4:44 pm : link
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.
RE: I am not saying being position agnostic  
.McL. : 4/18/2018 4:52 pm : link
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.
RE: I am not saying being position agnostic  
One Man Thrill Ride : 4/18/2018 4:54 pm : link
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.

Bow to the Master...  
lono801 : 4/18/2018 7:37 pm : link
He is certainly passing the sniff test
Back to the Corner