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!
That’s a winner.
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?
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 )
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.
This thread show how many negative runs Barley has. These runs kill drives. Explosive runs can't make up for these runs.
^^^^
This
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
This thread show how many negative runs Barley has. These runs kill drives. Explosive runs can't make up for these runs.
Todd Gurley.
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.
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.
If you can say that for any AN with conviction .....let me know.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Thought the exact thing. Just didn’t want to comment on it up until now.
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.
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!
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...
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.
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!
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...
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.
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..
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.
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!
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."
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
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.
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.
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!