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!
Pages: 1 2 3 4 <<Prev | Show All |  Next>>
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!
Pages: 1 2 3 4 <<Prev | Show All |  Next>>
Back to the Corner