Barkley - Pro Comparisons

In comment 13918331 .McL. said:

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking forward to see how you ignore that.

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

In comment 13918353 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In comment 13918426 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

was a term you used, talk about arrogance.

In comment 13919253 One Man Thrill Ride said:

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In comment 13918349 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

you certainly aren’t quitting that.

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

It’s that fucking simple.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In comment 13919305 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

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

Betting on exceptions is very effective way to become bankrupt.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

In comment 13919324 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

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

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

You are certainly free to bet against the probabilities.

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

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

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

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

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

In comment 13919358 Mike in NY said:

Quote:

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

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

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

There is the possibility of a trade down.

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

In comment 13919358 Mike in NY said:

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

He is certainly passing the sniff test