Ahead of Only Kickers and Punters. Evan Silva cites to a good study done on this, and he questions why teams could financially justify using a top 5 pick on a RB.
The link is provided below.
I, again, agree with him. When you pick a RB in the top 3, let alone top 5, you are immediately paying that guy as a top 5 NFL RB. You're better off signing a guy in FA than using the draft capital on a guy like Barkley. It's just not smart to use a high first round pick on a RB.
Alternatively, the cap savings a team gets from hitting on a QB is huge. And please don't tell me if you miss on a QB it's a five year mistake. What is a team supposed to do then? Never draft a QB again? You have to draft a QB and think you've done the work to get the pick right, like the Giants did when they drafted Eli.
Link - (
New Window )
I'm with you. Normally, I love the lead up to the draft. But this year it is not as much fun. I felt like this was a smart thing to post because it shows you just how devalued the RB position is. People can argue until they are blue in the face, but it is a fact. I'm sure people will argue that Barkley is not a RB, he's a weapon, but couldn't the same thing be said of a McKinnon? I'm not saying McKinnon is Barkley, but I'd rather have McKinnon in FA and use the 2 pick on a QB than waste the 2 pick on a RB.
Phil Simms was a 1st Round draft pick. I mean, technically Eli was acquired via a trade, but really he was their draft pick too, as he's never played for another team in his career.
Exactly! With the rookie wage scale in place, the point is to pick a guy at a premium position to get maximum savings. Sure, you don't want to "force" picks, but it's hard for me to believe that teams are falling over each other to select these QBs while the Giants are sitting there saying these QBs all stink.
And yet suggest it on this site and you are suddenly public enemy #1.
Unlike other positions RB tend to start faster and reach their potential quickly. Especially the really good ones.
So paying a premium for a RB that could be a pro bowler in his first season is not a poor investment.
Other positions start slower and 2nd contract is a huge jump up
If Barkley turns out to be the best player in the draft he will be considered a bargain.
Most have him graded leaps and bounds ahead of the 2nd prospect at his position.
BBI posters think the Gap is closer.
Look at where Sy56 grades him vs the field.
If he is correct the contract is a bargain.
You can have the same argument with Nelson since the next best guard might come off the board late first early 2nd. Is the gap that big?
Quote:
is getting good players on cost controlled contracts. The giants would be getting a good player making more then 97% of the league at his position.
Unlike other positions RB tend to start faster and reach their potential quickly. Especially the really good ones.
So paying a premium for a RB that could be a pro bowler in his first season is not a poor investment.
Other positions start slower and 2nd contract is a huge jump up
If Barkley turns out to be the best player in the draft he will be considered a bargain.
Most have him graded leaps and bounds ahead of the 2nd prospect at his position.
BBI posters think the Gap is closer.
Look at where Sy56 grades him vs the field.
If he is correct the contract is a bargain.
You can have the same argument with Nelson since the next best guard might come off the board late first early 2nd. Is the gap that big?
It depends if you believe what statistical analysis tells you or if you believe only what your instincts and emotions tell you... The stats say the even elite RBs do not improve your probability of winning. There are explanations for this that have been discussed elsewhere on this site. Based on the trend and the statistics, RB pay doesn't appear to have hit bottom yet.
Quote:
is getting good players on cost controlled contracts. The giants would be getting a good player making more then 97% of the league at his position.
Unlike other positions RB tend to start faster and reach their potential quickly. Especially the really good ones.
So paying a premium for a RB that could be a pro bowler in his first season is not a poor investment.
Other positions start slower and 2nd contract is a huge jump up
If Barkley turns out to be the best player in the draft he will be considered a bargain.
Most have him graded leaps and bounds ahead of the 2nd prospect at his position.
BBI posters think the Gap is closer.
Look at where Sy56 grades him vs the field.
If he is correct the contract is a bargain.
You can have the same argument with Nelson since the next best guard might come off the board late first early 2nd. Is the gap that big?
It's not that I don't trust Sy. But guys come out of the weeds every year. Last year it was Kamara and Hunt, both of whom were drafted in the 3rd round. Derrick Henry was a 2nd Round pick, as were LeVeon Bell and LeSean McCoy. The fact is, most of the top RBs in the NFL were not 1st round picks. None were top 2 picks. You can get exceptional quality at the RB position later in the draft. And this draft is considered to be deep at the RB position, even if there is a drop off after Barkley. It's just not smart to take Barkley at 2.
And yet suggest it on this site and you are suddenly public enemy #1.
Whats even funnier is that fans eat this shit up and act as though they're a step ahead of real NFL GM's - as if they've uncovered some holy grail that the NFL has yet to discover.
Teams with unlimited resources are still drafting RB's high, *when* the value is there and its the right prospect. So maybe you should dig a bit deeper on these numbers before pulling from some twatter off the twittersphere or PFF nerd central and regurgitating it as gospel.
Quote:
In comment 13922899 QB Snacks said:
Quote:
is getting good players on cost controlled contracts. The giants would be getting a good player making more then 97% of the league at his position.
Unlike other positions RB tend to start faster and reach their potential quickly. Especially the really good ones.
So paying a premium for a RB that could be a pro bowler in his first season is not a poor investment.
Other positions start slower and 2nd contract is a huge jump up
If Barkley turns out to be the best player in the draft he will be considered a bargain.
Most have him graded leaps and bounds ahead of the 2nd prospect at his position.
BBI posters think the Gap is closer.
Look at where Sy56 grades him vs the field.
If he is correct the contract is a bargain.
You can have the same argument with Nelson since the next best guard might come off the board late first early 2nd. Is the gap that big?
It's not that I don't trust Sy. But guys come out of the weeds every year. Last year it was Kamara and Hunt, both of whom were drafted in the 3rd round. Derrick Henry was a 2nd Round pick, as were LeVeon Bell and LeSean McCoy. The fact is, most of the top RBs in the NFL were not 1st round picks. None were top 2 picks. You can get exceptional quality at the RB position later in the draft. And this draft is considered to be deep at the RB position, even if there is a drop off after Barkley. It's just not smart to take Barkley at 2.
I agree and this happens at a lot of positions not just RB
Especially guards, TE's and WR but you have anomalies that force you to rethink that premise.
Like Nelson and Barkley.
We have seen it with several RB recently.
If you are going to draft the future top player at their position I would say it doesn't matter where you draft him.
If you miss ouch and it is much acceptable.
Do you have the balls to be that GM?
I don't think Elliot or Fournette were the best picks for those teams because of that very point. Neither is really an asset in the passing game. Yes, they are gifted runners, and there's value to that. But I don't think the added value over some of the lesser choices justifies where they were taken. I'd suggest this would have been a MUCH better outcome for the Cowboys overall:
Cowboys
Ezekial Elliot (4) and Jaylon Smith (34)
or
Jalen Ramsey (5) and Derrick Henry (44)
I also think the Jags are in a better position today if they take Mahomes or Watson instead of Fournette. The point, for me, is that an RB that high generally strikes me as an unnecessary luxury. You're probably getting a pretty good player. But it's overpaying for a name brand. Hitting on a good RB at the top of your draft doesn't do anything to set the rest of your roster up for success (perhaps even the opposite). Hitting on a good player at a premium position on a cost controlled contract has a domino effect everywhere else on your roster.
I don't think Elliot or Fournette were the best picks for those teams because of that very point. Neither is really an asset in the passing game. Yes, they are gifted runners, and there's value to that. But I don't think the added value over some of the lesser choices justifies where they were taken. I'd suggest this would have been a MUCH better outcome for the Cowboys overall:
Cowboys
Ezekial Elliot (4) and Jaylon Smith (34)
or
Jalen Ramsey (5) and Derrick Henry (44)
I also think the Jags are in a better position today if they take Mahomes or Watson instead of Fournette. The point, for me, is that an RB that high generally strikes me as an unnecessary luxury. You're probably getting a pretty good player. But it's overpaying for a name brand. Hitting on a good RB at the top of your draft doesn't do anything to set the rest of your roster up for success (perhaps even the opposite). Hitting on a good player at a premium position on a cost controlled contract has a domino effect everywhere else on your roster.
I don't think the fournette argument holds water.
Fournette was a big part of Jacksonville success last year and Mahomes is still an unknown and Watson got hurt. So you can't say they would have been a major upgrade over Bortles.
I would argue Bortles was better because of Fournette and without him they would not have made the playoffs.
Elliot in his rookie year made Dallas' offense better and covered up Prescott's weaknesses.
So in those offenses who had more value?
In the games without Fournette, the Jags ran for more yards on average than they did with him. Does it mean they're better without him? No, of course not. But I do think his actual impact on the offense has been a bit overstated. I think the biggest key to their running game improving last year was the improvements on the OL, not Fournette. He's a very good running back. I just don't think he transformed that team the way some would have you believe.
And frankly, my feelings on the Cowboys are not dissimilar. Everyone points to Zeke being out as the reason the Cowboys fell off. I think it has as much or more to do with Tyron Smith's health and their inability to pass protect. I believe Alf Morris averaged over 5 yards a carry as a starter while Zeke was out. Again, I don't think Zeke has the impact people think he does.
Neverending cycle of nonsense.
Is Barkley that, I am not sure but it seems to be a pretty good amount of experts believe he is.
Including Gettleman.
I laughed when the Cowboys drafted Elliott at 5. Thought they were crazy. They had so many holes and an aging, hurt QB. I would say they made the right decision.
Quote:
In comment 13922899 QB Snacks said:
Quote:
is getting good players on cost controlled contracts. The giants would be getting a good player making more then 97% of the league at his position.
Unlike other positions RB tend to start faster and reach their potential quickly. Especially the really good ones.
So paying a premium for a RB that could be a pro bowler in his first season is not a poor investment.
Other positions start slower and 2nd contract is a huge jump up
If Barkley turns out to be the best player in the draft he will be considered a bargain.
Most have him graded leaps and bounds ahead of the 2nd prospect at his position.
BBI posters think the Gap is closer.
Look at where Sy56 grades him vs the field.
If he is correct the contract is a bargain.
You can have the same argument with Nelson since the next best guard might come off the board late first early 2nd. Is the gap that big?
It depends if you believe what statistical analysis tells you or if you believe only what your instincts and emotions tell you... The stats say the even elite RBs do not improve your probability of winning. There are explanations for this that have been discussed elsewhere on this site. Based on the trend and the statistics, RB pay doesn't appear to have hit bottom yet.
Since you keep citing statistical analysis, can you please provide your qualifications for analyzing statistical analysis?
In the games without Fournette, the Jags ran for more yards on average than they did with him. Does it mean they're better without him? No, of course not. But I do think his actual impact on the offense has been a bit overstated. I think the biggest key to their running game improving last year was the improvements on the OL, not Fournette. He's a very good running back. I just don't think he transformed that team the way some would have you believe.
And frankly, my feelings on the Cowboys are not dissimilar. Everyone points to Zeke being out as the reason the Cowboys fell off. I think it has as much or more to do with Tyron Smith's health and their inability to pass protect. I believe Alf Morris averaged over 5 yards a carry as a starter while Zeke was out. Again, I don't think Zeke has the impact people think he does.
Not surprisingly, I share this opinion that they don't have the impact that people believe. On another thread I pointed out that even Gurley can be viewed as not being as impactful as people think.
Brown Recluse - First, your angry tone and making it personal proves the point I made in the post you to which replied. If you don't like the subject or the idea, don't open the thread. And why respond twice? You don't like it and don't want to debate it, then just go away.
Second, I have always maintained that the NFL has been doing this for far longer than anybody has realized. We as fans are several steps behind. We have to wait for people with access to the data to see the trend, try to figure it out and publish. So we as fans are at best 3rd.
Quote:
In comment 13922961 larryflower37 said:
Quote:
In comment 13922899 QB Snacks said:
Quote:
is getting good players on cost controlled contracts. The giants would be getting a good player making more then 97% of the league at his position.
Unlike other positions RB tend to start faster and reach their potential quickly. Especially the really good ones.
So paying a premium for a RB that could be a pro bowler in his first season is not a poor investment.
Other positions start slower and 2nd contract is a huge jump up
If Barkley turns out to be the best player in the draft he will be considered a bargain.
Most have him graded leaps and bounds ahead of the 2nd prospect at his position.
BBI posters think the Gap is closer.
Look at where Sy56 grades him vs the field.
If he is correct the contract is a bargain.
You can have the same argument with Nelson since the next best guard might come off the board late first early 2nd. Is the gap that big?
It depends if you believe what statistical analysis tells you or if you believe only what your instincts and emotions tell you... The stats say the even elite RBs do not improve your probability of winning. There are explanations for this that have been discussed elsewhere on this site. Based on the trend and the statistics, RB pay doesn't appear to have hit bottom yet.
Since you keep citing statistical analysis, can you please provide your qualifications for analyzing statistical analysis?
I have linked literally dozens of studies in the past. Others have linked more.
If you are honestly requesting those links again, I will point you to the threads.
[quote]
I told you I have not posted for a number of years. Before that I was never the prolific poster that many of you are.
There is one thread that some long time BBIers might remember me from. And this should come as no shock as to the topic. People were posting how upset they were about Financial Crisis/Bailout. I spent time on the thread explaining why it was necessary and why "Too Big To Fail" mattered. I went on to explain the mechanism by which we got in trouble, and how it caused the money systems to freeze up. Why the Gov't had to step in. I also said on that thread that the US Gov't would make a ton of money out of the deal. Its too bad the archives don't go back that far.
[quote]
While I completely discount certain posters who behave badly, I do respect your football related analysis. Posts like this diminish yourself.
Quote:
In comment 13922965 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 13922961 larryflower37 said:
Quote:
In comment 13922899 QB Snacks said:
Quote:
is getting good players on cost controlled contracts. The giants would be getting a good player making more then 97% of the league at his position.
Unlike other positions RB tend to start faster and reach their potential quickly. Especially the really good ones.
So paying a premium for a RB that could be a pro bowler in his first season is not a poor investment.
Other positions start slower and 2nd contract is a huge jump up
If Barkley turns out to be the best player in the draft he will be considered a bargain.
Most have him graded leaps and bounds ahead of the 2nd prospect at his position.
BBI posters think the Gap is closer.
Look at where Sy56 grades him vs the field.
If he is correct the contract is a bargain.
You can have the same argument with Nelson since the next best guard might come off the board late first early 2nd. Is the gap that big?
It depends if you believe what statistical analysis tells you or if you believe only what your instincts and emotions tell you... The stats say the even elite RBs do not improve your probability of winning. There are explanations for this that have been discussed elsewhere on this site. Based on the trend and the statistics, RB pay doesn't appear to have hit bottom yet.
Since you keep citing statistical analysis, can you please provide your qualifications for analyzing statistical analysis?
I have linked literally dozens of studies in the past. Others have linked more.
If you are honestly requesting those links again, I will point you to the threads.
I am not requesting those links. I am asking you why you think you are qualified to analyze what they say.