538 Article on why drafting Barkley is a mistake

nymbers don't lie. Doesn't mean they are always right because there is deviation from the mean. But if you are drafting at #2 and counting on deviation from the mean, you are swimming against the current.

might be called an ecological fallacy. Meaning that it is a mistake to think that because something is true in general, it is also true for every specific case.

"workhorse" type of RB, from all accounts that's not his game, he is less effective than many other premier RBs running between the tackles. Where SB does flourish is as a receiving RB, excellent blocking skills, can easily play all 3 downs. He would most likely be used to run sweeps (wide of tackle) and be most effective.

So the "workhorse" analogy for Barkley is quite weak.

In comment 13930558 Jerry K said:

Quote:

might be called an ecological fallacy. Meaning that it is a mistake to think that because something is true in general, it is also true for every specific case.

Affective Fallacy.

This isn't Star Wars, don't trust your feelings

comes through big time in that article.

Apparently because Barry Sanders never went to the Superbowl means that Barkley won't be going to a Superbowl. The past doesn't predict the future as much as people think that it does.

made the playoffs last year.. only the Cowboys didn't make it and they were in the mix until the last week... despite missing Zeke for 6 weeks.

Our lines are rotten and our quarterback is 37 years old. Rebuilding the line or drafting a guy that will ride the pine aren't sexy picks for 2018, but would go much further in actually building a new core that can compete.

In comment 13930649 SHO'NUFF said:

Quote:

made the playoffs last year.. only the Cowboys didn't make it and they were in the mix until the last week... despite missing Zeke for 6 weeks.

Barkley cant block for himself. Nelson improves the run game and the pass game....does it on a value contract and based on history is more likely to play longer.

In comment 13930660 QB Snacks said:

Quote:

In comment 13930649 SHO'NUFF said: Quote: made the playoffs last year.. only the Cowboys didn't make it and they were in the mix until the last week... despite missing Zeke for 6 weeks. Barkley cant block for himself. Nelson improves the run game and the pass game....does it on a value contract and based on history is more likely to play longer.

That assumes that no other OL are drafted by the Giants after Barkley. I suspect Price, or Hernandez, are very strong possibilities in the second round, and I would not be surprised to see DG take one or two other OL that are solid value picks. Unlike Reese I think DG knows how to identify OL prospects.

tell you that drafting a RB early is not a great move. You can get decent production from later round RB's at a cost that is reasonable. You would be paying Barkley top dollar for production that can be had more cheaply.

Good teams have good Olines, Dlines, get decent QB play and have the depth to survive the attrition of an NFL season. The Giants have lacked depth and the OL has been terrible...thus QB play has been poor. That is why the Giants have sucked. The only good recent year was in 2016 when the DL was so dominant, that they did not need to score much at all.

.
Link - ( New Window )

for 8 seasons (missed 2015 season). The Vikes made the playoffs 4 of those seasons, but were one and done in the playoffs. One season the Vikes made it to the Conference title game and lost. That was the season that Favre was their QB.

So the Vikings won one playoff game with a back at least as talented as Barkley.

In comment 13930649 SHO'NUFF said:

Quote:

made the playoffs last year.. only the Cowboys didn't make it and they were in the mix until the last week... despite missing Zeke for 6 weeks.

First off, rushing yards aren't a leading indicator, IMO. They are a lagging indicator because a team rushes more when they are up. Teams that are up win more games and make the playoffs. Having more rushing yards per game could just mean they rush a lot more. It's an indicator of good teams, but not necessarily of great rushing taems. Secondly, just because a team has the most rushing yards doesn't mean there is one guy that's a workhorse and more specifically, it doesn't mean that one guy was a top draft pick.

IMO, average yards per rush is the indicator that shows the success of a running game.

Lets look at the top 10 from last year:

1. Chiefs-4.7 ypc. They have a workhorse and he was drafted in rd 3.

2. Saints 4.7 ypc. The split carries between Kamara(3rd rounder) and Ingram(mid 1st rd).

3. Browns 4.5 ypc- no workhorse. crowell(undrafted) and duke johnson(rd 3). Neither were top picks.

4. Cowboys 4.5 ypc-Elliot(4.1 ypc), Morris(4.8 ypc), Rod Smith(4.2 ypc).

5. Packers - QB's factored into this number a lot

6. Eagles - no workhorse, big rotation that saw multiple players with success.

7. Falcons - Even rotation with Freeman(4th round) and Coleman(3rd round)

8. Panthers - QB played a big role in this one

9. Jaguars - Fournette is obviously the most taked about(3.9 ypc), but they had a few guys with less touches that had more success.

10. Rams - All Gurley, all the time.

So Shonuff, what were you saying again?

In comment 13930803 Keith said:

Quote:

In comment 13930649 SHO'NUFF said: Quote: made the playoffs last year.. only the Cowboys didn't make it and they were in the mix until the last week... despite missing Zeke for 6 weeks. First off, rushing yards aren't a leading indicator, IMO. They are a lagging indicator because a team rushes more when they are up. Teams that are up win more games and make the playoffs. Having more rushing yards per game could just mean they rush a lot more. It's an indicator of good teams, but not necessarily of great rushing taems. Secondly, just because a team has the most rushing yards doesn't mean there is one guy that's a workhorse and more specifically, it doesn't mean that one guy was a top draft pick. IMO, average yards per rush is the indicator that shows the success of a running game. Lets look at the top 10 from last year: 1. Chiefs-4.7 ypc. They have a workhorse and he was drafted in rd 3. 2. Saints 4.7 ypc. The split carries between Kamara(3rd rounder) and Ingram(mid 1st rd). 3. Browns 4.5 ypc- no workhorse. crowell(undrafted) and duke johnson(rd 3). Neither were top picks. 4. Cowboys 4.5 ypc-Elliot(4.1 ypc), Morris(4.8 ypc), Rod Smith(4.2 ypc). 5. Packers - QB's factored into this number a lot 6. Eagles - no workhorse, big rotation that saw multiple players with success. 7. Falcons - Even rotation with Freeman(4th round) and Coleman(3rd round) 8. Panthers - QB played a big role in this one 9. Jaguars - Fournette is obviously the most taked about(3.9 ypc), but they had a few guys with less touches that had more success. 10. Rams - All Gurley, all the time. So Shonuff, what were you saying again?

Didn’t 8 of those teams make the playoffs last year? I think the only difference is swapping in the Browns for one of the playoff teams. So you basically gave him back the same list of teams but sorted by a different metric.

then you cmpletely missed the point. The point wasn't to prove that he was wrong. The point was that he was making a point that didn't justify his opinion. All of those teams had great rushing attacks, but the majority have a RBCC and/or workhorse guys that were not drafted early.

In comment 13930850 Keith said:

Quote:

then you cmpletely missed the point. The point wasn't to prove that he was wrong. The point was that he was making a point that didn't justify his opinion. All of those teams had great rushing attacks, but the majority have a RBCC and/or workhorse guys that were not drafted early.

Or you could look at it that 5 of those teams have RBs drafted in the first round...

In comment 13930871 Mike in NJ said:

Quote:

In comment 13930850 Keith said: Quote: then you cmpletely missed the point. The point wasn't to prove that he was wrong. The point was that he was making a point that didn't justify his opinion. All of those teams had great rushing attacks, but the majority have a RBCC and/or workhorse guys that were not drafted early. Or you could look at it that 5 of those teams have RBs drafted in the first round...

I'm not sure you'll get to the right conclusion just simplifying it like that. The reality is that the OL makes the running game more than the RB does.

Run to the podiu again and draft the freak athlete with freak leadership and intangibles to boot. Look at his tape, and repeat to yourself that's a 230 lb man running like that.

The last time we drafted a physics defying freak at #2, we did pretty good for ourselves.

In comment 13930621 RobCarpenter said:

Quote:

comes through big time in that article. Apparently because Barry Sanders never went to the Superbowl means that Barkley won't be going to a Superbowl. The past doesn't predict the future as much as people think that it does.

Absolutely! Not a very astute conclusion. If DG is going to take Barkley, he is not just drafting to get 1 player. He is drafting other players and filling in holes in FA to retool, rebuild or whatever you want to call, a football team. He plans on building both sides of trenches to establish a running game, stopping opponents running game and getting to the opponent's QB. It takes 53 man roster to build a team, not coming to the conclusion that only Barry Sanders is supposed to carry the Lions to a Super Bowl. You shouldn't expect that from a QB either.

In comment 13930929 DonnieD89 said:

Quote:

In comment 13930621 RobCarpenter said: Quote: comes through big time in that article. Apparently because Barry Sanders never went to the Superbowl means that Barkley won't be going to a Superbowl. The past doesn't predict the future as much as people think that it does. Absolutely! Not a very astute conclusion. If DG is going to take Barkley, he is not just drafting to get 1 player. He is drafting other players and filling in holes in FA to retool, rebuild or whatever you want to call, a football team. He plans on building both sides of trenches to establish a running game, stopping opponents running game and getting to the opponent's QB. It takes 53 man roster to build a team, not coming to the conclusion that only Barry Sanders is supposed to carry the Lions to a Super Bowl. You shouldn't expect that from a QB either.

If Barkely is the BPA he should be the pick, period.

In comment 13931057 RobCarpenter said:

Quote:

In comment 13930929 DonnieD89 said: Quote: In comment 13930621 RobCarpenter said: Quote: comes through big time in that article. Apparently because Barry Sanders never went to the Superbowl means that Barkley won't be going to a Superbowl. The past doesn't predict the future as much as people think that it does. Absolutely! Not a very astute conclusion. If DG is going to take Barkley, he is not just drafting to get 1 player. He is drafting other players and filling in holes in FA to retool, rebuild or whatever you want to call, a football team. He plans on building both sides of trenches to establish a running game, stopping opponents running game and getting to the opponent's QB. It takes 53 man roster to build a team, not coming to the conclusion that only Barry Sanders is supposed to carry the Lions to a Super Bowl. You shouldn't expect that from a QB either. If Barkely is the BPA he should be the pick, period.

But he's not. Period.

is leaving money on the table.

If Giants don't want one of the QBs, then get the hell out of that #2 spot. Impossible to believe they can't find a trading partner to give them enough value to move out...