I'm paraphrasing, but she raised an interesting point that I think some folks on BBI have mentioned. She thinks the Giants are doing a disservice to Barkley and the team by over-hyping Barkley. My guess is she was mostly talking about Gettleman's comments, but it raises an interesting question.
Would a 1,200 yard rookie season be a disappointment for most fans? How about 10 touchdowns?
What is YOUR expectation level with Barkley.
It’s a different NFL, and the 2 players have a different skill set. And even if they were identical as far as style and talent, would that somehow mean Barkley is destined to have the same career?
How do they have different skill sets?
Bush had 200 carries his junior year. Barkley had 217 carries his junior year. Each played 13 games their senior year. So Barkley had barely over 1 carry more per game than Bush. How was Bush never a workhorse in college but Barkley was? Yes, over the course of their college careers, Barkley had significantly more carries, but the talent and competition levels at USC at the time and Penn State were vastly different.
Bush had 37 receptions his junior year; Barkley had 54 receptions, definitely a good amount more. But their sophomore years, Bush had 43 receptions and Barkley had 28. They both were big time receiving threats out of the backfield and in the slot in college.
I'm not saying that Barkley is destined to have a career similar to Bush's (which wasn't bad, just not great). But I do think it's useful to look back at the actual facts rather than peg players into the narrative we've created for them years later.
In college, Barkley looked more like Reggie Bush than like Ezekiel Elliot or Todd Gurley in terms of how they played in college and their strongest skill sets.
Bush had 200 carries his junior year. Barkley had 217 carries his junior year. Each played 13 games their senior year. So Barkley had barely over 1 carry more per game than Bush. How was Bush never a workhorse in college but Barkley was?
Bush split carries 50/50 with Lindale White, especially in 2005. White was a terrific between the tackles RB at the college game (just didn't translate to the pros because he liked food too much).
Granted, SC killed a lot of people that year and White likely got more carries that way. But White had more carries than Bush in the championship game against TX. He played a helluva game.
Personally, my own opinion on Bush is that he could have been much better than he was if not for injuries. He somehow magically became a better back in Miami and Detriot when he was available for pretty much the whole season and received more carries. I think people gloss over his numbers and don't look any further than that.
Regardless, Barkley is not Bush. That is an incomplete assessment.
Quote:
and played in a far more talented offense. He also came into the league 12 years ago so now, what’s the point of comparing the 2 anyway?
It’s a different NFL, and the 2 players have a different skill set. And even if they were identical as far as style and talent, would that somehow mean Barkley is destined to have the same career?
How do they have different skill sets?
Bush had 200 carries his junior year. Barkley had 217 carries his junior year. Each played 13 games their senior year. So Barkley had barely over 1 carry more per game than Bush. How was Bush never a workhorse in college but Barkley was? Yes, over the course of their college careers, Barkley had significantly more carries, but the talent and competition levels at USC at the time and Penn State were vastly different.
Bush had 37 receptions his junior year; Barkley had 54 receptions, definitely a good amount more. But their sophomore years, Bush had 43 receptions and Barkley had 28. They both were big time receiving threats out of the backfield and in the slot in college.
I'm not saying that Barkley is destined to have a career similar to Bush's (which wasn't bad, just not great). But I do think it's useful to look back at the actual facts rather than peg players into the narrative we've created for them years later.
In college, Barkley looked more like Reggie Bush than like Ezekiel Elliot or Todd Gurley in terms of how they played in college and their strongest skill sets.
Bush was much lighter, couldn’t run in between tackles and couldn’t ever carry a full load of touches. In terms of athletecism, go nuts comparing them, but they are 2 different players. Bush’s usage at USC was evidence enough of this even before the NFL.
And again, this was 12 years ago, why even bother comparing them?
Quote:
In comment 13965965 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
and played in a far more talented offense. He also came into the league 12 years ago so now, what’s the point of comparing the 2 anyway?
It’s a different NFL, and the 2 players have a different skill set. And even if they were identical as far as style and talent, would that somehow mean Barkley is destined to have the same career?
How do they have different skill sets?
Bush had 200 carries his junior year. Barkley had 217 carries his junior year. Each played 13 games their senior year. So Barkley had barely over 1 carry more per game than Bush. How was Bush never a workhorse in college but Barkley was? Yes, over the course of their college careers, Barkley had significantly more carries, but the talent and competition levels at USC at the time and Penn State were vastly different.
Bush had 37 receptions his junior year; Barkley had 54 receptions, definitely a good amount more. But their sophomore years, Bush had 43 receptions and Barkley had 28. They both were big time receiving threats out of the backfield and in the slot in college.
I'm not saying that Barkley is destined to have a career similar to Bush's (which wasn't bad, just not great). But I do think it's useful to look back at the actual facts rather than peg players into the narrative we've created for them years later.
In college, Barkley looked more like Reggie Bush than like Ezekiel Elliot or Todd Gurley in terms of how they played in college and their strongest skill sets.
Bush was much lighter, couldn’t run in between tackles and couldn’t ever carry a full load of touches. In terms of athletecism, go nuts comparing them, but they are 2 different players. Bush’s usage at USC was evidence enough of this even before the NFL.
And again, this was 12 years ago, why even bother comparing them?
Here's an interesting article I read before the draft, for what it's worth. I'm not all in on analytics, but it provides an interesting perspective.
Why Saquon Barkley is closer to Reggie Bush than Ezekiel Elliot - ( New Window )
Now that doesn't mean for one second that Barkley won't live up to expectations but it is a cautionary tale for folks who were terrified of picking a QB because none of them were sure things.
Now that doesn't mean for one second that Barkley won't live up to expectations but it is a cautionary tale for folks who were terrified of picking a QB because none of them were sure things.
The difference being, people are saying that the QBs aren’t slam dunks because, we’ll, the QBs themselves. They all have warts and question marks. It seems the only thing people can drum up on Barkley is...Reggie Bush. Nothing to do with the player himself, just, Reggie Bush.
The guy who wrote that doesn’t believe a RB should be taken high. Perfectly fine opinion, but that’s really all that article is about. I happen to think that line of thinking is outdated, which is why comparing this draft class to 2006 is pretty worthless.
The guy who wrote that doesn’t believe a RB should be taken high. Perfectly fine opinion, but that’s really all that article is about. I happen to think that line of thinking is outdated, which is why comparing this draft class to 2006 is pretty worthless.
Exactly. Sports are always evolving, changing. This idea that RBs don’t get taken high is all because people are conditioned to think that way. But it’s been proven recently that times are changing. Elliott and Fournette were both drafted in the top 5. Gurley was top 10 only because of his gruesome injury. Had he been healthy he would have absolutely been a top 5 pick. And all of them are huge parts of their teams success. The Rams didn’t have an OL when they drafted Gurley either but they took him and then got a line in front of him. There is no magical formula. You add pieces one at a time and it doesn’t matter the order. You take the best players then add pieces around them. I’m not sure why that’s so hard for some people to grasp.
That’s just my opinion however, which doesn’t mean much.
The reality is no player is can't miss. A number of things can happen. Lots of players can't translate what they were great at in college to the pros. No one projected Trent Richardson to be an absolutely terrible NFL player. Maybe his talent wasn't top 3, but he didn't show any signs that he literally couldn't play pro football.
Barkley is going to be bad at things, he's a rookie. The game is going to be really fast for him, he's going to blow blitz pick-ups, he's going to fumble the ball, he's going get his ass kicked. And when that happens the media and even some of the fans on this thread will shit on him. A number of people on this thread, seemingly in favor of the pick expect 11 or 12 hundred yards. Only 7 backs in the league hit that. That's going to take great health, consistentancy, and productivity. Is that realistic to expect year 1?
He's going to have unwarranted expectations as the no. 2 overall pick, in New York, on a team trying to get the heroic QB one more shot.
Gettleman needs to know better than the perfect prospect, hand of God stuff. What value does that serve other than make him feel like the tits for picking him?
Quote:
that article sucks. It goes right into “analytics” without even talking about the talent disparity that the RBs played with. It then goes on to talk about PFF which, to me, isn’t exactly analytics. They have their own system and I have no idea how they break things down, and they are always questioned by not only Giants fans, but in articles of other teams as well.
The guy who wrote that doesn’t believe a RB should be taken high. Perfectly fine opinion, but that’s really all that article is about. I happen to think that line of thinking is outdated, which is why comparing this draft class to 2006 is pretty worthless.
Exactly. Sports are always evolving, changing. This idea that RBs don’t get taken high is all because people are conditioned to think that way. But it’s been proven recently that times are changing. Elliott and Fournette were both drafted in the top 5. Gurley was top 10 only because of his gruesome injury. Had he been healthy he would have absolutely been a top 5 pick. And all of them are huge parts of their teams success. The Rams didn’t have an OL when they drafted Gurley either but they took him and then got a line in front of him. There is no magical formula. You add pieces one at a time and it doesn’t matter the order. You take the best players then add pieces around them. I’m not sure why that’s so hard for some people to grasp.
I was never on the don't draft a RB high wagon. I loved Todd Gurley coming out of college, thought he was the best back since Adrian Peterson and he was my #1 choice for the Giants that year. I remember my friends laughing when I flipped out when the Giants didn't take him. That said, having Gurley and Eli still in his prime could have given the Giants five years of a great RB and very good QB combo. I don't think many people would say Eli has 5 years left now.
It's also not about size, but about running style. Many evaluators pointed out that Barkley too often tried to bounce outside even when the blocking was there for designed inside runs, and that he did not have a lot of yards after contact, despite his size. I think that's where the Combine, specifically the 230 lb weigh-in, moved Barkley from being a top running back prospect to a "generational" back.
Ron Dayne and Jerome Bettis were about the same size (259, 248 lbs) and had close 40 times at the combine (4.65, 4.70). Dayne actually was bigger and faster, but they had different running styles. Yes physics do matter, but running style matters a lot too. Barkley will likely need to rely less on his instincts to bounce it outside than he did in college and develop a stronger, more violent downfield running style. I don't know if that's very possible to change or if it's so ingrained that in his running instincts that it'll be a challenge to change. I'm hoping the former.
Quote:
In comment 13966111 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
that article sucks. It goes right into “analytics” without even talking about the talent disparity that the RBs played with. It then goes on to talk about PFF which, to me, isn’t exactly analytics. They have their own system and I have no idea how they break things down, and they are always questioned by not only Giants fans, but in articles of other teams as well.
The guy who wrote that doesn’t believe a RB should be taken high. Perfectly fine opinion, but that’s really all that article is about. I happen to think that line of thinking is outdated, which is why comparing this draft class to 2006 is pretty worthless.
Exactly. Sports are always evolving, changing. This idea that RBs don’t get taken high is all because people are conditioned to think that way. But it’s been proven recently that times are changing. Elliott and Fournette were both drafted in the top 5. Gurley was top 10 only because of his gruesome injury. Had he been healthy he would have absolutely been a top 5 pick. And all of them are huge parts of their teams success. The Rams didn’t have an OL when they drafted Gurley either but they took him and then got a line in front of him. There is no magical formula. You add pieces one at a time and it doesn’t matter the order. You take the best players then add pieces around them. I’m not sure why that’s so hard for some people to grasp.
I was never on the don't draft a RB high wagon. I loved Todd Gurley coming out of college, thought he was the best back since Adrian Peterson and he was my #1 choice for the Giants that year. I remember my friends laughing when I flipped out when the Giants didn't take him. That said, having Gurley and Eli still in his prime could have given the Giants five years of a great RB and very good QB combo. I don't think many people would say Eli has 5 years left now.
It's also not about size, but about running style. Many evaluators pointed out that Barkley too often tried to bounce outside even when the blocking was there for designed inside runs, and that he did not have a lot of yards after contact, despite his size. I think that's where the Combine, specifically the 230 lb weigh-in, moved Barkley from being a top running back prospect to a "generational" back.
Ron Dayne and Jerome Bettis were about the same size (259, 248 lbs) and had close 40 times at the combine (4.65, 4.70). Dayne actually was bigger and faster, but they had different running styles. Yes physics do matter, but running style matters a lot too. Barkley will likely need to rely less on his instincts to bounce it outside than he did in college and develop a stronger, more violent downfield running style. I don't know if that's very possible to change or if it's so ingrained that in his running instincts that it'll be a challenge to change. I'm hoping the former.
All that said, I'm in his corner. I'm hoping he becomes the best RB in the NFL very quickly and helps makes the Giants a playoff and Super Bowl contender year in and year out for 7-10 years.
You know what Reggie Bush's main problem was? Staying healthy. He only played in all 16 games two times. One was his rookie year where he had 88 receptions, which is damn good.
And let's not act as if Bush was a bust. He's a guy who played 10 years, with 54TD's.
He was only healthy one of the 5 years he was in New Orleans.
Barkley could maintain the same style as in college and be successful. Basically - we need him to stay healthy.
He actually was a pretty good player and stuck around for a much longer time than people thought he would.
He was also quite productive when he did play.
If Barkley is a more durable, more versatile version of Bush, it'll be a very good pick.
He actually was a pretty good player and stuck around for a much longer time than people thought he would.
He was also quite productive when he did play.
If Barkley is a more durable, more versatile version of Bush, it'll be a very good pick.
I don't disagree. My first post on this string was that Reggie Bush had a very good (just not a great) career. He was a good player, just didn't live up to the immense expectations that were set for him.
But I can't see how anyone would think comparing Barkley to Bush makes any sense whatsoever. It's a really, really, really bad comparison.
This point cannot be stated enough. Even if one chooses to fixate on the similarities between Bush and Barkley, if they do so without acknowledging that Barkley posseses the physical attributes to translate those skills to the NFL where Bush could not, they're either being disingenuous or willfully obtuse.
I hope that is true -- but Barkley hasn't failed on a large scale in the NFL yet. He will soon enough, and when he does Gettleman's hyperbole certainly won't help keep the noise down.
Quote:
don't let the media chatter affect them. Barkley does not seem like the type who will care what the callers on WFAN or posters here say about him. Therefore, I don't think it matters (in this case).
I hope that is true -- but Barkley hasn't failed on a large scale in the NFL yet. He will soon enough, and when he does Gettleman's hyperbole certainly won't help keep the noise down.
Only because fans that wanted a QB are taking Gettlemans obvious joking statement so seriously. It’s been mentioned numerous times on this thread but there is a segment of fans that are just waiting to sit back and holler “I told you so!”. It is amazing to me that people are taking those comments so seriously. If the stupid fans would chill out there would be no issue. Where is the noise going to come from? Fans that don’t like the pick. Blame them for overreacting, not Gettleman or Barkley
Quote:
In comment 13966226 Mike from SI said:
Quote:
don't let the media chatter affect them. Barkley does not seem like the type who will care what the callers on WFAN or posters here say about him. Therefore, I don't think it matters (in this case).
I hope that is true -- but Barkley hasn't failed on a large scale in the NFL yet. He will soon enough, and when he does Gettleman's hyperbole certainly won't help keep the noise down.
Only because fans that wanted a QB are taking Gettlemans obvious joking statement so seriously. It’s been mentioned numerous times on this thread but there is a segment of fans that are just waiting to sit back and holler “I told you so!”. It is amazing to me that people are taking those comments so seriously. If the stupid fans would chill out there would be no issue. Where is the noise going to come from? Fans that don’t like the pick. Blame them for overreacting, not Gettleman or Barkley
That's a very simplistic and intellectually flimsy argument.
If Barkley comes out flat (whether his fault or not), and the back cover headline in the Post is 'Touched by the Hand of God' -- that will be because some fans didn't like the pick?
It will have nothing to do with a rookie playing poorly and the GM having gone overboard praising how great the pick was?
I think you drastically underestimate how critical the press here is, and that Barkley is not going to get a semblance of a break no matter how much some fans like him.
I think Barkley is going to have a fine year, but I think the line will still be a big problem, and the offense will have growing pains in a new system and not much depth at WR.
I think Barkley is going to have rough moments and when he does the professional critics will pounce and Gettleman has given them fodder, just like a every Reese hyperbolic praise turned into a jab.
If Barkely is completely impervious to criticism and pressure in New York, as a top 2 pick, on a team coming off an awful season with an aging and flawed hero at QB and the GM effectively annointing him, he's more perfect than Gettleman even graded.
The NY Giants gave it a shot but its obvious that this was never going to work...
Ask and ye shall receive:
Yup.
Reggie Bush was a better draft pick than both Vince Young and Matt Leinart. Not even debatable.
Quote:
with a high pick it's probably fair to point out that Vince Young was #3 just behind Bush and Matt Leinart was the other qb drafted in the top 10 that year. There are no guarantees in an NFL draft regardless if position.
Yup.
Reggie Bush was a better draft pick than both Vince Young and Matt Leinart. Not even debatable.
Yeah but those other two guys were highly touted QBs, isn’t that the only thing that matters? From reading BBI, I’ve learned that an ordinary QB is more valuable than a very good RB.
Why people don't ever discuss the gray middle ground is what rabbit holes a lot of these discussions.
Why people don't ever discuss the gray middle ground is what rabbit holes a lot of these discussions.
Come on man. If Barkley doesn’t run for 4000 yards and lead the Giants to the playoffs in year one he is an utter failure because the GM said he was touched by the hand of God. I’ll be foaming at the mouth if this guy doesn’t end up the best RB ever because our GM gushed about him. I’m sitting here just waiting to pounce because the Daily News May post an article picking on Gettleman and Barkley if he doesn’t run for 300 yards every week.... and I take the articles that some fat slob from the Daily News writes seriously, man.
Every time Barkley doesn't have a spectacular showing, we'll have to hear about how God must have taken the day off or how "DSG" is clueless.
Can't wait!
I know you all as good posters too when it comes to football, but you can't tell me you don't get some interest or "jollies" out of the argumentative battles you take on.
just sayin' (again)...
Beyond that, I suppose if we all agreed on everything, there wouldn't be much to talk about. :)
;-)
Why people don't ever discuss the gray middle ground is what rabbit holes a lot of these discussions.
Would you really say that a runningback picked 2nd overall and played 10 years, finishing with 5500 rushing yards, and only actually got a full time starter's share of carries in three of those 10 years turned out to be a quality pick?
Put another way, think of an NFL player who you would describe as fully average. Not special, not bad. Solid starter.
Would picking that player 2nd overall be classified as a success? If Justin Pugh was drafted 2nd overall, would that not equate to a wasted pick?
He only had two 1,000 yard seasons and he had nearly 500 receptions in his career.
What part of the gray area I was talking about above is confusing? He's neither a bust, nor a guy who lived up to the #2 position. He was neither a wasted pick nor a terrible one.
I don't even get the connection to Pugh. Pugh was drafted much lower and many here look at him as a wasted pick. Not sure what the exercise of drafting him at #2 illustrates.
I expect Barkley to be better, but people talk about Bush like he was some massive bust which wasn't the case at all.
Reggie Bush was a All pro RB? Or a All Pro special teams player who played on a SB winning team
U honestly would be happy if Barkley is nothing more then a dynamic scat back and great special teams player?
Expectations for the 2nd overall pick have to be much higher