When the gap between him, Guice and Michel isn’t that big?
There is this notion going around that guys like Guice and Michel are pretty much on par or a tad below Barkley. After the combine process ends, this myth will be erased.
Barkley is far from a perfect prospect. The power doesn't show up on tape. Guice is a better pure runner.
When the gap between him, Guice and Michel isn’t that big?
There is this notion going around that guys like Guice and Michel are pretty much on par or a tad below Barkley. After the combine process ends, this myth will be erased.
Silly thought process. Barkley disappeared in big games. Sony Michel excelled. Gym rats and workout warriors excel at the combine. What is on tape is more important. Put tape and combine together and then you have some evidence.
I suspect that a few RBs come close or exceed Barkley.
The combine will only show speed and bench presses.
A few? C'mon really? That's a bold statement.
I'd be interested to see whether Sy feels that "a few RBs come close to or exceed" Barkley.
It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that taking a RB that high isn't the best COA, but as usual with BBI this has now snowballed into foolish nonsense if we are suggesting that multiple RBs are better prospects.
everyone always talks about those superbowl winning... Â
the guy the Cowboys took #4 overall would have led the league in rushing his first 2 seasons in the league. Barkley is a much better prospect than Elliott was coming out.
Elliott's a great RB, but he also has 3 All-Pro OL in front of him. Just a *little* bit easier to run behind that OL than, say, the Giants...
RE: everyone always talks about those superbowl winning... Â
Emmitt - 2 SBs
Payton - 1 SB
Sanders - 0 appearances
Curtis Martin - 0 rings, loss in only appearance
Frank Gore - 0 rings, loss in only appearance
Tomlinson - 0 appearances
Bettis - 1 SB
Dickerson - 0 appearances
Dorsett - 1 win/1 loss
Brown - 1 title (pre-SB)
11-15 (since Faulk was mentioned):
Faulk - 1 win/1 loss
AP - 0 appearances
Edgerrin James - 1 loss
Marcus Allen - 1 SB
Franco Harris - 4 SBs
So the 'top 10' (debatable list, but not subjective) combined for 6 titles (5 SB rings) in 9 SB/title game appearances.
Adding in the next 5 gives 12 titles (11 SBs) in 17 appearances.
In other words, the top 15 RBs average 0.8 titles/career and 1.13 appearances/career.
RE: I think the best running backs after Barkley Â
unless you are convinced that Webb is the answer?! You need a QB in order to get to the playoffs and win it all. There’s no mistaking that. Eli will probably not be around more then another year and then what? We’re in, what DG likes to call, QB Hell!!
Emmitt - 2 SBs
Payton - 1 SB
Sanders - 0 appearances
Curtis Martin - 0 rings, loss in only appearance
Frank Gore - 0 rings, loss in only appearance
Tomlinson - 0 appearances
Bettis - 1 SB
Dickerson - 0 appearances
Dorsett - 1 win/1 loss
Brown - 1 title (pre-SB)
11-15 (since Faulk was mentioned):
Faulk - 1 win/1 loss
AP - 0 appearances
Edgerrin James - 1 loss
Marcus Allen - 1 SB
Franco Harris - 4 SBs
So the 'top 10' (debatable list, but not subjective) combined for 6 titles (5 SB rings) in 9 SB/title game appearances.
Adding in the next 5 gives 12 titles (11 SBs) in 17 appearances.
In other words, the top 15 RBs average 0.8 titles/career and 1.13 appearances/career.
do you really think curtis martin, bettis, the edge, faulk, franco harris are in the top 10 for god sake? my point is it doesnt matter if you have no line or qb. the sad thing is this board is all about black and white, no gray area...curtis fuggin martin, just stop it.
RE: RE: everyone always talks about those superbowl winning... Â
do you really think curtis martin, bettis, the edge, faulk, franco harris are in the top 10 for god sake? my point is it doesnt matter if you have no line or qb. the sad thing is this board is all about black and white, no gray area...curtis fuggin martin, just stop it.
You have some reading issues. I clearly state that whether it's the top 10 all time is debatable. I was merely listing the top 10 all time rushers. Clearly Jim Brown is better than 10th and Frank Gore is closer to Tiki than the #5 RB all time.
Faulk is definitely in the discussion for top 10 RBs though. And Martin is very underrated, though probably more top 20.
That said - can we please not compare Saquon Barkley to Trent Richardson?
Not even close.
I'm sorry but we get to continue to compare Barkley to Trent Richardson because Richardson was the 3rd pick in the draft and considered an elite talent. Everybody can talk about what a stiff he is now, but at the time he was drafted third overall nobody batted an eye.
Here is a snippet from Boylhart's profile...
Quote:
Trent is one of the best players in this draft -- in fact, some might say he is the best. He should impact right away for the team that drafts him. Every year we go through the experts suggesting that the NFL is a passing league and then about half-way through the season, teams who are losing begin to rely on the running game to start winning once again. You cannot go through the season and keep a healthy quarterback without the threat of a strong running game for defenses to worry about and game plan for. History has proven that many teams win with average quarterbacks who have excellent running backs in the back field. History has also proven that not many franchise quarterbacks succeed without a running game to balance the offense. It's simple -- the formula is excellent running game equals a lesser chance of the quarterback getting hit and injured. Trent will be a very successful running back and a multi-talented threat for all defenses on every down.
But perhaps you would prefer to compare Barkley to Blair Thomas or Ron Brown because they went #2 overall and the Giants have the second pick in the draft.
It's a silly comparison. I for one laughed, on twitter, at an nfl draft publication that said Trent Richardson was the next Adrian Peterson. I called it...that he would be a bust. And here's the difference, and why I didn't like Richardson and I love Barkley: Richardson had plenty of big runs that were almost exclusively due to enormous holes that the best OL in the country were creating for him. He clearly benefitted from not just a good, but absolute dominance from his O-line and the Alabama defense...as we know, a dominant defense greatly helps your run game as the opponent's defense wears down by having to be on the field a lot more. And when they didn't have to deal with Richardson, they had to try to bring down Eddie Lacy.
Richardson didn't show me any great burst or lateral agility and quickness. He was a pretty tough runner for college, and that didn't translate to the NFL where everyone else is big and tough.
Barkley is different. He HAS the explosive burst, the lateral agility and quickness, he also has much better hands as a receiver, is a better blocker, and unlike Richardson, he didn't benefit from a dominant offensive line. In fact, the Penn State O-line wasn't very good, and defenses really loaded the box against Barkley.
They are completely different RB prospects and I do not lavish praise on RB prospects like this...like, ever.
You take BPA. And to me that's Barkley. You don't win Big Ten Offensive Player of the Year - two years in a row -- unless you have performed at a high level.
He's a special player. You don't believe me? Watch this clip -- especially when he stops on a dime on the sideline.
When you State a reasonable position as a "no brainer" when there are obviously many other just as reasonable options, you immediately lose credibility in regard to your opinion
the guy the Cowboys took #4 overall would have led the league in rushing his first 2 seasons in the league. Barkley is a much better prospect than Elliott was coming out.
and they would probably be a better team with a better outlook if they took Ramsey
RE: RE: RE: everyone always talks about those superbowl winning... Â
runningbacks...take a look at the 10 best rb's ever, most have never sniffed a superbowl ring.
The player is less important than the team productivity.
Look at the top 10 rushing teams this year - 9 of them made the playoffs.
You need to run the football.
Giants were 31st running the ball when they won the SB in 2011 and Packers were 32 nd when they won. So, I think there lots of different ways to win.
The 2011 Giants were fairly anomalous for a variety of reasons. It's also worth noting that they ran for nearly 200 yards against ATL in the Wild Card game and over 110 in the SB against NE.
There's a reason why they were a maddeningly inconsistent 9-win regular season team that lost to teams like the Rex Grossman-led Redskins.
GB ran for 128 yards in their WC game in their SB year and 12 in the NFCC game... oh, and they also had the best QB on the planet.
Of course there are always going to be exceptions and teams that win in different ways. But more often than not, teams that win in this league can run the football.
Picking either a QB or OT in the first round with the second anything from OL, DL or RB is how I see this shaking out.
Barkley may be a great RB but the drop-off between him and some of the other suspects, at the NFL level.
Look closer. There's not an OT in this draft worthy of the #2 pick.
If they don't love one of the QBs, trading back to 5 with Denver is the smart play. Get their next year's #1, this year's #2 or 3, and whatever else you can get.
Unfortunately the odds of said QB becoming a good starting QB are extremely slim. The only good 2nd round QB's in football are Brees, Garoppolo, Dalton, and Carr. Brees was the first pick of the 2nd round because of his height. The jury is still out on Garoppolo and is Carr really a franchise QB? I will not list every 2nd round QB since Brees but for every Brees there are dozens of Geno Smith's, Hackenberg's, Kizer, Osweiler, Kaepernick, Clausen, White, Bromm, Henne, Kolb, Beck, Stanton, etc.
Quote:
When the gap between him, Guice and Michel isn’t that big?
There is this notion going around that guys like Guice and Michel are pretty much on par or a tad below Barkley. After the combine process ends, this myth will be erased.
Barkley is far from a perfect prospect. The power doesn't show up on tape. Guice is a better pure runner.
Quote:
In comment 13780244 ajr2456 said:
Quote:
When the gap between him, Guice and Michel isn’t that big?
There is this notion going around that guys like Guice and Michel are pretty much on par or a tad below Barkley. After the combine process ends, this myth will be erased.
Silly thought process. Barkley disappeared in big games. Sony Michel excelled. Gym rats and workout warriors excel at the combine. What is on tape is more important. Put tape and combine together and then you have some evidence.
I suspect that a few RBs come close or exceed Barkley.
The combine will only show speed and bench presses.
A few? C'mon really? That's a bold statement.
I'd be interested to see whether Sy feels that "a few RBs come close to or exceed" Barkley.
It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that taking a RB that high isn't the best COA, but as usual with BBI this has now snowballed into foolish nonsense if we are suggesting that multiple RBs are better prospects.
Sure, guys like Emmitt Smith, Walter Payton, Marshall Faulk, Marcus Allen...they never won a Super Bowl.
Elliott's a great RB, but he also has 3 All-Pro OL in front of him. Just a *little* bit easier to run behind that OL than, say, the Giants...
Speaking of foolish nonsense.
We just spew bullshit to support our view with out knowing or caring if it is accurate.
The player is less important than the team productivity.
Look at the top 10 rushing teams this year - 9 of them made the playoffs.
You need to run the football.
Payton - 1 SB
Sanders - 0 appearances
Curtis Martin - 0 rings, loss in only appearance
Frank Gore - 0 rings, loss in only appearance
Tomlinson - 0 appearances
Bettis - 1 SB
Dickerson - 0 appearances
Dorsett - 1 win/1 loss
Brown - 1 title (pre-SB)
11-15 (since Faulk was mentioned):
Faulk - 1 win/1 loss
AP - 0 appearances
Edgerrin James - 1 loss
Marcus Allen - 1 SB
Franco Harris - 4 SBs
So the 'top 10' (debatable list, but not subjective) combined for 6 titles (5 SB rings) in 9 SB/title game appearances.
Adding in the next 5 gives 12 titles (11 SBs) in 17 appearances.
In other words, the top 15 RBs average 0.8 titles/career and 1.13 appearances/career.
I'd add Penny to that group. The guy is gonna be a helluva pro IMO.
I am huge on Barkley, but even I won't say he is a no brainer
Payton - 1 SB
Sanders - 0 appearances
Curtis Martin - 0 rings, loss in only appearance
Frank Gore - 0 rings, loss in only appearance
Tomlinson - 0 appearances
Bettis - 1 SB
Dickerson - 0 appearances
Dorsett - 1 win/1 loss
Brown - 1 title (pre-SB)
11-15 (since Faulk was mentioned):
Faulk - 1 win/1 loss
AP - 0 appearances
Edgerrin James - 1 loss
Marcus Allen - 1 SB
Franco Harris - 4 SBs
So the 'top 10' (debatable list, but not subjective) combined for 6 titles (5 SB rings) in 9 SB/title game appearances.
Adding in the next 5 gives 12 titles (11 SBs) in 17 appearances.
In other words, the top 15 RBs average 0.8 titles/career and 1.13 appearances/career.
do you really think curtis martin, bettis, the edge, faulk, franco harris are in the top 10 for god sake? my point is it doesnt matter if you have no line or qb. the sad thing is this board is all about black and white, no gray area...curtis fuggin martin, just stop it.
Quote:
runningbacks...take a look at the 10 best rb's ever, most have never sniffed a superbowl ring.
The player is less important than the team productivity.
Look at the top 10 rushing teams this year - 9 of them made the playoffs.
You need to run the football.
Giants were 31st running the ball when they won the SB in 2011 and Packers were 32 nd when they won. So, I think there lots of different ways to win.
do you really think curtis martin, bettis, the edge, faulk, franco harris are in the top 10 for god sake? my point is it doesnt matter if you have no line or qb. the sad thing is this board is all about black and white, no gray area...curtis fuggin martin, just stop it.
You have some reading issues. I clearly state that whether it's the top 10 all time is debatable. I was merely listing the top 10 all time rushers. Clearly Jim Brown is better than 10th and Frank Gore is closer to Tiki than the #5 RB all time.
Faulk is definitely in the discussion for top 10 RBs though. And Martin is very underrated, though probably more top 20.
Quote:
That said - can we please not compare Saquon Barkley to Trent Richardson?
Not even close.
I'm sorry but we get to continue to compare Barkley to Trent Richardson because Richardson was the 3rd pick in the draft and considered an elite talent. Everybody can talk about what a stiff he is now, but at the time he was drafted third overall nobody batted an eye.
Here is a snippet from Boylhart's profile...
Quote:
Trent is one of the best players in this draft -- in fact, some might say he is the best. He should impact right away for the team that drafts him. Every year we go through the experts suggesting that the NFL is a passing league and then about half-way through the season, teams who are losing begin to rely on the running game to start winning once again. You cannot go through the season and keep a healthy quarterback without the threat of a strong running game for defenses to worry about and game plan for. History has proven that many teams win with average quarterbacks who have excellent running backs in the back field. History has also proven that not many franchise quarterbacks succeed without a running game to balance the offense. It's simple -- the formula is excellent running game equals a lesser chance of the quarterback getting hit and injured. Trent will be a very successful running back and a multi-talented threat for all defenses on every down.
But perhaps you would prefer to compare Barkley to Blair Thomas or Ron Brown because they went #2 overall and the Giants have the second pick in the draft.
It's a silly comparison. I for one laughed, on twitter, at an nfl draft publication that said Trent Richardson was the next Adrian Peterson. I called it...that he would be a bust. And here's the difference, and why I didn't like Richardson and I love Barkley: Richardson had plenty of big runs that were almost exclusively due to enormous holes that the best OL in the country were creating for him. He clearly benefitted from not just a good, but absolute dominance from his O-line and the Alabama defense...as we know, a dominant defense greatly helps your run game as the opponent's defense wears down by having to be on the field a lot more. And when they didn't have to deal with Richardson, they had to try to bring down Eddie Lacy.
Richardson didn't show me any great burst or lateral agility and quickness. He was a pretty tough runner for college, and that didn't translate to the NFL where everyone else is big and tough.
Barkley is different. He HAS the explosive burst, the lateral agility and quickness, he also has much better hands as a receiver, is a better blocker, and unlike Richardson, he didn't benefit from a dominant offensive line. In fact, the Penn State O-line wasn't very good, and defenses really loaded the box against Barkley.
They are completely different RB prospects and I do not lavish praise on RB prospects like this...like, ever.
Barkley may be a great RB but the drop-off between him and some of the other suspects, at the NFL level.
He's a special player. You don't believe me? Watch this clip -- especially when he stops on a dime on the sideline.
Also, just because past Penn State RBs haven't done well in the Pros doesn't mean anything.
Barkley 44-yard run vs Iowa - ( New Window )
I could say the same thing about QB. And all things being equal Barkley is more of a guarantee than those QBs.
and they would probably be a better team with a better outlook if they took Ramsey
Quote:
In comment 13780439 BronxBombers said:
Quote:
runningbacks...take a look at the 10 best rb's ever, most have never sniffed a superbowl ring.
The player is less important than the team productivity.
Look at the top 10 rushing teams this year - 9 of them made the playoffs.
You need to run the football.
Giants were 31st running the ball when they won the SB in 2011 and Packers were 32 nd when they won. So, I think there lots of different ways to win.
The 2011 Giants were fairly anomalous for a variety of reasons. It's also worth noting that they ran for nearly 200 yards against ATL in the Wild Card game and over 110 in the SB against NE.
There's a reason why they were a maddeningly inconsistent 9-win regular season team that lost to teams like the Rex Grossman-led Redskins.
GB ran for 128 yards in their WC game in their SB year and 12 in the NFCC game... oh, and they also had the best QB on the planet.
Of course there are always going to be exceptions and teams that win in different ways. But more often than not, teams that win in this league can run the football.
Barkley may be a great RB but the drop-off between him and some of the other suspects, at the NFL level.
Look closer. There's not an OT in this draft worthy of the #2 pick.
If they don't love one of the QBs, trading back to 5 with Denver is the smart play. Get their next year's #1, this year's #2 or 3, and whatever else you can get.
Grab either Nelson, Fitzpatrick or Chubb at 5.
Reminds me a lot of Brandon Jacobs.
Another guy to keep an eye on in the draft. He'd be a great complement to Wayne Gallman, IMO