for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

Barkley - Pro Comparisons

Allen in CNJ : 4/14/2018 2:16 pm
I will preface my entire post with an apology to BBI for yet another Saquon Barkley post. I did a search, and couldn't find anything related so this is why I'm adding another amidst the others for the mere purpose of one thing: a pure observation on my part.

So I've been watching a lot of highlight reels on Barkley, and have seen the same ones the rest of BBI has. Overall, he's a truly generational talent that can change any offense and has the skillset to be a 3 down back.

My take on these videos are the following (and many of you have stated the same points):

1) He runs to avoid contact (which is great for his longevity and wear and tear)
2) He runs tremendously well in space
3) He leaps way too much (I really think this is a major negative!)
4) He's great in the passing game - both pass blocking, blitz pick-up, and running routes, screens as well as checkdowns
5) He has sneaky speed
6) He possesses countless intangibles on the field, in the community, and in the locker room.

In looking at all of this, and really jogging my memory, I can say he carries the attributes of a young Rodney Hampton, Tiki, and to a lesser extend LeSean McCoy and Brian Westbrook.

But in really going through my thoughts, the one comparison that won't go away is this: BARRY SANDERS. Yeah, I know, but in watching Barkley, and in watching Sanders, everything basically fits. The running in space, the running to avoid contact, etc. Remember Barry Sanders had a tremendous pro career on a series of crappy teams with little to no supporting cast - and more importantly, he went relatively uninjured his ENTIRE career.

If there ever was a running back to take with the #2, it's this guy, just my opinion.

Let me know your thoughts, and again please accept my apologies for starting another Barkley thread!
Pages: 1 2 3 4 <<Prev | Show All |  Next>>
It’s funny because I can go back to Adrian Peterson’s  
UConn4523 : 4/15/2018 8:04 am : link
Sophomore season and simply quote that he failed to hit 100 total yards in 5 of his first 6 games. Great analysis, right?

As for Barkley’s negative runs, what does that even suggest other van he had a bad OLine? Is he getting the ball and just refusing to move forward or is he already having to avoid contact?

I’ve always been against drafting a RB high, but that’s also because most of the RBs considered for the first round just aren’t in this class of player. The NFL is also a constantly evolving league when it comes to effective schemes which is why I don’t care to quote history when we can easily make our own. Why wouldn’t we want our own version of Bell and Brown? Why wouldn’t we want a Beckham, Barkley, Engram foundation for years to come? Why can’t we also bolster the OLine with our other picks and future free agency?
I just want the Giants coming out of this draft  
Mike from Ohio : 4/15/2018 8:23 am : link
with a difference maker. The problem with the Giants offense last year wasn't just a poor offensive line, but aside from OBJ there was really nobody you had to worry about. The offense was predictable and easy to defend. Creating matchup problems and multiple threats keep a defense off balance and more likely to make a mistake.

A top tier QB makes everybody on the field better and more dangerous. If that guy isn't there, RB is the one skill position on offense where the Giants don't have anyone a defense needs to pay attention to. Putting a talent like Barkley in there creates matchup and scheme problems because he is just as dangerous running pass routes as he is running the ball. With a talented play caller like Shurmur, that should instantly make this offense much more dynamic.

All of us want the OLine fixed and nobody is dismissing the need to do that. But drafting a guy like Nelson at #2 fixes one position on the line, it doesn't fix the line. The #2 pick has to be an impact guy, and Barkley certainly looks like that.
Here is Greg Cosell's full scouting report on Barkley.  
mittenedman : 4/15/2018 8:44 am : link


IMO Cosell is the best in the business and the concerns about Barkley bouncing everything outside are legit. That's the 1 hesitation - is this guy physical enough to be an every down back in the NFL? I think he is - but it freaks me out.
And is he bouncing outside because  
UConn4523 : 4/15/2018 8:50 am : link
his team sucked or because he doesn’t know any better? How good was his coaching?

Cosell can’t answer that.
And I’m not saying it’s wrong  
UConn4523 : 4/15/2018 8:53 am : link
but just adding some color on why I take some of these knocks with a grain of salt. Some issues are issues, some are perception without knowing the root cause. That’s why you need good scouts and coaching.
"In 2017 he was much more decisive running downhill..."  
Eric on Li : 4/15/2018 9:25 am : link
isn't that saying Barkely showed improvement on the only negative people have called out? I also really like Cossell and reading that scouting report that was what jumped out to me (other than the 1.47 split on the first 10 yards of his 40, which is the fastest I think I've ever seen - Beckham was 1.57 for reference).
RE: And I’m not saying it’s wrong  
Milton : 4/15/2018 10:05 am : link
In comment 13914618 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
but just adding some color on why I take some of these knocks with a grain of salt.
Matt Waldman believes Barkley is an exciting, dynamic, multi-purpose RB with huge potential to be successful, but he is critical of his decision-making and football maturity and he references LeSean McCoy, Jamal Charles, and Alvin Kamara as RBs who overcame similar issues to shine at the NFL level and CJ Spiller and Laurence Maroney as two talented college RBs who failed to overcome those same issues.

I recommend you watch the whole 23 minute video for the full picture, but if you're short on time, I cued up two specific plays to give you an idea of the maturity/decision-making issue being discussed....
1st and goal from 9-yard line
1st and 10 from own 6-yard line
Milton  
UConn4523 : 4/15/2018 10:15 am : link
I watched the two clips. It’s great to critique that and say what he should have done, but a lot of that is hindsight. It’s no different than when during game threads BBIers talk about a cut a WR should have made if he were “smarter” or “more aware”. If a great WR or RB makes a couple bad decisions on film, that doesn’t mean he has “maturity issues”, IMO. It COULD mean a lot of things, however, not all of which would be a big concern. Like I said earlier, great coaching can make average players look great - what can it do for great players?
RE: RE: Championships may build a team's legacy through the ages  
Dr. D : 4/15/2018 11:02 am : link
In comment 13914396 .McL. said:
Quote:

So you want us to be the Lions of the 90s for the next decade... That's awesome... :/

I would rather win it all with the likes of Bradshaw and Jacobs, than be mediocre with Barry Sanders.


So if we get a RB that runs like Barry Sanders that means our org is going turn stupid and incapable of constucting a great team?

Was it Sanders fault that the Lions management couldn't put together a good team around him? Also, consider the Sanders years were the best years the Lions have had in almost 60 years.

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but think that a great RB, coupled with better less predictable playcalling, will make our OL look better (not to mention the new additions). And it's also possible Barkley shouldn't be considered just a RB, but a great all around weapon.

If DG and Shurmer pick Barkley im good with it and will even get excited for the season.
RE: RE: It’s pointless arguing with you  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 2:31 pm : link
In comment 13914573 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
In comment 13914559 UConn4523 said:


Quote:


if you aren’t going to factor in the talent on Barkley’s team into your analysis than it’s worthless.



Some people come to this site to talk football, and some come to be told they're smart. McL is clearly in the second grouping. If you point out a team that wins running the ball he will just claim the OL was responsible and they would have won with any back. There is no point in trying to discuss rational things with people who don't consider any view but their own. This guy is linking to his own posts as "proof" that his views are right!


I linked to my own post because in that post I have about links to about 20 studies that support the point. It has a MOUNTAIN of evidence supporting what I am saying...

I just don't feel like having to format all the links again.
RE: RE: It’s pointless arguing with you  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 3:43 pm : link
In comment 13914573 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
In comment 13914559 UConn4523 said:


Quote:


if you aren’t going to factor in the talent on Barkley’s team into your analysis than it’s worthless.



Some people come to this site to talk football, and some come to be told they're smart. McL is clearly in the second grouping. If you point out a team that wins running the ball he will just claim the OL was responsible and they would have won with any back. There is no point in trying to discuss rational things with people who don't consider any view but their own. This guy is linking to his own posts as "proof" that his views are right!

And no, I don't factor any RBs talents into the analysis because the evidence shows that RB talent does not matter. RBs simply do not have the positional value to support picking so high.

I can say the same about you, you refuse to factor into your analysis just how devalued the RB position is, no matter how much evidence you are presented with. At least I present evidence to support my position. You have provided exactly zero evidence to show that a RB really does make a difference.

The fact is you cannot find an example showing that having supreme RB talent leads to championship teams without superior OL and passing attacks because it simply does not exist. But you can find examples where superior passing attacks with poor running attacks led to a championship. There a re plenty of examples of that. Especially when you factor in that there are very good RBs that will give you 80 to 90% of the production of a great RB for next to nothing.

You have to think of it in a wholistic team building way. You simply cannot win a championship without a superior passing attack. To have a superior passing attack you first need a QB and an OL. A by product of building a superior OL for the passing attack is that usually that same OL will be above average running the ball. Once you have a superior QB with a superior OL you can win without a great RB. But you still need to pay other positions on defense.

You simply can't pay every position. You have to make compromises. Once you realize that you have to make compromises the question is where do you compromise.

The most obvious place to compromise is RB because you can get decent ones cheap. Its difficult to get decent WR and TE cheap. On defense you need edge rushers and CBs. You also need safeties but they cost less. You can skimp on LB if you have good interior DL, or you can skimp a little on interior DL if your LB are decent.

If you pay at RB, then you have to skimp at a position that is going to hurt your team.

I am not willing to skimp on other parts of the team to pay for a great RB when I get 80 to 90% of the production with an RB that costs next to nothing.
You must not read when I post  
UConn4523 : 4/15/2018 3:51 pm : link
I never actually said anything other than Barkley is a great player and while I wouldnt normally draft a RB this high, he’s the lone exception because of how much better he is than the rest of the recent RBs that have come out.

I’m actually pretty middle of the road and looking at it objectively, unlike you.

I’m not really interested in going back and forth with you on this. The NFL is an always evolving league, having Barkley will only help us, and possibly alter how how the league does things if he’s paired with Beckham.

Don’t know what else to tell you.
RE: RE: RE: He’ll be somewhere in between Marshsll Faulk and Reggie Bush  
santacruzom : 4/15/2018 4:00 pm : link
In comment 13914398 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 13914309 Strahan91 said:


Quote:


In comment 13914266 TD said:


Quote:


I fear he may be more like Bush.

People forget how good Bush was in college. He won every award and looked like the second coming. They have a similar style and qualities.

https://youtu.be/RQauccrEEuQ



Charlie Casserly said on NFLN that he thinks Barkley is the best player in the draft. Compared him to Tomlinson but said he's a better prospect than Tomlinson was coming out. I bring this up because he caught a lot of flack for taking Mario Williams over Reggie Bush.



If it was guaranteed that Barkley was as good as Tomlinson, I would still say no thank you. I will spend my resources elsewhere.


But what if acquiring a back of that caliber doesn't somehow preclude you from acquiring talent elsewhere? I know, this is some crazy shit but stay with me -- what if you can take that generational talent at RB, and then surround him with other talented players later in the same draft, or even in later years through the draft and free agency?
Also curious how we are getting  
UConn4523 : 4/15/2018 4:08 pm : link
80%-90% of a top RBs production for next to nothing.

You keep saying stuff like this and t makes it very difficult to take your posts seriously.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Why would getting a Barry Sanders talent  
jpennyva : 4/15/2018 4:16 pm : link
In comment 13914494 .McL. said:
Quote:
Where we strongly disagree is whether taking Barkley (or any RB in my mind) at the #2 spot helps us win a championship.


The part of the quote above where I bolded sums up exactly where many differences of opinions lie. SB isn't just any other running back. By many accounts, he is a generational talent. I think he is worth the pick but I will accept whatever decision DG and PS make in the draft.
RE: You must not read when I post  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 4:19 pm : link
In comment 13915012 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
I never actually said anything other than Barkley is a great player and while I wouldnt normally draft a RB this high, he’s the lone exception because of how much better he is than the rest of the recent RBs that have come out.

I’m actually pretty middle of the road and looking at it objectively, unlike you.

I’m not really interested in going back and forth with you on this. The NFL is an always evolving league, having Barkley will only help us, and possibly alter how how the league does things if he’s paired with Beckham.

Don’t know what else to tell you.


I am not sure what to tell you. I am not debating how good Barkley is.

Its like this. You have $2500 a month to spend, and you need to spend per month on the following items:

Really cheap non nutritious Food $400 (makes you sick, you miss significant periods of work)
or Modest but Nutritious Food $600
or Luxury Dining $1000
Utilities $300
Gas $100
Rent cheap crime ridden neighborhood: 600 (you get robbed and beaten missing significant periods of work)
or modest apt in a safe neighborhood: 1000
or Upscale apt in a safe neighborhood: 1500
Car unreliable junker: $50
used but reliable compact: $100
Luxury SUV: $750 (including extra $50 for gas)

What choices do you make! Think of the food as you OL, your apartment as your QB and the car as your RB.

You simply cannot survive with cheap food or a cheap place to live, the bad food makes you sick and lose time at work, the bad neighborhood results in bodily harm and you lose time from work. Lose time from work and you are fired and have 0 money.

So you have to get minimum modest nutritious food, an apartment in a decent neighborhood. That brings you to $2000, if you buy the SUV, then you have to skimp on the Food or the Apt and we know that means failure.

You can go for the Apt in the Upscale neighborhood with the compact car, that gets you to $2500 and you do well!

The SUV is absolutely fantastic, it can do other worldly things. But if you buy it, you simply can't make your finances work. In the end, it simply doesn't matter how great a car the SUV is, you need to allocate your money elsewhere.
The problem with that cute analogy is that it’s based off of  
UConn4523 : 4/15/2018 4:57 pm : link
only 1 line of thinking, which we all know isn’t the case with the NFL, or any sport for that matter. The only constant, or almost constant in the NFL is great QB play trumps everything else. For that reason I’m fully on board the QB train but if DG doesn’t agree and likes Barkley instead, so be it. 2018 isn’t the only draft, his job is to build a better future for the NYG.
One of the things UConn mentioned  
Dr. D : 4/15/2018 5:08 pm : link
is that the NFL is a constantly evolving league. Five years ago, RBs were barely taken in the first round, but in the last few years some have been taken within the first 5 picks. Are all those GMs stupid?

The Jaguars didn't win it all last year, but Fournette sure made a difference (when he was healthy) and it's not like they had a late round QB. Bortles was a high 1st rd pick, he just hasn't turned out to be that good.

The cowpies are a much different team, a potential playoff team with Zeke. Pretty mediocre without him.

You think Gurley didn't help Goff and the Rams become a playoff team?

As I said, I'm totally open minded about this and whether we take a QB or Barkley I'll be on board. If it's Chubb or Nelson, I hope it's after a trade down.

RE: One of the things UConn mentioned  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 7:26 pm : link
In comment 13915077 Dr. D said:
Quote:
is that the NFL is a constantly evolving league. Five years ago, RBs were barely taken in the first round, but in the last few years some have been taken within the first 5 picks. Are all those GMs stupid?

The Jaguars didn't win it all last year, but Fournette sure made a difference (when he was healthy) and it's not like they had a late round QB. Bortles was a high 1st rd pick, he just hasn't turned out to be that good.

The cowpies are a much different team, a potential playoff team with Zeke. Pretty mediocre without him.

You think Gurley didn't help Goff and the Rams become a playoff team?

As I said, I'm totally open minded about this and whether we take a QB or Barkley I'll be on board. If it's Chubb or Nelson, I hope it's after a trade down.


None of those teams have won anything yet. They each have serious holes. Lets see if they ever do. I have my doubts.

With regards to Gurley, I have already stated my case about him rather emphatically. No I don't think Gurley played a major role in the Rams resurgence. I think it is more directly tied to the quality of the OL and the play of the QB. I believe you could put a player like Ajayi on the Rams instead of Gurley and you would have pretty much the same results, but now you have more money to spend elsewhere.
Hahaha  
UConn4523 : 4/15/2018 7:33 pm : link
2000+ yards and 19 TDS but yeah, Gurley didn’t play a major role. His cap hit was under $4 million as well.

It’s really really hard to take you seriously.
RE: RE: RE: He’ll be somewhere in between Marshsll Faulk and Reggie Bush  
chopperhatch : 4/15/2018 8:22 pm : link
In comment 13914398 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 13914309 Strahan91 said:


Quote:


In comment 13914266 TD said:


Quote:


I fear he may be more like Bush.

People forget how good Bush was in college. He won every award and looked like the second coming. They have a similar style and qualities.

https://youtu.be/RQauccrEEuQ



Charlie Casserly said on NFLN that he thinks Barkley is the best player in the draft. Compared him to Tomlinson but said he's a better prospect than Tomlinson was coming out. I bring this up because he caught a lot of flack for taking Mario Williams over Reggie Bush.



If it was guaranteed that Barkley was as good as Tomlinson, I would still say no thank you. I will spend my resources elsewhere.


What a dumb fucking statement. You would turn your nose up at the guy who is 3rd on the all time TD list.
He’d spend his resources on other players  
UConn4523 : 4/15/2018 8:31 pm : link
that he’s be able to guarantee success for. Simple.
I love it, guys like Gurley, Fournette, Zeke, and Kamara,  
PatersonPlank : 4/15/2018 8:36 pm : link
are all not worth it. That's rediculous. The impact those guys had on their teams is unmeasurable.
RE: I love it, guys like Gurley, Fournette, Zeke, and Kamara,  
UConn4523 : 4/15/2018 8:38 pm : link
In comment 13915226 PatersonPlank said:
Quote:
are all not worth it. That's rediculous. The impact those guys had on their teams is unmeasurable.


All on rookie contracts getting pennies, but you can replace them for even cheaper and only lose 10% production, who knew!
RE: RE: RE: RE: He’ll be somewhere in between Marshsll Faulk and Reggie Bush  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 8:59 pm : link
In comment 13915205 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
In comment 13914398 .McL. said:


Quote:


In comment 13914309 Strahan91 said:


Quote:


In comment 13914266 TD said:


Quote:


I fear he may be more like Bush.

People forget how good Bush was in college. He won every award and looked like the second coming. They have a similar style and qualities.

https://youtu.be/RQauccrEEuQ



Charlie Casserly said on NFLN that he thinks Barkley is the best player in the draft. Compared him to Tomlinson but said he's a better prospect than Tomlinson was coming out. I bring this up because he caught a lot of flack for taking Mario Williams over Reggie Bush.



If it was guaranteed that Barkley was as good as Tomlinson, I would still say no thank you. I will spend my resources elsewhere.



What a dumb fucking statement. You would turn your nose up at the guy who is 3rd on the all time TD list.


You haven't read the whole thesis Chopper.

The point is to have a RB like that you have to use to many resources. Draft and Cap. Those resources are better spent elsewhere. That is the point. If you pay a RB, then you have to take from a premium position. Taking from a premium position will hurt the team more that the premium RB can help it.

Tell me. How many Championships did Tomlinson's teams win?

I have linked mountains of evidence to support my position.

The best people can do is say that its dumb...

Based on what? Make a case and back it up with evidence.
I have made mine and backed with plenty of evidence.

People claim that my position is wrong. Yet not a single person has been able to produce a shred of evidence to dispute it.

If a team wins despite paying a premium at RB, they are lucky, not good. It means they got an elite performance at a premium position from a player not payed at an elite level. What's more is that its unsustainable. As soon as that player can, they will demand elite pay.

Next year the Giants will have to pay Collins and Beckham. They freed some space, but this team still has plenty of holes. After paying them we will likely be up against the cap the way we are now. We need another edge rusher, we need better OL, we need another CB, not to mention a long term answer at QB. Where do we get the cap dollars to fill all these holes? We are blindly hoping that a UDFA like Wheeler suddenly becomes a quality starting RT. If you ask me, that is not a smart way to build a team. Very low probability of success. Granted its the best we can do for now. This team has tried for years to build a winner by going cheap on the OL. It doesn't work! We can't keep praying for elite performance at premium positions without paying for it. Paying for Solder is a step. But this line is still not significantly better than the line that started the season last year.

This team has lots of weapons at skill positions. With guys like Beckham, Shepard, and Engram, any premium RB would be 3rd or 4th choice... We simply cannot afford that luxury and keep ignoring other positions.
Terrell Davis, wasn’t worth it  
UConn4523 : 4/15/2018 9:02 pm : link
Marshawn Lynch, wasn’t worth it.

And then there’s Brady, Manning’s, Brees and Rodgers dominating the last 20 years so of course there isn’t much.

Look forward, the league is changing and those QBs will be gone soon. And when that happens teams will need to take all the pressure they can off of QBs, like they have already started to do.
Your evidence isn't disputed by other evidence  
santacruzom : 4/15/2018 9:10 pm : link
Because no one else believes that your evidence is as irrefutable as you seem to. In fact, it appears to be tautological or conflating correlation with causation.

Furthermore, you simply dismiss any example of an RB contributing to a good team as benefitting from a good OL. What sort of evidence otherwise would satisfy you? I'm guessing none.
in fact  
santacruzom : 4/15/2018 9:16 pm : link
it seems a bit odd that you so vehemently deflect all RB contributions towards a winning team as merely being the beneficiary of a good offensive line, while not also considering that a losing team with an elite RB might be a losing team because of other factors.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: He’ll be somewhere in between Marshsll Faulk and Reggie Bush  
chopperhatch : 4/15/2018 9:31 pm : link
In comment 13915246 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 13915205 chopperhatch said:


Quote:


In comment 13914398 .McL. said:


Quote:


In comment 13914309 Strahan91 said:


Quote:


In comment 13914266 TD said:


Quote:


I fear he may be more like Bush.

People forget how good Bush was in college. He won every award and looked like the second coming. They have a similar style and qualities.

https://youtu.be/RQauccrEEuQ



Charlie Casserly said on NFLN that he thinks Barkley is the best player in the draft. Compared him to Tomlinson but said he's a better prospect than Tomlinson was coming out. I bring this up because he caught a lot of flack for taking Mario Williams over Reggie Bush.



If it was guaranteed that Barkley was as good as Tomlinson, I would still say no thank you. I will spend my resources elsewhere.



What a dumb fucking statement. You would turn your nose up at the guy who is 3rd on the all time TD list.



You haven't read the whole thesis Chopper.

The point is to have a RB like that you have to use to many resources. Draft and Cap. Those resources are better spent elsewhere. That is the point. If you pay a RB, then you have to take from a premium position. Taking from a premium position will hurt the team more that the premium RB can help it.

Tell me. How many Championships did Tomlinson's teams win?

I have linked mountains of evidence to support my position.

The best people can do is say that its dumb...

Based on what? Make a case and back it up with evidence.
I have made mine and backed with plenty of evidence.

People claim that my position is wrong. Yet not a single person has been able to produce a shred of evidence to dispute it.

If a team wins despite paying a premium at RB, they are lucky, not good. It means they got an elite performance at a premium position from a player not payed at an elite level. What's more is that its unsustainable. As soon as that player can, they will demand elite pay.

Next year the Giants will have to pay Collins and Beckham. They freed some space, but this team still has plenty of holes. After paying them we will likely be up against the cap the way we are now. We need another edge rusher, we need better OL, we need another CB, not to mention a long term answer at QB. Where do we get the cap dollars to fill all these holes? We are blindly hoping that a UDFA like Wheeler suddenly becomes a quality starting RT. If you ask me, that is not a smart way to build a team. Very low probability of success. Granted its the best we can do for now. This team has tried for years to build a winner by going cheap on the OL. It doesn't work! We can't keep praying for elite performance at premium positions without paying for it. Paying for Solder is a step. But this line is still not significantly better than the line that started the season last year.

This team has lots of weapons at skill positions. With guys like Beckham, Shepard, and Engram, any premium RB would be 3rd or 4th choice... We simply cannot afford that luxury and keep ignoring other positions.


Generally theses are supposed to be one or two sentences. Im not reading more than that when the point is idiotic.
Oh 3/18...  
chopperhatch : 4/15/2018 9:36 pm : link
Worst class in over a decade.
RE: Oh 3/18...  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 9:38 pm : link
In comment 13915261 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
Worst class in over a decade.


Wrong... I was here long before you... Just lost access to my account, had to create a new one. Been here since long before there were logins. When this was called Pete's Corner and you had to type in your handle every time...

Don't think you were here then!
RE: Another Barkley lover... ugh  
djm : 4/15/2018 9:50 pm : link
In comment 13914138 .McL. said:
Quote:
This thread explains why RBs have very little value. No matter how good the RB is he needs a good OL. Once you have a good OL, just about any RB will suffice.

This thread show how many negative runs Barley has. These runs kill drives. Explosive runs can't make up for these runs.


What bullshit. You’re actually saying that there is no such thing as a good or talented rb. It’s all the ol. Total Fucking. Bullshit! Sorry it just is.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: He’ll be somewhere in between Marshsll Faulk and Reggie Bush  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 9:54 pm : link
In comment 13915258 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
In comment 13915246 .McL. said:


Quote:


In comment 13915205 chopperhatch said:


Quote:


In comment 13914398 .McL. said:


Quote:


In comment 13914309 Strahan91 said:


Quote:


In comment 13914266 TD said:


Quote:


I fear he may be more like Bush.

People forget how good Bush was in college. He won every award and looked like the second coming. They have a similar style and qualities.

https://youtu.be/RQauccrEEuQ



Charlie Casserly said on NFLN that he thinks Barkley is the best player in the draft. Compared him to Tomlinson but said he's a better prospect than Tomlinson was coming out. I bring this up because he caught a lot of flack for taking Mario Williams over Reggie Bush.



If it was guaranteed that Barkley was as good as Tomlinson, I would still say no thank you. I will spend my resources elsewhere.



What a dumb fucking statement. You would turn your nose up at the guy who is 3rd on the all time TD list.



You haven't read the whole thesis Chopper.

The point is to have a RB like that you have to use to many resources. Draft and Cap. Those resources are better spent elsewhere. That is the point. If you pay a RB, then you have to take from a premium position. Taking from a premium position will hurt the team more that the premium RB can help it.

Tell me. How many Championships did Tomlinson's teams win?

I have linked mountains of evidence to support my position.

The best people can do is say that its dumb...

Based on what? Make a case and back it up with evidence.
I have made mine and backed with plenty of evidence.

People claim that my position is wrong. Yet not a single person has been able to produce a shred of evidence to dispute it.

If a team wins despite paying a premium at RB, they are lucky, not good. It means they got an elite performance at a premium position from a player not payed at an elite level. What's more is that its unsustainable. As soon as that player can, they will demand elite pay.

Next year the Giants will have to pay Collins and Beckham. They freed some space, but this team still has plenty of holes. After paying them we will likely be up against the cap the way we are now. We need another edge rusher, we need better OL, we need another CB, not to mention a long term answer at QB. Where do we get the cap dollars to fill all these holes? We are blindly hoping that a UDFA like Wheeler suddenly becomes a quality starting RT. If you ask me, that is not a smart way to build a team. Very low probability of success. Granted its the best we can do for now. This team has tried for years to build a winner by going cheap on the OL. It doesn't work! We can't keep praying for elite performance at premium positions without paying for it. Paying for Solder is a step. But this line is still not significantly better than the line that started the season last year.

This team has lots of weapons at skill positions. With guys like Beckham, Shepard, and Engram, any premium RB would be 3rd or 4th choice... We simply cannot afford that luxury and keep ignoring other positions.



Generally theses are supposed to be one or two sentences. Im not reading more than that when the point is idiotic.


Ok let me dumb this down for your two lonely brain cells!

Do not pay too much for RB, you can them on the for less, and use the cash to pay for QBs, OLs, ERs, and CBs...

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: He’ll be somewhere in between Marshsll Faulk and Reggie Bush  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 9:55 pm : link
In comment 13915277 .McL. said:
Quote:

Do not pay too much for RB, you can them on the for less, and use the cash to pay for QBs, OLs, ERs, and CBs...


Nice, I did that in one sentence without using anything more than 4 letters!
RE: RE: Another Barkley lover... ugh  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 10:02 pm : link
In comment 13915270 djm said:
Quote:
In comment 13914138 .McL. said:


Quote:


This thread explains why RBs have very little value. No matter how good the RB is he needs a good OL. Once you have a good OL, just about any RB will suffice.

This thread show how many negative runs Barley has. These runs kill drives. Explosive runs can't make up for these runs.



What bullshit. You’re actually saying that there is no such thing as a good or talented rb. It’s all the ol. Total Fucking. Bullshit! Sorry it just is.


I never said there wasn't such a thing as a talented RB... I said that you need a talented OL before your talented RB can perform. As long as you have a talented OL, the added benefit you get from a talented RB doesn't not warrant the cost.

Its not just me saying this... Have you bothered to read anything that I have linked.

I am guessing not.

I am not talking out of my ass, I have linked a mountain of evidence to support my position. If you are unwilling to read it it says more about your willingness to remain uninformed, than it says about my position.

In this thread I linked a couple of studies, but I also linked another thread where I linked about 20 that back up what I am saying. Try reading them, and understanding them... Yes they use real mathematics, perhaps that's the problem.
Also, I'm not so sure you can just say  
santacruzom : 4/15/2018 10:05 pm : link
"Barkley has some negative runs, and negative runs kill drives and aren't negated in any way by his explosive plays. QED!"

You might as well say a receiver who sometimes drops balls or a QB who sometimes gets sacked or a lineman who sometimes gets penalized for holding can't possibly contribute to a winning team because these negative plays are just impossible to overcome.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: He’ll be somewhere in between Marshsll Faulk and Reggie Bush  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 10:07 pm : link
In comment 13915279 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 13915277 .McL. said:


Quote:



Do not pay too much for RB, you can [i]get[get] them on the for less, and use the cash to pay for QBs, OLs, ERs, and CBs...


Sorry had to fix that...
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: He’ll be somewhere in between Marshsll Faulk and Reggie Bush  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 10:08 pm : link
In comment 13915287 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 13915279 .McL. said:


Quote:


In comment 13915277 .McL. said:


Quote:



Do not pay too much for RB, you can [i]get[i] them on the for less, and use the cash to pay for QBs, OLs, ERs, and CBs...




Sorry had to fix that...

Whoops...
Also  
santacruzom : 4/15/2018 10:08 pm : link
I bothered to read one of the things you linked, which was basically Jordan Ranaan saying two scouts he spoke with wouldn't take Barkley at 2. If I had to venture a guess, it would be that Ranaan is already predisposed to be against drafting Barkley, decided to write an article justifying it, and found two scouts to corroborate his opinion.

I just today read a quote from a scout who says the Browns would be dumb not to draft Barkley at 1. But I'm not linking to it, because my standards for evidence aren't that low.
RE: Also  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 10:17 pm : link
In comment 13915290 santacruzom said:
Quote:
I bothered to read one of the things you linked, which was basically Jordan Ranaan saying two scouts he spoke with wouldn't take Barkley at 2. If I had to venture a guess, it would be that Ranaan is already predisposed to be against drafting Barkley, decided to write an article justifying it, and found two scouts to corroborate his opinion.

I just today read a quote from a scout who says the Browns would be dumb not to draft Barkley at 1. But I'm not linking to it, because my standards for evidence aren't that low.


Fine you don't like Ranaan... What about the other 2 SCHOLARLY articles. You know the ones that posted on graduate university sites for such articles!

And how about the 18 others from the other thread I linked... Most of them are either scholarly or using advanced math as well.
If you draft Barkley at 1 or 2  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 10:23 pm : link
I believe he would be the highest paid RB in the league, getting an average of about 8 mil per year ALL GUARANTEED!

Pittsburgh is balking at paying even 7mil for Bell who is a known commodity.
RE: Another Barkley lover... ugh  
santacruzom : 4/15/2018 10:26 pm : link
In comment 13914138 .McL. said:
Quote:
This thread explains why RBs have very little value. No matter how good the RB is he needs a good OL. Once you have a good OL, just about any RB will suffice.

This thread show how many negative runs Barley has. These runs kill drives. Explosive runs can't make up for these runs.


Oh wait, these are the "studies" you've been referring to? The second link is a thread where the OP says he reads a Tweet about Barkley's percentage of negative runs. He didn't post the stats that show this. He didn't even post the Tweet!
RE: RE: Another Barkley lover... ugh  
.McL. : 4/15/2018 10:35 pm : link
In comment 13915307 santacruzom said:
Quote:
In comment 13914138 .McL. said:


Quote:


This thread explains why RBs have very little value. No matter how good the RB is he needs a good OL. Once you have a good OL, just about any RB will suffice.

This thread show how many negative runs Barley has. These runs kill drives. Explosive runs can't make up for these runs.



Oh wait, these are the "studies" you've been referring to? The second link is a thread where the OP says he reads a Tweet about Barkley's percentage of negative runs. He didn't post the stats that show this. He didn't even post the Tweet!


Wrong again...

Try these 2, they were linked above, just below the Ranaan one you hated.

https://www.choregia.org/images/issues/1205.pdf
https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=joseph_wharton_scholars

And oh the stats on negative runs I have seen elsewhere, I just didn't want to spend the time to find the original link. But the poster's stats are correct...

I am not sure why I keep seeing Reggie Bush's name pop up  
Ten Ton Hammer : 4/15/2018 10:39 pm : link
in Barkley threads. They're really not very good comparisons whatsoever.
RE: RE: RE: Another Barkley lover... ugh  
santacruzom : 4/16/2018 1:11 am : link
In comment 13915312 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 13915307 santacruzom said:


Quote:


In comment 13914138 .McL. said:


Quote:


This thread explains why RBs have very little value. No matter how good the RB is he needs a good OL. Once you have a good OL, just about any RB will suffice.

This thread show how many negative runs Barley has. These runs kill drives. Explosive runs can't make up for these runs.



Oh wait, these are the "studies" you've been referring to? The second link is a thread where the OP says he reads a Tweet about Barkley's percentage of negative runs. He didn't post the stats that show this. He didn't even post the Tweet!



Wrong again...

Try these 2, they were linked above, just below the Ranaan one you hated.

https://www.choregia.org/images/issues/1205.pdf
https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=joseph_wharton_scholars

And oh the stats on negative runs I have seen elsewhere, I just didn't want to spend the time to find the original link. But the poster's stats are correct...


The first "study" does nothing to prove (and really, doesn't even seem to try to claim) that drafting a RB with a high pick is a bad idea. The most damning statement therein is simply: "No indication is provided for benefits of acquiring an elite running back," but since it's a study of salary cap effects, you can conclude that it's strictly talking about allocating a large portion of the salary cap on acquiring a free agent RB. This actually doesn't happen all that often, though I can think of a few RBs who were acquired via trade and immediately helped elevate their team.

The second undergrad essay *also* doesn't particularly argue that drafting (or even acquiring through FA) an RB is a poor decision. It merely states that one model suggests it's better to allocate few salary cap dollars towards them, while two other models suggest the opposite.

I'm still not seeing a smoking gun here.

Every year 30 teams don't make it to the Super Bowl. I'd say that in any given year, no less than half of those are staffed by at least one key person who is in over his head -- they only have a chance to advance far into the playoffs if everything breaks just right. The remaining teams that are competently run can fail to advance due to any number of events and circumstances. I wouldn't say that having a well-paid and/or highly-drafted RB is among the most insurmountable of them.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Another Barkley lover... ugh  
.McL. : 4/16/2018 2:41 am : link
In comment 13915388 santacruzom said:
Quote:
In comment 13915312 .McL. said:


Quote:


In comment 13915307 santacruzom said:


Quote:


In comment 13914138 .McL. said:


Quote:


This thread explains why RBs have very little value. No matter how good the RB is he needs a good OL. Once you have a good OL, just about any RB will suffice.

This thread show how many negative runs Barley has. These runs kill drives. Explosive runs can't make up for these runs.



Oh wait, these are the "studies" you've been referring to? The second link is a thread where the OP says he reads a Tweet about Barkley's percentage of negative runs. He didn't post the stats that show this. He didn't even post the Tweet!



Wrong again...

Try these 2, they were linked above, just below the Ranaan one you hated.

https://www.choregia.org/images/issues/1205.pdf
https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=joseph_wharton_scholars

And oh the stats on negative runs I have seen elsewhere, I just didn't want to spend the time to find the original link. But the poster's stats are correct...




The first "study" does nothing to prove (and really, doesn't even seem to try to claim) that drafting a RB with a high pick is a bad idea. The most damning statement therein is simply: "No indication is provided for benefits of acquiring an elite running back," but since it's a study of salary cap effects, you can conclude that it's strictly talking about allocating a large portion of the salary cap on acquiring a free agent RB. This actually doesn't happen all that often, though I can think of a few RBs who were acquired via trade and immediately helped elevate their team.

The second undergrad essay *also* doesn't particularly argue that drafting (or even acquiring through FA) an RB is a poor decision. It merely states that one model suggests it's better to allocate few salary cap dollars towards them, while two other models suggest the opposite.

I'm still not seeing a smoking gun here.

Every year 30 teams don't make it to the Super Bowl. I'd say that in any given year, no less than half of those are staffed by at least one key person who is in over his head -- they only have a chance to advance far into the playoffs if everything breaks just right. The remaining teams that are competently run can fail to advance due to any number of events and circumstances. I wouldn't say that having a well-paid and/or highly-drafted RB is among the most insurmountable of them.


Ok, first of all, that one was a "Dissertation" from a Wharton School of business. Dissertations are done by students seeking a Master's degree. And I doubt that anybody here will argue that something coming from the Wharton School of Business is trash to ignored!

Seconf, they themselves realized the fault in their original premise laid out with the first two models (the ones that gave a high allocation to RBs). So they cam up with a third they felt was more accurate.

Quote:
A shortcoming of our modeling approaches are that they assume that every
team will achieve the same win contribution return from investment at each given
position as another team with an equal investment (i.e. every player is paid exactly
efficiently according to their win contribution), which is not actually the case.
Therefore, we also created univariate models by player at each position to consider
which players produce more or less than the win contribution that would be
expected from their salary. Thus, we can observe what teams are getting a higher
return than expected (i.e. more uncompensated win contribution) from the players
that they are paying.


Summarizing that long winded verbage...
Once we took POSITIONAL VALUE into account!!!

Quote:
Overall, we believe that if a team focuses their salary allocation towards the
positions with a higher optimal salary in our univariate model (unless they have
players on their rookie contracts at those positions) and is able to draft players who
can quickly make an impact in the league, that team will be expected to win the most
games. Optimally, a team can create prediction models for player win contributions,
use those projections to observe the expected efficient salary for each player, and
attempt to sign players whose salary implied by the existing free agent market is
lower than what was determined to be their expected efficient salary. If a team is
able to sign many players for salaries below efficient value, they will achieve many
uncompensated wins and then have the salary cap space to invest more money in
key positions where a high return of compensated wins is expected, and thus
achieve maximal expected wins.


Summary: In order to win, you should efficiently focus your cap dollars on players who generate wins. Be happy if you are lucky enough to have players that generate wins on their rookie contract!

Yes they focused on Free Agency... However, drafting Barkley at #2 would make him the highest paid RB in the league... I think that fall within the purview of this study...

So finally, they felt the "Univariate" model was the best!

Here is the allocation to RB they suggest under the 3 models... Keep in mind their conclusion was the Univariate was the best

Multivariate: 7.2%
Sequential: 6.7%
Univariate: 1.4%

Yes they concluded that the optimal usage of cap space allocates ONLY 1.4% of available cap space to RBs.

Now the paper is not focused on RBs alone. It provides a breakdown of all positions.

Some Highlights:
for WR:
Multivariate: 28.4%
Sequential: 29.0%
Univariate: 9.6%

I am guessing that about this point they realized there was something wrong with Multivariate and Sequential...

CB:
Multivariate: 3.1%
Sequential: 2.5%
Univariate: 12.4%

I will say this that their numbers for interior lineman seem crazy (both on offense and defense) Univariate suggests 18.4% for Guards and 17.6% for DTs).
And their numbers for Offensive Tackles are way too low.
But if you flip the Guards with OTs and the DTs with Edge Rushers (DEs). The rest seems pretty accurate.
That study further points out  
.McL. : 4/16/2018 2:55 am : link
That while Seattle had a sub-optimal allocation of dollars, they were extremely lucky to get a inordinate contribution from their 3rd round draft choice of a QB on his rookie contract.

So the SINGULAR case where a RB was paid too much, the team hit the lotto on a lower round QB they paid next to nothing. Seattle wasn't smart, they got lucky as hell!

What's more is that if you look at Seattle's stats from 2013, Lynch did not have as good a season as he did the year before or the year after. Russell Wilson was on fire 2013, and Seattle, to take advantage of this fact, eschewed the run in favor of the pass to a certain degree.

In the end, Seattle was unable to sustain that model.
RE: That study further points out  
.McL. : 4/16/2018 3:18 am : link
In comment 13915403 .McL. said:
Quote:
That while Seattle had a sub-optimal allocation of dollars, they were extremely lucky to get a inordinate contribution from their 3rd round draft choice of a QB on his rookie contract.

So the SINGULAR case where a RB was paid too much, the team hit the lotto on a lower round QB they paid next to nothing. Seattle wasn't smart, they got lucky as hell!

What's more is that if you look at Seattle's stats from 2013, Lynch did not have as good a season as he did the year before or the year after. Russell Wilson was on fire 2013, and Seattle, to take advantage of this fact, eschewed the run in favor of the pass to a certain degree.

In the end, Seattle was unable to sustain that model.


I don't know what Jamal Lewis was paid on the 2000 Ravens. However, he was a rookie in 2000. But that team is also a statistical outlier in that they had arguably the best defense in the history of the NFL.

Marshall Faulk was still on his rookie contract when he was traded to the Rams in 1999. I don't know what he made either, but I am betting it wasn't crazy. He got a new deal in 2000. The Rams returned to the big show in 2001 but we all know how that story ended!
RE: Hahaha  
.McL. : 4/16/2018 5:16 am : link
In comment 13915165 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
2000+ yards and 19 TDS but yeah, Gurley didn’t play a major role. His cap hit was under $4 million as well.

It’s really really hard to take you seriously.


I missed this earlier...

Ok Gurley here we go...
Quote:
Rams running backs averaged 1.90 yards before contact

https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-ranking-all-32-offensive-lines-from-the-2017-nfl-season

Are you kidding me! 1.9 yards before contact... You can't attribute that to anything but the OL...

Quote:
The 2017 version of the Rams' run blocking afforded backs 0.65 average yards before close, ranking third in the league.

[url]http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000916199/article/saints-bills-rams-among-nfls-10-best-offensive-line-units[/ur]

For christs sakes, you can get a UDFA to look good behind that kind of blocking. All you have to do is run until contact and fall forward and you will get over 4 YPC! You don't need to spend a top 10 pick and 4 mil a year to get decent production when the line blocks like that!

In 2016 Gurley did nothing to help the Rams win. Granted, the line did not block well. But for your argument to hold water, the RB should make a difference even when the line sucks. Gurley didn't!

The point is, that you can get cheap RBs that will give you virtually all of what the Rams got from Gurley in 2017 (paying far less than 4 mil per year). Take that money and use it on players/positions that statistics show correlate higher
with wins!

Of course there is no guarantee that the players you spend on will work out. But it gives you the highest probability. That's all you can ask for. Allocate your resources to give yourself the highest probability of success over the long haul.

Look, I am not a young kid, to give you an idea, I have a signed photo of myself and Spider Lockhart. I was an avid fan when the conventional wisdom was pound the rock, limit turnovers and play great defense was the formula for winning. Since the rules started changing in the early 90s and the Salary cap was introduced, that formula has changed radically.

As I said, I am not a kid, but I am also a scientist, I was a dual major in physics and computer science. I have a graduate degree in computer science and an MBA in Finance. Needless to say, numbers are my thing.

In science if you have a theory that doesn't fit the data, then you need to revise your theory. We see this clearly in physics. Ancients thought that everything revolved around the Earth. Then they realized the Planets were odd, so the came up with epicycles (circles within circles), that didn't work and finally people accepted that the planets including Earth revolved around the Sun, much simpler model and it fit the data really well. But not quite well enough, the planets don't move in circles. Enter Isaac Newton and F=ma. Suddenly the motion of the planets made much more sense and fit the data exceptionally well. Well, err, uh, except for Mercury.... Dammit... But we now have Einstein to save the day and the orbits of all the planets are well explained. And this goes on, relativity doesn't explain the very small, you need Quantum Mechanics for that, etc.

Back to football, I have been researching this issue for quite some time. I have probably done too much research on this subject. However, based on this research, I have an answer for every historical case you can bring up. The point is, ALL the historical evidence over the past 25 years supports the narrative that I am proposing.

Sure you can come up with individual cases that support your particular narrative, but I seriously doubt that anybody can come up with a narrative that better fits historical data in the NFL over the last 25 years.

In this thread I linked about 20 articles and studies on this. This is only a small fraction of the number of studies I have actually read, and only represents what I could easily find on that particular day. Look at the thread, read the links. Its a MOUNTAIN of evidence that supports what I am saying.

Sure, give me unlimited cap space, ok then, yes, I will take Barkley... I still think this particular Giants team is far more desperate for OL, ER, CB and likely QB than another skill position player. However, in a cap free environment the argument that a great RB will help make the existing QBs a serviceable part of a winning formula makes perfect sense.

Yes I am linking my own thread from the past.... AGAIN... Don't bother with what I wrote... I link it here because it has about 20 links of interest on this topic and I don't want to spend the time to link them all again.
http://corner.bigblueinteractive.com/index.php?mode=2&thread=567167
Read the embedded links... Whether you agree or not, you will realize that I am actually making an intelligent argument based on a lot of evidence. Its not an emotional response to seeing a human highlight reel and wanting that bright shiny object on my team, which pretty much sums up the argument that the rest of you have been making.
fixing the 2nd link regarding the Rams OL  
.McL. : 4/16/2018 5:17 am : link
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000916199/article/saints-bills-rams-among-nfls-10-best-offensive-line-units
Pages: 1 2 3 4 <<Prev | Show All |  Next>>
Back to the Corner