Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner
 

Archived Thread

Kay Adams: "Giants over-hyping Saquon Barkley"

Eric from BBI : Admin : 5/15/2018 12:19 pm
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.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 <<Prev | Show All |  Next>>
RE: See....  
Gatorade Dunk : 5/16/2018 1:50 pm : link
In comment 13965618 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
Like when I said you said we were going to take a QB with absolute certainty, I can produce the quote:



Quote:


It literally doesn't matter.
Dave in Hoboken : 12/17/2017 8:32 pm : link
He's going to be 37 for next season and we're picking very high in the upcoming draft with a bunch of good QBs in this years draft. They're picking a QB, and even that QB doesn't start next year, he's still getting picked in this year's draft.





Quote:


They're drafting a QB.
Dave in Hoboken : 12/17/2017 8:43 pm : link





Quote:


Oh, and he'll sit a year at most, hate to be the bearer of even more bad news for you



See how that works? When you can't do that, there's this little thing in law called libel. Luckily for you, BBI is not a court of law. They're taking a QB 12/17/17 - ( New Window )

Those posts wound up being incorrect, but how are they libelous in any way?
I said that posting that somebody said something definitively  
Britt in VA : 5/16/2018 1:54 pm : link
without producing the actual quote, was. That was in response to Dave saying that I started a thread that stated "I am a bigger fan of Eli Manning than I am of the Giants".

He said it wasn't on him to produce the quote/thread where I said that, even though he stated numerous times on this thread that I had in fact said that.

I said in law, that would be described as libel. Then I proceeded to show him how easy it was to back something up with a quote. His own.
RE: Well, yeah,  
Danny80 : 5/16/2018 1:57 pm : link
In comment 13965587 Dave in Hoboken said:
Quote:
they could have picked any of the three.


I was always on the Josh Rosen bandwagon. I didn't love some of his comments immediately before and after the draft, but accepted that he was frustrated with all of the extra attention on him for non-football related issues and his drop in the draft that may have related to those issues. That said, I always felt that if the Browns had taken Darnold at #1, Rosen would have gone to the Jets at #3. And if the Giants had gone QB, they most likely would have taken Darnold or Rosen--Rosen having been my choice, but I wouldn't have been upset with Darnold if he was available. Ultimately, if either Mayfield wasn't drafted #1 or if the Giants had taken a QB at #2, Rosen probably would have gone #3. So, for what it's worth, Rosen was my preferred pick.

But that said, I have to agree with all of those who said that the draft is over. The Giants picked Barkley. No point in continuing to voice disagreement with that choice. At this point, you just hope that Barkley can be the type of transcendent player and make the type of impact on the team that the Giants seem to believe.

I do think that the Giants front office (really just Gettleman, I have no problem with Shurmer's comments) has fed into the media over-hyping of Barkley, setting extraordinarily high standards, with the "touched by the hand of God" type comments. I think the standards the Giants and the media have set for him exceed those of a typical #2 overall pick. They seem to be higher than the standards that were set for Reggie Bush coming out of college, and I have a hard time seeing Barkley as a better college running back than Reggie Bush. A lot of these expectations seem to be based on the combination of his on-field college production and his combine numbers.

I'm not sure he needs to meet some of the absurd expectations to be a good draft pick, but he probably needs to be a Hall of Fame running back in order to justify the pick over Rosen or Darnold.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: In the legendary 1983 draft,  
Danny80 : 5/16/2018 2:03 pm : link
In comment 13965646 Mr. Bungle said:
Quote:
In comment 13965636 Dave in Hoboken said:


Quote:


In comment 13965635 Mr. Bungle said:

Were the Rams wrong in that same 1983 draft when they took Eric Dickerson at #2? They could have taken Jim Kelly or Dan Marino. I don't think the Rams, or Bills, or Dolphins were unhappy with their picks. It may very well be the case that the Giants, Jets, and Cardinals all end up very happy with their 2018 1st-round picks.



If I were a Rams fan from back then, as great as Dickerson was, I'd still much prefer one of those QBs.


Even after Eric Dickerson set rookie rushing records his first season?

(Which I am NOT predicting Barkley will do!)



Damn, he was great.

But if one of the QBs I can take is Dan Marino, then yes.


Except you're using hindsight with Marino. He was taken 27th overall in that 1st round. FIVE quarterbacks were taken ahead of him, including the aforementioned Blackledge, Ken O'Brien (lol Jets), and Tony Eason. The way people view Marino now as a QB god is not the same as how they viewed him as a prospect.

That's why it's important to specify now -- before any of these careers unfold -- which name you would have sent to the podium, if you were in that position.


I think outside of Elway, Marino was generally seen as the next best QB in the class and a potential star. He had off the field baggage though, concerns that he was too much of a partier and cocaine rumors. That seemed to be why he fell below O'Brien and others.
...  
Mr. Nickels : 5/16/2018 2:05 pm : link
Wait..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 5/16/2018 2:13 pm : link
you have a har time seeing Barkley as a better college back than Bush??

Really?

Bush always seemed like a glorified 3rd down back.
RE: RE: Well, yeah,  
Mr. Bungle : 5/16/2018 2:25 pm : link
In comment 13965755 Danny80 said:
Quote:
A lot of these expectations seem to be based on the combination of his on-field college production and his combine numbers.


What should they be based on?

Quote:
he probably needs to be a Hall of Fame running back in order to justify the pick over Rosen or Darnold.


Even if Rosen and Darnold bust?
I could go back and find the thread if I wanted,  
Dave in Hoboken : 5/16/2018 2:26 pm : link
but I have no desire to. Find a thread from over a half-year ago about a poster I don't care for? How much of a loser would I have to go back and a thread made by him? If someone doesn't want to believe me, then don't. No hair off my back.
I got  
Glover : 5/16/2018 2:29 pm : link
275 carries for 1200 yards, and 45 catches for 400 yards.
RE: I could go back and find the thread if I wanted,  
Britt in VA : 5/16/2018 2:30 pm : link
In comment 13965786 Dave in Hoboken said:
Quote:
but I have no desire to. Find a thread from over a half-year ago about a poster I don't care for? How much of a loser would I have to go back and a thread made by him? If someone doesn't want to believe me, then don't. No hair off my back.


Ha, don't want to find a thread from a half a year ago but bring up a Hixon vs. Plaxico thread I made in 2008?

You continue to be hilarious entertainment. Keep doing you, Dave.
RE: I just wish the  
Jimmy Googs : 5/16/2018 2:37 pm : link
In comment 13965558 Mr. Bungle said:
Quote:
would name one guy -- be it Darnold, Rosen, or Allen -- who was the right choice at #2. The Giants had to send a NAME to the podium, not a position.

Which NAME should they have sent instead of Saquon Barkley?

Once we have that name on record, we can all sit back and watch his Hall of Fame career unfold, while Barkely, on the other hand, reveals himself to be no more than a guy the Giants could have "easily" gotten in the fourth or fifth round.


bungle - there were plenty of pre-draft polls taken on BBI if you need to revisit who wanted to who. I think we all kind of get your play here anyway to shrink the odds to a head-to-head argument. So feel free to sit back now.

I was gunning for Rosen myself, but definitely wanted Gettleman to get out of that #2 spot if he wasn't going QB. DG didn't do either, but getting Barkley should be great.
I wanted Rosen, too...  
Britt in VA : 5/16/2018 2:38 pm : link
for no other reason than he was the only one from a pro style offense, and not a spread offense. And even then he still had his red flags.
He sure sounded like a prick in the interview after being drafted  
Jimmy Googs : 5/16/2018 2:44 pm : link
I think he was going for the "chip on his shoulder" goo-guy look, but it only came off as a prick...
** good-guy  
Jimmy Googs : 5/16/2018 2:45 pm : link
.
RE: He sure sounded like a prick in the interview after being drafted  
Britt in VA : 5/16/2018 2:48 pm : link
In comment 13965819 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
I think he was going for the "chip on his shoulder" goo-guy look, but it only came off as a prick...


And to that point.... He slipped to ten. Not top five, but ten.

That goes to show, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, if you consider Rosen a "top franchise QB", he's proof that they're available outside the top 5.

The Giants picked at 9 and 10 the previous two drafts. Prior to that, they were in the low to mid teens several years before that.

Bottom line, this wasn't a once in a decade opportunity to get a QB. We didn't have to take one because we were picking at 2. They fall all the time.
This was never about draft position....  
Britt in VA : 5/16/2018 2:49 pm : link
it was about conviction. The Giants didn't have it.
Don't disagree that Rosen fell, or went when a team "valued" him  
Jimmy Googs : 5/16/2018 2:54 pm : link
but that doesn't mean it might not be harder to get the next QB the Giants have interest in during a future draft (if they go that route)

QBs don't fall all the time, and it could cost us a lot to secure one.

Possibly. Or maybe not if your view that the league is changing on that front is correct...
The Jets didnít want mayfield over darnold  
dep026 : 5/16/2018 3:25 pm : link
They were settled into taking him cause they thought darnold was going 1.

Read the SI feature by King and it breaks down the draft process for the Jets. They were floored darnold fell.
Right now I subscribe to the idea that the NFL is changing  
UConn4523 : 5/16/2018 3:47 pm : link
QBs will either be A. Easier to come by than in the past or B. Can win with less talent at QB because of evolving systems and better coaching. Or a combination of both. Itís just interesting that all these years later the best QBs in the NFL still have the last names of Brady, Rodgers, Brees. There are others that can get there but I see a much more even playing field if those 3 retired tomorrow. It would be Wilson, a freshly injured Wentz, Goff whose had 1 good season, and then what? Stafford and Matt Ryan?

Time will tell but I think there will be a wake up call on how teams handle the position sooner rather than later.
I'm late to this party...  
bw in dc : 5/16/2018 3:55 pm : link
but indeed Barkley is extremely over-hyped - from the media, to fans, BBI, and, of course, Jints Central.

When you have Gettleman deifying Barkley immediately after the draft that sets the tone right there. It was almost like DG was trying to convince himself that he made the right pick. I fail to recall any GM ever coming out with such strong, bizarre words. I think this was one of the strangest things I have seen by a GM (almost in the company of a drunk Bill Tobin telling Mel Kiper he was clueless).

Essentially what DG said was it's fait accompli - SB is on the road to Canton and everyone should make hotel reservations for 2036. That is a heavy, heavy burden.

So if Jints Central is marketing this guy as God in Pads then expect some heavy, heavy criticism if Barkley isn't great instantly.
RE: RE: RE: Well, yeah,  
Danny80 : 5/16/2018 3:59 pm : link
In comment 13965785 Mr. Bungle said:
Quote:
In comment 13965755 Danny80 said:


Quote:


A lot of these expectations seem to be based on the combination of his on-field college production and his combine numbers.



What should they be based on?



Quote:


he probably needs to be a Hall of Fame running back in order to justify the pick over Rosen or Darnold.



Even if Rosen and Darnold bust?


I'm not suggesting that those are bad factors to consider. I'm saying that with his on-field college performance, he looked a lot like a scat back at the NFL level rather than a power back and every down back. Then the combine came, and he weighed in at 230 lbs and ran a 4.40 40 yard dash, and then he became the perfect featured back. To me, Derrius Guice and Nick Chubb looked like better pure running backs. They weren't really used in the passing game at all -- maybe that was partially scheme or maybe lack of open field instincts and elusiveness -- but as far as being a pure running back, they looked to be more the part on the field than Barkley, to me at least. There are at least a handful of evaluators, if not more, who agreed with that assessment.

A lot of people on this site have raised concerns about Jerry Reese placing too much emphasis on measurables. I personally think measurables are important, though I think 40 time is possibly overemphasized for running backs, in particular.
RE: RE: I just wish the  
Bill L : 5/16/2018 4:01 pm : link
In comment 13965805 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
In comment 13965558 Mr. Bungle said:


Quote:


would name one guy -- be it Darnold, Rosen, or Allen -- who was the right choice at #2. The Giants had to send a NAME to the podium, not a position.

Which NAME should they have sent instead of Saquon Barkley?

Once we have that name on record, we can all sit back and watch his Hall of Fame career unfold, while Barkely, on the other hand, reveals himself to be no more than a guy the Giants could have "easily" gotten in the fourth or fifth round.



bungle - there were plenty of pre-draft polls taken on BBI if you need to revisit who wanted to who. I think we all kind of get your play here anyway to shrink the odds to a head-to-head argument. So feel free to sit back now.

I was gunning for Rosen myself, but definitely wanted Gettleman to get out of that #2 spot if he wasn't going QB. DG didn't do either, but getting Barkley should be great.

I just don't see how he's wrong. The Giants would only go for one guy and the odds on favorite is Darnold. It seems like more than one guy because we all here have different names to throw into the mix. The Giants did not. So, for them the comparison has to be either this guy or that guy (Barkley).

If you're going to open it up to it could be any QB instead of Barkley at 2 then you're going to say they fucked up by not taking Mason Rudolph instead of Barkley at #2 if Rudolph turns out to be the franchise QB in the draft. That's a terrible game to play because then, retrospectively, you're saying that they made 5 or 6 blunders in the Brady draft because they missed the quintessential QB. That game requires them not just to do research and decide wisely but also to be psychic.

The reality is, that if QB was even on a small part of their table...and honestly, I don't think one was...that the comparison has to be with that QB and Barkley and not other. It's not reducing the field so you don't have to claim that they made the wrong decision, it's actually stating that these were the specific choice from which a decision had to be made and it was (just considering a QB pick here) a binary choice.
.  
arcarsenal : 5/16/2018 4:04 pm : link
Do any of bee dubs posts not mention "Jints Central" ?

Asking for... myself.
Bottom line - much of this comes down to your belief in Gettleman  
Greg from LI : 5/16/2018 4:07 pm : link
And I don't have much of that yet. I thought hiring him was a mistake, a continuation of the Giants' tendency to only hire "Giants guys", and his track record in Carolina is pretty mixed. We'll see how this pans out for him.
RE: .  
bw in dc : 5/16/2018 4:07 pm : link
In comment 13965934 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
Do any of bee dubs posts not mention "Jints Central" ?

Asking for... myself.


I can speak to this - easily less than 50% of the time! ;)
RE: RE: .  
arcarsenal : 5/16/2018 4:11 pm : link
In comment 13965943 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 13965934 arcarsenal said:


Quote:


Do any of bee dubs posts not mention "Jints Central" ?

Asking for... myself.



I can speak to this - easily less than 50% of the time! ;)


Seems like a low estimation!
RE: Wait..  
Danny80 : 5/16/2018 4:12 pm : link
In comment 13965773 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
you have a har time seeing Barkley as a better college back than Bush??

Really?

Bush always seemed like a glorified 3rd down back.


I think everyone and their mother was sure that Reggie Bush was the next Gale Sayers. He wasn't a big back, but he was electrifying and his stop/start ability seemed to rival Sayers and Barry Sanders. As a running back in college, despite having a big passing game and Lendale White in the backfield, his college numbers his junior year were almost Barry Sanders-level. 1740 rushing yards at 8.7 ypc and 478 receiving yards at 12.9 ypr is not a glorified third down back. Those are Heisman trophy numbers. They didn't make him a great pro, but I think the talk about him throughout his entire junior year was that he would be the next coming--and his play on the field that year seemed to back that up.



RE: I'm late to this party...  
Danny80 : 5/16/2018 4:19 pm : link
In comment 13965917 bw in dc said:
Quote:
but indeed Barkley is extremely over-hyped - from the media, to fans, BBI, and, of course, Jints Central.

When you have Gettleman deifying Barkley immediately after the draft that sets the tone right there. It was almost like DG was trying to convince himself that he made the right pick. I fail to recall any GM ever coming out with such strong, bizarre words. I think this was one of the strangest things I have seen by a GM (almost in the company of a drunk Bill Tobin telling Mel Kiper he was clueless).

Essentially what DG said was it's fait accompli - SB is on the road to Canton and everyone should make hotel reservations for 2036. That is a heavy, heavy burden.

So if Jints Central is marketing this guy as God in Pads then expect some heavy, heavy criticism if Barkley isn't great instantly.


Well, I'd say that Mike Ditka trading his entire draft for Ricky Williams and then buying fake dreds probably beats Gettleman's quotes by a long shot. Ricky Williams, btw, was extremely talented, he just didn't like football that much. The guy wasn't really that into it, yet rushed for 1800 yards in a season. Imagine how he would have done if he actually really enjoyed playing football in the NFL.

Bush was never a workhorse  
UConn4523 : 5/16/2018 4:22 pm : link
and played in a far more talented offense. He also came into the league 12 years ago so now, whatís the point of comparing the 2 anyway?

Itís 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?
RE: RE: I'm late to this party...  
bw in dc : 5/16/2018 4:27 pm : link
In comment 13965961 Danny80 said:
Quote:

Well, I'd say that Mike Ditka trading his entire draft for Ricky Williams and then buying fake dreds probably beats Gettleman's quotes by a long shot. Ricky Williams, btw, was extremely talented, he just didn't like football that much. The guy wasn't really that into it, yet rushed for 1800 yards in a season. Imagine how he would have done if he actually really enjoyed playing football in the NFL.


Indeed that was insane. But Ditka was the coach not the GM...
RE: RE: RE: I'm late to this party...  
Victor in CT : 5/16/2018 4:29 pm : link
In comment 13965975 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 13965961 Danny80 said:


Quote:



Well, I'd say that Mike Ditka trading his entire draft for Ricky Williams and then buying fake dreds probably beats Gettleman's quotes by a long shot. Ricky Williams, btw, was extremely talented, he just didn't like football that much. The guy wasn't really that into it, yet rushed for 1800 yards in a season. Imagine how he would have done if he actually really enjoyed playing football in the NFL.




Indeed that was insane. But Ditka was the coach not the GM...


he was both in New Orleans
Way too much overthink Bill...  
Jimmy Googs : 5/16/2018 4:31 pm : link
Bottom line is history will look back to Giants pick if they aren't successful over the next few years and one of those QBs (not named Mayfield) is.

You may not like it, DG may not like it, and it may not even be fair.

But them's the facts...
RE: RE: RE: RE: I'm late to this party...  
bw in dc : 5/16/2018 4:34 pm : link
In comment 13965977 Victor in CT said:
Quote:


he was both in New Orleans


I'll stand corrected, but I could have sworn it was Kuharich - at least in title.
RE: Bush was never a workhorse  
Danny80 : 5/16/2018 4:44 pm : link
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, whatís the point of comparing the 2 anyway?

Itís 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.
RE: RE: Bush was never a workhorse  
bw in dc : 5/16/2018 4:52 pm : link
In comment 13966006 Danny80 said:
Quote:

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.
The comparisons to Bush are only valid as far as his skillset  
Brown Recluse : 5/16/2018 4:56 pm : link
and athleticism, but people using that comparison as some sort of reason why he won't be successful conveniently forget that Barkley is about 30 lbs heavier than Bush and more powerful. Bush was never a workhorse and wasn't very big.

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.
RE: RE: Bush was never a workhorse  
UConn4523 : 5/16/2018 5:28 pm : link
In comment 13966006 Danny80 said:
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, whatís the point of comparing the 2 anyway?

Itís 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, couldnít run in between tackles and couldnít ever carry a full load of touches. In terms of athletecism, go nuts comparing them, but they are 2 different players. Bushís usage at USC was evidence enough of this even before the NFL.

And again, this was 12 years ago, why even bother comparing them?
RE: RE: RE: Bush was never a workhorse  
Danny80 : 5/16/2018 7:03 pm : link
In comment 13966046 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
In comment 13966006 Danny80 said:


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, whatís the point of comparing the 2 anyway?

Itís 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, couldnít run in between tackles and couldnít ever carry a full load of touches. In terms of athletecism, go nuts comparing them, but they are 2 different players. Bushís 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 )
the revisionism on Reggie Bush  
bluepepper : 5/16/2018 7:29 pm : link
is hilarious. He absolutely was rated a sure thing slam dunk great NFL running back. Best player in the draft. The Texans were crazy to pass on him. The Gale Sayers comparisons were repeated ad-nauseum. If anything Bush was MORE hyped than Barkley.

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.
RE: the revisionism on Reggie Bush  
BigBlueShock : 5/16/2018 7:36 pm : link
In comment 13966106 bluepepper said:
Quote:
is hilarious. He absolutely was rated a sure thing slam dunk great NFL running back. Best player in the draft. The Texans were crazy to pass on him. The Gale Sayers comparisons were repeated ad-nauseum. If anything Bush was MORE hyped than Barkley.

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 arenít slam dunks because, weíll, 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.
Danny80  
UConn4523 : 5/16/2018 7:39 pm : link
that article sucks. It goes right into ďanalyticsĒ without even talking about the talent disparity that the RBs played with. It then goes on to talk about PFF which, to me, isnít 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 doesnít believe a RB should be taken high. Perfectly fine opinion, but thatís 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.
RE: Danny80  
BigBlueShock : 5/16/2018 7:49 pm : link
In comment 13966111 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
that article sucks. It goes right into ďanalyticsĒ without even talking about the talent disparity that the RBs played with. It then goes on to talk about PFF which, to me, isnít 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 doesnít believe a RB should be taken high. Perfectly fine opinion, but thatís 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 donít get taken high is all because people are conditioned to think that way. But itís 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 didnít 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 doesnít matter the order. You take the best players then add pieces around them. Iím not sure why thatís so hard for some people to grasp.
Iím also fairly certain  
BigBlueShock : 5/16/2018 7:54 pm : link
That if you gave the Browns management team a lie detector test, theyíd tell you that they would have preferred Barkley. But the stigma of taking a RB 1st overall and the fact that they had screwed up so severely recently passing up QBs pretty much dictated what they had to do.

Thatís just my opinion however, which doesnít mean much.
When a RB..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 5/16/2018 8:17 pm : link
is 30 pounds heavier and otherwise has many of the same attributes, saying they are the same back really ignores the physics of what that 30 pound differential means.
I'm pretty sure  
PEEJ : 5/16/2018 8:49 pm : link
there's a few more teams out there "over-hyping" their fabulous top draftees. It comes with the territory.
...  
christian : 5/16/2018 9:49 pm : link
There are plenty of RB busts, Bush is just the most recent to be picked number 2 overall with wild expectations as a can't miss, do-everything type.

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?
RE: RE: Danny80  
Danny80 : 5/16/2018 9:53 pm : link
In comment 13966118 BigBlueShock said:
Quote:
In comment 13966111 UConn4523 said:


Quote:


that article sucks. It goes right into ďanalyticsĒ without even talking about the talent disparity that the RBs played with. It then goes on to talk about PFF which, to me, isnít 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 doesnít believe a RB should be taken high. Perfectly fine opinion, but thatís 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 donít get taken high is all because people are conditioned to think that way. But itís 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 didnít 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 doesnít matter the order. You take the best players then add pieces around them. Iím not sure why thatís 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.
RE: RE: RE: Danny80  
Danny80 : 5/16/2018 9:58 pm : link
In comment 13966174 Danny80 said:
Quote:
In comment 13966118 BigBlueShock said:


Quote:


In comment 13966111 UConn4523 said:


Quote:


that article sucks. It goes right into ďanalyticsĒ without even talking about the talent disparity that the RBs played with. It then goes on to talk about PFF which, to me, isnít 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 doesnít believe a RB should be taken high. Perfectly fine opinion, but thatís 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 donít get taken high is all because people are conditioned to think that way. But itís 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 didnít 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 doesnít matter the order. You take the best players then add pieces around them. Iím not sure why thatís 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.
I'm not..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 5/16/2018 10:00 pm : link
sure why a more violent downfield running style would be necessary for success.

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.
.  
arcarsenal : 5/16/2018 10:03 pm : link
People talk about Reggie Bush like he was a complete nobody.

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.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 <<Prev | Show All |  Next>>
Back to the Corner