I heard this brought up by Peter King and it’s an interesting point- Considering the shelf life of a RB, does it make sense big picture to give Saquon a ton of touches in a losing year? Does there come a point where we limit the work SB gets to try & preserve him long term similar to a pitcher in baseball?
Thought this was an interesting concern brought up by King.
I could not disagree more. Don’t run Barkley into the ground because the rest of the offense is effin incompetent. If there was something on the line like the playoffs, different story. This year is lost. Live to fight another day.
Quote:
Give him the football. Are you saving him for his next contract?
I could not disagree more. Don’t run Barkley into the ground because the rest of the offense is effin incompetent. If there was something on the line like the playoffs, different story. This year is lost. Live to fight another day.
Completely agree here.
I agree. I didn’t do the math but I’d say he’s averaging 20-25 touches per game, combined rushing and receiving. And probably 15 or so carries per game.
Quote:
Give him the football. Are you saving him for his next contract?
I could not disagree more. Don’t run Barkley into the ground because the rest of the offense is effin incompetent. If there was something on the line like the playoffs, different story. This year is lost. Live to fight another day.
For what purpose are we saving Carries? RBs have a shelf life, but that's about eight years from now.
In theory, yes, limiting the pounding this season would make sense. But fans cannot handle it in real time. People here wouldn’t look at it as if they are taking care of him, they’d look at it like it’s a wasted pick because he’s not on the field enough. Either way they play this, as usual, there would be a large segment of fans complaining
If? How much more proof do you need?
I certainly could be way off base, but I don't see the upside.
That sounds like a joke but think about how this forum has reacted to any really good Giant returning kicks since the Jason Sehorn injury. And now this.
This is their jobs and they are professionals. Not a bunch of loser fans but people who are ethical in receiving their pay.
He has never played a 16 game season. His body needs some recovery time and without it his chances for injury are increased.
...try to preserve this guy for when he has a team worthy of blocking for him.
Despite his success, the Giants aren't feeding him the ball and letting him carry the team. Heck, there's been a few games where we've complained about him not getting the ball enough.
Right now he's averaging under 15 carries a game. That's where he takes the biggest physical pounding. 15 isn't a lot. But..we've also been behind a ton.
I'd continue to use him the way they have.......this stuff about preserving and limiting him...that's doesn't fly with an NFL head coach.
If he's a great player - and he appears to be - he'll play eight-ten years at a high level.
I'm thinking Marshall Faulk hopefully.
That's why Barkley was the wrong choice for this team. He is a luxury that the Giants could not afford. Way too many holes to fill especially on the OL. And if you fix the OL you can still get most of Barkley's production from other players.
Don't get me wrong, Barkly is absolutely F'ing amazing. He is the only thing fun to watch on this team right now.
This is the question to ask: Are the Giants a better team with Barkley? Or would they have been a better team if they used all that Draft capital differently, like getting 2 more OL pieces, or a QB?
I think the answer to the first question is self evident.
I said it back in April. I said that Barkley could be the greatest running back ever, and he would still be the wrong choice. I used mountains of analytics to show that franchise RBs don't lead to wins. Also plenty of analytics to show that OLs and DLs provide far more value. We all know this. Its not sexy, but football is won in the trenches.
When I said this in the spring, I had a whole bunch of BBIers jump all over me. Calling me a troll. Saying that I know nothing about football... They tried to argue some BS about moving LBs and safeties around on the field and that would open up opportunities. That Barkley would cause the defenses to account for him... YADA YADA YADA. I understand all the technical stuff as well as almost anyobdy on here. But none of it matters if you can't block the play up long enough for it to develop. All teams have to do is attack the OL. Don't have to account for anybody in particular, just get penetration on every single play. Penetration blows up just about everything you try to do. Barkley sometimes does something super human, but its not enough.
One of the main points I made was that its far more important to be efficient running the ball, than it is to get big gainers. Runs of 2 yards or less are drive killers. The analytics show that conclusively. The occasional homerun doesn't make up for 7 failed drives. That is exactly how this offense is playing out. It is much better to get 4 yards and a cloud of dust almost every time you run it than it is to be boom or bust. You want to move safeties and LBers around, that's all you need to do. 4 yards the vast majority of the time. When they move in, put 8 men in the box and you have an OL that can still hold up, give the QB time to throw... THAT is winning football.
Believe me I hate it that I was right.
RBs only have so many carries and touches in them. A VERY short list of RBs that do well past 2000 carries/2500 touches. That’s usually the wall or start of the decline.
This is one of the reasons why I didn’t want a RB...
I’d be ok with a RB at #2 overall if we already had the other key pieces in place (QB, OL).
Oh, boy, I wish I knew! We've got to have better answers at Center and Right Guard for certain. If the same two guys are there to start 2019, then next season will feel like this season. Not good.