Barkley has 40 receptions for 373 yards and 2 TD's through 6 games. He is on pace for a 100 catch year as a rookie.
I'd say he's doing his part in the pass game.
How much of that has come in garbage time after the game is set as a loss? Or how much of that is a 10 yard dump off on 3rd and 15?
Not his fault. He's doing fantastic things on a terrible team. It just doesn't equate to wins. I'm not blaming him, I'm pointing to the philosophy of the pick from a roster construction standpoint.
I expect he'll continue to make fantastic plays, and I expect it will continue to not matter.
On his podcast Simmons also said that if Darnold ends up as good as Philip Rivers then it was a bad pick by the Giants.
It's not as simple as "Barkley is fun to watch". I agree that he looks incredible, but if it doesn't amount to wins then so what? In another thread yesterday Jerry in DC shared compelling statistical evidence that passing, not rushing, correlates to wins and playoff appearances.
Barkley looks amazing and right now he's the only thing we have that's good, but that doesn't mean he was the right pick. I'd rather be boring and win.
Barkley makes big plays in the passing game too. I totally on board with the view the Jags wasted #4 on Fournette. Elliott was trickier because of the dominant OL being such a great fit. I think it's much trickier to say the Giants wasted #2.
Barkley is a significantly better player than either guy going #4 overall.
A QB wouldn't equate to wins either, though. Not this year.
That's the main issue.
We could have taken literally anyone in this draft and we'd almost certainly still be 1-5 or worse right now.
If we had Sam Darnold instead of Saquon Barkley, Darnold would still be running for his life, we'd have Wayne Gallman as our lead back and ??? behind him. We'd be turning the ball over like crazy, we'd have no running game and the offense would still be terrible.
Unless anyone is convinced that we won't be able to get a QB as good as Darnold in an upcoming draft.. which I don't buy.. then I don't see what makes it a bad pick.
I also realize that Barkley has a bunch of checkdown receptions and catches in garbage time - but he also has some pretty big ones. Including a huge 3rd down conversion in Houston on a pass down the right sideline.
He is fantastic as a dual threat and is one of the best players in the league. We need talent. No one player was going to fix this in one offseason even if it was a QB.
If we wind up with someone like Herbert, and he's on Darnold's level or better, then Barkley would appear to very much be the correct pick, in my opinion.
It's hard for me to agree that the best player in a draft could be a bad pick or a wrong pick because none of the alternatives would have improved the Giants any more than he has so far.
On his podcast Simmons also said that if Darnold ends up as good as Philip Rivers then it was a bad pick by the Giants.
It's not as simple as "Barkley is fun to watch". I agree that he looks incredible, but if it doesn't amount to wins then so what? In another thread yesterday Jerry in DC shared compelling statistical evidence that passing, not rushing, correlates to wins and playoff appearances.
Barkley looks amazing and right now he's the only thing we have that's good, but that doesn't mean he was the right pick. I'd rather be boring and win.
+1.
And it's simple math - if the Giants come away with a good QB from this draft (or FA, whatever) - it's fine.
If they don't - and it turns out they passed on a good or better QB in this draft, then it's irrelevant, since you don't win without a good QB in this league.
That's a myth we are perpetuating here because it feels good. He is super raw. We draft him and we're drafting tools that need to be refined and coached for the NFL game. You trust Shurmur and Shula to do that? I don't.
I say this as a guy that was skeptical about Darnold coming out... Herbert isn't close as a project, IMO. At least not on this team with these coaches.
A QB wouldn't equate to wins either, though. Not this year.
That's the main issue.
We could have taken literally anyone in this draft and we'd almost certainly still be 1-5 or worse right now.
If we had Sam Darnold instead of Saquon Barkley, Darnold would still be running for his life, we'd have Wayne Gallman as our lead back and ??? behind him. We'd be turning the ball over like crazy, we'd have no running game and the offense would still be terrible.
Unless anyone is convinced that we won't be able to get a QB as good as Darnold in an upcoming draft.. which I don't buy.. then I don't see what makes it a bad pick.
I also realize that Barkley has a bunch of checkdown receptions and catches in garbage time - but he also has some pretty big ones. Including a huge 3rd down conversion in Houston on a pass down the right sideline.
He is fantastic as a dual threat and is one of the best players in the league. We need talent. No one player was going to fix this in one offseason even if it was a QB.
If we wind up with someone like Herbert, and he's on Darnold's level or better, then Barkley would appear to very much be the correct pick, in my opinion.
It's hard for me to agree that the best player in a draft could be a bad pick or a wrong pick because none of the alternatives would have improved the Giants any more than he has so far.
That's a myth we are perpetuating here because it feels good. He is super raw. We draft him and we're drafting tools that need to be refined and coached for the NFL game. You trust Shurmur and Shula to do that? I don't.
I say this as a guy that was skeptical about Darnold coming out... Herbert isn't close as a project, IMO. At least not on this team with these coaches.
Absolutely no way of knowing that now. Cannot state opinions as facts.
Herbert has excellent size and tools. He's accurate, he can move, and he can be every bit as good as Sam Darnold.
Unless you're a qualified scout, what you put in your title field is bullshit. No one knows that.
On his podcast Simmons also said that if Darnold ends up as good as Philip Rivers then it was a bad pick by the Giants.
It's not as simple as "Barkley is fun to watch". I agree that he looks incredible, but if it doesn't amount to wins then so what? In another thread yesterday Jerry in DC shared compelling statistical evidence that passing, not rushing, correlates to wins and playoff appearances.
Barkley looks amazing and right now he's the only thing we have that's good, but that doesn't mean he was the right pick. I'd rather be boring and win.
But he’s not why it wouldn’t amount to wins. If the Giants can’t find a new QB they have failed. Sure, getting a QB is harder but I don’t buy hat they can’t put together a competitive team when almost every other franchise can.
I also care about being entertained and Barkley does that. Winning is fun too and of course I want that but I’ll take plenty of enjoyment watching Barkley play. If you won’t, hat sucks for you.
And if we don't trust Pat Shurmur or Mike Shula to develop a QB, it shouldn't matter who we take.
You'd trust them with Sam Darnold but not Justin Herbert?
You were gung ho on one of the rawest QB prospects in recent memory in Lamar Jackson... who might not even play QB in the NFL. You actually said you thought he was the best player in the draft, right? But Justin Herbert is where we draw the line as being too raw of a prospect?
He needs to improve in certain areas - he needs to cycle through reads faster. His progressions are where he needs the most work. But he's loaded with ability.
Maybe Herbert isn't even the guy we wind up with.
My point is - Sam Darnold looks pretty good. He doesn't look like a generational player that we'll never have another shot at.
You don't even know if he'll be available for us to draft, and yet you're comfortable using him to support an argument for drafting Barkley. The guy could be Joe Montana - assuming we'll get him in the draft is problematic.
Regarding Herbert I'll also add that he grew up in Eugene. I don't know if he's ever been spent significant time west of the Cascades, let alone in the New York metro area. As someone that's been out here from Jersey a couple years I can tell you it's a pretty damn different place. I'd expect it to be quite an adjustment for him. All while sharing a locker room with Beckham and a couple other first round offensive players.
And that's if we even get him, which is an enormous assumption in and of itself.
A QB wouldn't equate to wins either, though. Not this year.
That's the main issue.
We could have taken literally anyone in this draft and we'd almost certainly still be 1-5 or worse right now.
If we had Sam Darnold instead of Saquon Barkley, Darnold would still be running for his life, we'd have Wayne Gallman as our lead back and ??? behind him. We'd be turning the ball over like crazy, we'd have no running game and the offense would still be terrible.
Unless anyone is convinced that we won't be able to get a QB as good as Darnold in an upcoming draft.. which I don't buy.. then I don't see what makes it a bad pick.
I also realize that Barkley has a bunch of checkdown receptions and catches in garbage time - but he also has some pretty big ones. Including a huge 3rd down conversion in Houston on a pass down the right sideline.
He is fantastic as a dual threat and is one of the best players in the league. We need talent. No one player was going to fix this in one offseason even if it was a QB.
If we wind up with someone like Herbert, and he's on Darnold's level or better, then Barkley would appear to very much be the correct pick, in my opinion.
It's hard for me to agree that the best player in a draft could be a bad pick or a wrong pick because none of the alternatives would have improved the Giants any more than he has so far.
I'm confident that the Giants are bad enough right now that they will be able to draft Justin Herbert if they really want him.
The two teams who look worse than us right now are Arizona and Buffalo. They both just drafted QB's and neither are a threat to take him.
Tennessee is invested in Mariota still, so they won't either.
Unless the Raiders move Derek Carr, they are committed to him for a while.
IND has Andrew Luck. ATL will stick with Ryan. SF just paid Garropolo.
Outside of maybe Denver, we're not going to have much competition as far as QB suitors go in the upcoming draft.
If Gruden or the Tennessee GM love Herbert, having Carr and Mariota won't stop them from selecting him. It's actually a good year for both times to move on if they are unhappy with their QBs.
But more importantly, if the team with the #1 pick doesn't need a QB, they will sell the pick for a king's ransom, so it matters not who is #1 if it's not the Giants.
If I'm running the Giants I enter 2019 with Lauletta as the quarterback. I hopefully find someone that's in love with Herbert or Bosa or someone else and I trade down to accumulate picks.
If we still look this incompetent (which I am fairly sure we will), Lauletta should be playing as soon as Week 10 following the bye.
Only if they think Lauletta gives them a better chance to win. It's not all about the QB. There are ten other guys on offense who are still learning the system. If Eli is the QB who gives them a better chance of keeping the chains moving, keeping the defense off the field, then he should be the one out there.
On the other hand, if there should come a time when they are convinced that they it doesn't make sense to bring Eli (and the $17M in compensation he is due) back next year, it might make sense to give Lauletta two or three starts at the end of the season. But the 9th game is too soon to start the rookie if you don't truly believe he makes the offense better, not worse.
You were more than skeptical about Darnold. You compared him to Leftwich. It’s very early to tell who may work & not work in the NFL for any of these college QB’s.
We are at the point where everyone is overreacting now. I heard Colin Coeherd today say the Jets would own the town for 10 years. People talk like Barkley is a bust. I do think the next few weeks are crucial - can Gettleman trade some of these vets for draft picks?
I agree with your take on Lauletta, I’d rather play him with his cheap salary then settle/talk into a reach QB early (see Ereck Flowers). I know the NFL isn’t Madden, but this is what I’d do:
-Start Lauletta ASAP
-Trade anyone not named Barkley for picks
-I don’t know if it’s doable, but trade Beckham after the season. He’d be happier elsewhere & the team/culture would improve here.
-Use the draft to go BPA again, build up the trenches.
Those moves would go a long way in building a more cost effective team with a lot less drama. 1-5 with a bunch of high priced guys doesn’t work, if we are going to struggle, let’s at least root for a young/scrappy bunch of guys.
And if Lauletta stinks, maybe we have a shot at the Alabama QB in 2020 or whoever else comes about. If the 2019 QB class is uninspiring, maybe Lauletta does make the most sense.
If we still look this incompetent (which I am fairly sure we will), Lauletta should be playing as soon as Week 10 following the bye.
Only if they think Lauletta gives them a better chance to win. It's not all about the QB. There are ten other guys on offense who are still learning the system. If Eli is the QB who gives them a better chance of keeping the chains moving, keeping the defense off the field, then he should be the one out there.
On the other hand, if there should come a time when they are convinced that they it doesn't make sense to bring Eli (and the $17M in compensation he is due) back next year, it might make sense to give Lauletta two or three starts at the end of the season. But the 9th game is too soon to start the rookie if you don't truly believe he makes the offense better, not worse.
Everything should be done with the future in mind. We don't need the guy who gives us the best chance to win this year because we aren't going anywhere this year.
We have nothing to lose by giving Lauletta the second half starts if they can get him up to speed enough by then.
Either he sucks and we wind up losing every game he starts and sit at the top of the draft in 2019, or he provides a spark and gives us reason to believe he might be worth going with next season or at least deserves more time.
Eli has no future here. We need to figure out what our next move is.
Everything should be done with the future in mind. We don't need the guy who gives us the best chance to win this year because we aren't going anywhere this year.
We have nothing to lose by giving Lauletta the second half starts if they can get him up to speed enough by then.
Lauletta isn't the only player on the offense with a future on the team. It's not just about the QB position. Other players need to grow as well. And if Eli helps the rest of the offense develop, there is value in keeping him behind center.
Everything should be done with the future in mind. We don't need the guy who gives us the best chance to win this year because we aren't going anywhere this year.
We have nothing to lose by giving Lauletta the second half starts if they can get him up to speed enough by then.
Lauletta isn't the only player on the offense with a future on the team. It's not just about the QB position. Other players need to grow as well. And if Eli helps the rest of the offense develop, there is value in keeping him behind center.
Like who? Will Hernandez?
Nothing will change about anything he does with a different QB under center. Joe Thomas played with awful QB's his entire career and was an all pro for most of it.
If our "best chance to win" has yielded 1 in 6 tries and 4 in the last 18, I think it's safe to say it's not much of a chance...
Guys like Barkley and Hernandez aren't going to stop developing if we switch QB's.
I think Evan Engram will survive as well.
While I am fine with the argument that if DG didn’t see a QB Â
he liked enough that he should have picked Barkley. I am not fine with the thinking the Barkley should have been the pick because he was a potential generational running back.
Nobody’s evaluating process is foolproof and sometimes risks need to be taken based on the greater potential outcome (meaning a QB is more valuable than a RB). And I am not suggesting DG didn’t think thru this. I am only suggesting many of the posters on this thread didn’t, based on their comments of being satisfied that we have Barkley and that a QB is only another draft away.
While DG clearly was sold on Barkley and was right. He was clearly wrong on Eli, or at least Eli behind this Oline (for the defenders of the faith...).
In the end, we have a wonderful asset in Barkley but are just wasting time until DG gets somebody else under center...
Not that it was anything special because a lot of scouts were using superlatives in their description of Barkley as well, but I had LaDainian Tomlinson as his only peer in the last 25 years coming out of the draft.
I don't hold LDT in nearly the esteem you do, so comparing Barkley to him doesn't move the needle for me. Try Gale Sayers instead - ( New Window )
Gale Sayers, great player in his time but sorry, LdT is one of the best ever. 31 TDs in a season. 31. NFL record. 28 rushing, NFL record. Second best rushing season of all time next to Dickerson. 5th most scrimmage yards of all-time. 3rd most TDs of all-time next to Rice and Emmitt. Sayers was good but for a short time. I mean, seriously, Sayers wasnt the player LdT was. Not close. The fact that I'm saying Barkley is in LdT's class, which is saying Barkley is and will be one of the top half-dozen or so RBs ever. A group that doesn't include Sayers.
RE: While I am fine with the argument that if DG didn’t see a QB Â
While DG clearly was sold on Barkley and was right. He was clearly wrong on Eli, or at least Eli behind this Oline (for the defenders of the faith...).
Yeah, that's the one concern I have.
I'm fine with acquiring Barkley as part of an overall team improvement effort that is intended to unfold over 2-3 seasons. If the Giants handle their next few offseasons correctly, I see no reason why they can't become a top offensive team within 2 seasons.
But if the decision behind drafting Barkley was based upon poor self-evaluation that led to a belief that a winning 2018 season was possible... well, that would be scary.
Sayers was good but for a short time. I mean, seriously, Sayers wasn't the player LdT was. Not close.
If you're talking about comparisons to Barkley, longevity shouldn't be part of the conversation because there's no telling what Barkley's longevity will be. As for comparing their natural talent...
Sayers was good but for a short time. I mean, seriously, Sayers wasn't the player LdT was. Not close.
If you're talking about comparisons to Barkley, longevity shouldn't be part of the conversation because there's no telling what Barkley's longevity will be. As for comparing their natural talent...
NFL Films ranks Sayers #22 all time
NFL Films ranks of LDT #61 all time
Oh well if NFL Films says it. Gale Sayers is one of the most overrated "legends" of the game ever. And the reasons why are 1) he died, and 2) Brian's Song.
Saying Sayers is anywhere near Tomlinson's equal is akin to saying Olivier Vernon is Lawrence Taylor's equal. Nice player, has had a few good years, doesn't belong in the best ever conversation and not close. You know who Sayers would be today? Kenyan Drake. (I kid, kinda).
Sayers was good but for a short time. I mean, seriously, Sayers wasn't the player LdT was. Not close.
If you're talking about comparisons to Barkley, longevity shouldn't be part of the conversation because there's no telling what Barkley's longevity will be. As for comparing their natural talent...
NFL Films ranks Sayers #22 all time
NFL Films ranks of LDT #61 all time
Oh well if NFL Films says it. Gale Sayers is one of the most overrated "legends" of the game ever. And the reasons why are 1) he died, and 2) Brian's Song.
Saying Sayers is anywhere near Tomlinson's equal is akin to saying Olivier Vernon is Lawrence Taylor's equal. Nice player, has had a few good years, doesn't belong in the best ever conversation and not close. You know who Sayers would be today? Kenyan Drake. (I kid, kinda).
I realize Gale Sayers is still alive. Momentary bout of insanity.
Still, his seasons nor his play never reached LdT's accomplishments, and certainly not for the years LdT did it for. He doesn't belong in the same class as LdT.
Barkley is the only thing making this year tolerable.
He has a body like Bo, but Bo don't know moves like Barkley. That's why I say Gale Sayers is the best comparison. They're built differently, but both could catch and run and were magicians in the open field.
I still don't like his throwing motion, but he makes up for it by being able to move and buy time. That's something he has over Leftwich, who was a statue.
My buddy at NFL Films (who admittedly is a massive Jets fan) sent me a video clip of Darnold talking to his offensive line in the fourth quarter of the Colts game this week. He couldn't use the clip because Darnold drops like four or five F bombs, but he was basically saying, completely calmly, "It's time to put the knife in these fucking guys right now. We're going to get really fucking good at this." It was the kind of thing that BBI would make BBI go nuts in love with him. He sounded like a ten year vet. Complete command.
The Jets hit big with this guy. I think I was wrong on him.
RE: RE: Let me just say
allstarjim : 10/17/2018 10:23 pm : link : reply
Gale Sayers, great player in his time but sorry, LdT is one of the best ever. 31 TDs in a season. 31. NFL record. 28 rushing, NFL record. Second best rushing season of all time next to Dickerson. 5th most scrimmage yards of all-time. 3rd most TDs of all-time next to Rice and Emmitt. Sayers was good but for a short time. I mean, seriously, Sayers wasnt the player LdT was. Not close. The fact that I'm saying Barkley is in LdT's class, which is saying Barkley is and will be one of the top half-dozen or so RBs ever. A group that doesn't include Sayers.
On his podcast Simmons also said that if Darnold ends up as good as Philip Rivers then it was a bad pick by the Giants.
It's not as simple as "Barkley is fun to watch". I agree that he looks incredible, but if it doesn't amount to wins then so what? In another thread yesterday Jerry in DC shared compelling statistical evidence that passing, not rushing, correlates to wins and playoff appearances.
Barkley looks amazing and right now he's the only thing we have that's good, but that doesn't mean he was the right pick. I'd rather be boring and win.
With all due respect to Jetty. I posted those articles and about 20 some more, back in April BEFORE the draft.
I was arguing then that no matter how good Barkley is he would be the wrong pick. And Barkley is GREAT, he's all we have. Based on all the statistical evidence, what is happening to us now was easily predicted. I predicted this back then, only to have most of BBI jump on me and call me a troll.
Some additional tidbits that i posted was that runs of less than 2 yards are drive killers, I forget the % exactly now, but it was something like 90% of all drives that start with a run of 1 yard or less, fail to get a first down or touchdown. Don't pin me on that 90%, I don't recall the exact number but it was astonishingly high.
Barkley, as great as he is, has a penchant for always trying to hit the homerun, and as a result he has a higher rate of 1 yard or less runs than most backs. In fact he was at somewhere around 15% a Penn St. while the rest of the top back were at 5% or less. Those runs kill drives, and we see that in gory detail every single week.
Some of the articles I posted tied both run and pass efficiency to the OL. So, if pass efficiency is correlated with winning, and pass efficiency is correlated to the OL. It stands to reason that to be successful you HAVE TO HAVE A VERY GOOD OL. This is why I keep harping on fixing the OL.
If we get the QB first then so be it. Personally I would rather fix the OL first. I fear ruining kids behind shitty OLs. How many of those QBs that failed with the Browns, Bills, Cardinals, Jets, Miami, etc failed because of the awfulness of the team, and OL around them. So many perpetually bad teams, with so many failed QBs. Some were shell shocked, some got injured, some just never got a chance to succeed, got labeled and thrown out with yesterday's trash. Now, many, perhaps most were simply bad in their own right. But I think some were turned bad. Just like we've turned Eli bad.
Want to win, protect your QB, and get to the opposing QB. Right now, we can't do either. Fixing this team will take more than one really outstanding off-season going forward.
On his podcast Simmons also said that if Darnold ends up as good as Philip Rivers then it was a bad pick by the Giants.
It's not as simple as "Barkley is fun to watch". I agree that he looks incredible, but if it doesn't amount to wins then so what? In another thread yesterday Jerry in DC shared compelling statistical evidence that passing, not rushing, correlates to wins and playoff appearances.
Barkley looks amazing and right now he's the only thing we have that's good, but that doesn't mean he was the right pick. I'd rather be boring and win.
Haven't seen the thread/post in question, but from what I've seen, it's generally (passing/receiving) yards/attempt that best correlates with wins. Which makes sense if you think about it because even the worst QBs average >6.0 yards/attempt whereas the best RBs are 5.0 (maybe 5.5) yards/rush so the passing game is clearly more efficient.
That said, Barkley isn't a typical RB and as we've seen this year, he can do just as much damage in the passing game. He's got great hands, which means fewer drops/incompletes, can run all the routes, and obviously is unbelievable with the ball in his hands. Even with the 14 catch dumpoff game significantly skewing his stats (only averaged 5.7 yards/rec that game), he's averaging 9.3 yards/rec on the season which is good for 4th best in the NFL among RBs (min 20 rec). And that's with 14+ more receptions than the 3 guys ahead of him (Cohen, Gurley, Conner).
The other thing that ypa doesn't account for is a RBs impact on the overall passing game. Here are Prescott's stats last season:
With Elliott: 62.9% 1818 yds 16 TD 4 INT 97.9 Rate 7.02 yards/att 7.56 adj yards/att
Without Elliott: 64% 1146 yds 5 TD 7 INT 76.6 Rate 6.86 yards/att 5.57 adj yards/att
In other words, a great RB opens things up for the entire offense.
On his podcast Simmons also said that if Darnold ends up as good as Philip Rivers then it was a bad pick by the Giants.
It's not as simple as "Barkley is fun to watch". I agree that he looks incredible, but if it doesn't amount to wins then so what? In another thread yesterday Jerry in DC shared compelling statistical evidence that passing, not rushing, correlates to wins and playoff appearances.
Barkley looks amazing and right now he's the only thing we have that's good, but that doesn't mean he was the right pick. I'd rather be boring and win.
Haven't seen the thread/post in question, but from what I've seen, it's generally (passing/receiving) yards/attempt that best correlates with wins. Which makes sense if you think about it because even the worst QBs average >6.0 yards/attempt whereas the best RBs are 5.0 (maybe 5.5) yards/rush so the passing game is clearly more efficient.
That said, Barkley isn't a typical RB and as we've seen this year, he can do just as much damage in the passing game. He's got great hands, which means fewer drops/incompletes, can run all the routes, and obviously is unbelievable with the ball in his hands. Even with the 14 catch dumpoff game significantly skewing his stats (only averaged 5.7 yards/rec that game), he's averaging 9.3 yards/rec on the season which is good for 4th best in the NFL among RBs (min 20 rec). And that's with 14+ more receptions than the 3 guys ahead of him (Cohen, Gurley, Conner).
The other thing that ypa doesn't account for is a RBs impact on the overall passing game. Here are Prescott's stats last season:
With Elliott: 62.9% 1818 yds 16 TD 4 INT 97.9 Rate 7.02 yards/att 7.56 adj yards/att
Without Elliott: 64% 1146 yds 5 TD 7 INT 76.6 Rate 6.86 yards/att 5.57 adj yards/att
In other words, a great RB opens things up for the entire offense.
Those statistics are polluted by the fact that they suffered some injuries on the OL without zeke, and got some of them back with Zeke.
Look no doubt that an *EFFICIENT* running game helps the pass, and does so in ways that are difficult for statistics to capture in an obvious way.
Before you comment on the statistics and cherry pick one situation that is actually not very indicative you should read up. What the statistics over a 25 year period (yes some are over 25 years, that's a very long time), what they sow is that passing correlates MORE than running for a lot of yards. What's more is that highly efficient running games also correlated high with winning. AND THAT IS WHERE THE RUNNING GAME HELPS THE PASSING GAME. To understand this you have to define what an efficient running game is.
A plus running play is one that gains
- A touchdown
- A first down
- On first or second down, gains at least 50% of the remaining yards for a first down or touchdown (some metrics say 4 yards on 1st and 10)
Using that as the metric, a high percentage of plus running plays correlates strongly with wins.
The point is you need consistency. NOT BOOM OR BUST...
THe other thing that statistics show is that wins do not correlate with yards gained, or with elite running backs.
Plain and simple they correlate with efficiency and consistency. The statistics also show that that consistency is independent of the RB, by highly dependent on the quality of the OL (tested by using other OL metrics).
As it turns out, passing efficiency (yards per attempt) also correlates highly with quality OLs (also measured by certain pass blocking metrics).
So BOTH passing efficiency and running efficiency correlates highly with winning and BOTH correlates highly with the quality of the OL. If you want to win, the single most important unit on the field is the OL. As individuals they are not as important as the QB, but as a unit they are least as important, probably more so. Want to see better QB play, want to see a better running game, get a better OL.
A QB wouldn't equate to wins either, though. Not this year.
That's the main issue.
We could have taken literally anyone in this draft and we'd almost certainly still be 1-5 or worse right now.
If we had Sam Darnold instead of Saquon Barkley, Darnold would still be running for his life, we'd have Wayne Gallman as our lead back and ??? behind him. We'd be turning the ball over like crazy, we'd have no running game and the offense would still be terrible.
Unless anyone is convinced that we won't be able to get a QB as good as Darnold in an upcoming draft.. which I don't buy.. then I don't see what makes it a bad pick.
I also realize that Barkley has a bunch of checkdown receptions and catches in garbage time - but he also has some pretty big ones. Including a huge 3rd down conversion in Houston on a pass down the right sideline.
He is fantastic as a dual threat and is one of the best players in the league. We need talent. No one player was going to fix this in one offseason even if it was a QB.
If we wind up with someone like Herbert, and he's on Darnold's level or better, then Barkley would appear to very much be the correct pick, in my opinion.
It's hard for me to agree that the best player in a draft could be a bad pick or a wrong pick because none of the alternatives would have improved the Giants any more than he has so far.
Outside of the Eagles game when did Barkley have all of these catches in garbage time? Every other game was close in the 4th quarter. The Cowboys and Saints games had garbage time, but it's not like it came in the first half.
Why does every thread praising Barkley have to turn into how bad Â
of a pick he was because we didn't take Darnold? Just fucking let it go. It's becoming excruciating reading this board because adults act like children.
I didn't bring up the garbage time catches. I guess you could say there were a lot of extra checkdowns in the Dallas game because we were getting absolutely murdered up front - but my point was that he's been a major asset to the pass game. So, if the idea is that effective passing correlates more with winning than effective running does, that's still not much of a case against Barkley because he's on pace for a ~100 catch/1k yard season as a receiver on top of everything he's doing as a runner.
I didn't bring up the garbage time catches. I guess you could say there were a lot of extra checkdowns in the Dallas game because we were getting absolutely murdered up front - but my point was that he's been a major asset to the pass game. So, if the idea is that effective passing correlates more with winning than effective running does, that's still not much of a case against Barkley because he's on pace for a ~100 catch/1k yard season as a receiver on top of everything he's doing as a runner.
Check out the link below for an in depth look at Barkley's "boom or bust" tendencies. Waldman shows the good and bad and makes the case that Barkley's success or failure at the NFL level will depend on his maturity and coachability. He gives example of guys who've made the change to their games going from college to the NFL (McCoy, Charles, Kamara) and guys who failed to change (Mahoney, Spiller). I think Barkley will belong to the former group because I believe in his maturity and coachability. He hasn't been perfect, but I think he's already shown signs of knowing when to hold em and when to fold em.
p.s.-- there's also an Ahmed Bradshaw mention in the video! Matt Waldman talks Saquon Barkley - ( New Window )
Check out the link below for an in depth look at Barkley's "boom or bust" tendencies. Waldman shows the good and bad and makes the case that Barkley's success or failure at the NFL level will depend on his maturity and coachability. He gives example of guys who've made the change to their games going from college to the NFL (McCoy, Charles, Kamara) and guys who failed to change (Mahoney, Spiller). I think Barkley will belong to the former group because I believe in his maturity and coachability. He hasn't been perfect, but I think he's already shown signs of knowing when to hold em and when to fold em.
p.s.-- there's also an Ahmed Bradshaw mention in the video! Matt Waldman talks Saquon Barkley - ( New Window )
Thanks Milton...
Yes that does show the boom or bust nature of Barkley. And right now we are still seeing some of that. I would say that its doesn't seem as bad as that particular game though. So hopefully he is learning.
But, clearly, his decision making isn't always the best, he thinks he can hit a homerun on every play.
We are at the point where everyone is overreacting now. I heard Colin Coeherd today say the Jets would own the town for 10 years. People talk like Barkley is a bust. I do think the next few weeks are crucial - can Gettleman trade some of these vets for draft picks?
I agree with your take on Lauletta, I’d rather play him with his cheap salary then settle/talk into a reach QB early (see Ereck Flowers). I know the NFL isn’t Madden, but this is what I’d do:
-Start Lauletta ASAP
-Trade anyone not named Barkley for picks
-I don’t know if it’s doable, but trade Beckham after the season. He’d be happier elsewhere & the team/culture would improve here.
-Use the draft to go BPA again, build up the trenches.
Those moves would go a long way in building a more cost effective team with a lot less drama. 1-5 with a bunch of high priced guys doesn’t work, if we are going to struggle, let’s at least root for a young/scrappy bunch of guys.
And if Lauletta stinks, maybe we have a shot at the Alabama QB in 2020 or whoever else comes about. If the 2019 QB class is uninspiring, maybe Lauletta does make the most sense.
I think what you're saying is a pipe dream. So you're saying - start Lauletta now and if he stinks you're going to play him another year anyways in hopes of 2020 you can really stink again in order to draft a better QB?
Barkley is the only thing making this year tolerable.
He has a body like Bo, but Bo don't know moves like Barkley. That's why I say Gale Sayers is the best comparison. They're built differently, but both could catch and run and were magicians in the open field.
Check out the link below for an in depth look at Barkley's "boom or bust" tendencies. Waldman shows the good and bad and makes the case that Barkley's success or failure at the NFL level will depend on his maturity and coachability. He gives example of guys who've made the change to their games going from college to the NFL (McCoy, Charles, Kamara) and guys who failed to change (Mahoney, Spiller). I think Barkley will belong to the former group because I believe in his maturity and coachability. He hasn't been perfect, but I think he's already shown signs of knowing when to hold em and when to fold em.
p.s.-- there's also an Ahmed Bradshaw mention in the video! Matt Waldman talks Saquon Barkley - ( New Window )
Barkley is a lock to become a great RB. FOr him it comes down having at least a decent OL just as it is for any RB. And just like any RB -- they become exponentially better if they have a QB. There is no real bust to Barkley. It's just noise and youth. He gets hit behind the line because the OL is awful. AT the moment the OL (and teh QB) makes him a boom or bust runner.
I'd say he's doing his part in the pass game.
How much of that has come in garbage time after the game is set as a loss? Or how much of that is a 10 yard dump off on 3rd and 15?
Not his fault. He's doing fantastic things on a terrible team. It just doesn't equate to wins. I'm not blaming him, I'm pointing to the philosophy of the pick from a roster construction standpoint.
I expect he'll continue to make fantastic plays, and I expect it will continue to not matter.
It's not as simple as "Barkley is fun to watch". I agree that he looks incredible, but if it doesn't amount to wins then so what? In another thread yesterday Jerry in DC shared compelling statistical evidence that passing, not rushing, correlates to wins and playoff appearances.
Barkley looks amazing and right now he's the only thing we have that's good, but that doesn't mean he was the right pick. I'd rather be boring and win.
Barkley makes big plays in the passing game too. I totally on board with the view the Jags wasted #4 on Fournette. Elliott was trickier because of the dominant OL being such a great fit. I think it's much trickier to say the Giants wasted #2.
Barkley is a significantly better player than either guy going #4 overall.
That's the main issue.
We could have taken literally anyone in this draft and we'd almost certainly still be 1-5 or worse right now.
If we had Sam Darnold instead of Saquon Barkley, Darnold would still be running for his life, we'd have Wayne Gallman as our lead back and ??? behind him. We'd be turning the ball over like crazy, we'd have no running game and the offense would still be terrible.
Unless anyone is convinced that we won't be able to get a QB as good as Darnold in an upcoming draft.. which I don't buy.. then I don't see what makes it a bad pick.
I also realize that Barkley has a bunch of checkdown receptions and catches in garbage time - but he also has some pretty big ones. Including a huge 3rd down conversion in Houston on a pass down the right sideline.
He is fantastic as a dual threat and is one of the best players in the league. We need talent. No one player was going to fix this in one offseason even if it was a QB.
If we wind up with someone like Herbert, and he's on Darnold's level or better, then Barkley would appear to very much be the correct pick, in my opinion.
It's hard for me to agree that the best player in a draft could be a bad pick or a wrong pick because none of the alternatives would have improved the Giants any more than he has so far.
It's not as simple as "Barkley is fun to watch". I agree that he looks incredible, but if it doesn't amount to wins then so what? In another thread yesterday Jerry in DC shared compelling statistical evidence that passing, not rushing, correlates to wins and playoff appearances.
Barkley looks amazing and right now he's the only thing we have that's good, but that doesn't mean he was the right pick. I'd rather be boring and win.
+1.
And it's simple math - if the Giants come away with a good QB from this draft (or FA, whatever) - it's fine.
If they don't - and it turns out they passed on a good or better QB in this draft, then it's irrelevant, since you don't win without a good QB in this league.
I say this as a guy that was skeptical about Darnold coming out... Herbert isn't close as a project, IMO. At least not on this team with these coaches.
That's the main issue.
We could have taken literally anyone in this draft and we'd almost certainly still be 1-5 or worse right now.
If we had Sam Darnold instead of Saquon Barkley, Darnold would still be running for his life, we'd have Wayne Gallman as our lead back and ??? behind him. We'd be turning the ball over like crazy, we'd have no running game and the offense would still be terrible.
Unless anyone is convinced that we won't be able to get a QB as good as Darnold in an upcoming draft.. which I don't buy.. then I don't see what makes it a bad pick.
I also realize that Barkley has a bunch of checkdown receptions and catches in garbage time - but he also has some pretty big ones. Including a huge 3rd down conversion in Houston on a pass down the right sideline.
He is fantastic as a dual threat and is one of the best players in the league. We need talent. No one player was going to fix this in one offseason even if it was a QB.
If we wind up with someone like Herbert, and he's on Darnold's level or better, then Barkley would appear to very much be the correct pick, in my opinion.
It's hard for me to agree that the best player in a draft could be a bad pick or a wrong pick because none of the alternatives would have improved the Giants any more than he has so far.
Stop making sense.
I say this as a guy that was skeptical about Darnold coming out... Herbert isn't close as a project, IMO. At least not on this team with these coaches.
Absolutely no way of knowing that now. Cannot state opinions as facts.
Herbert has excellent size and tools. He's accurate, he can move, and he can be every bit as good as Sam Darnold.
Unless you're a qualified scout, what you put in your title field is bullshit. No one knows that.
It's not as simple as "Barkley is fun to watch". I agree that he looks incredible, but if it doesn't amount to wins then so what? In another thread yesterday Jerry in DC shared compelling statistical evidence that passing, not rushing, correlates to wins and playoff appearances.
Barkley looks amazing and right now he's the only thing we have that's good, but that doesn't mean he was the right pick. I'd rather be boring and win.
But he’s not why it wouldn’t amount to wins. If the Giants can’t find a new QB they have failed. Sure, getting a QB is harder but I don’t buy hat they can’t put together a competitive team when almost every other franchise can.
I also care about being entertained and Barkley does that. Winning is fun too and of course I want that but I’ll take plenty of enjoyment watching Barkley play. If you won’t, hat sucks for you.
You'd trust them with Sam Darnold but not Justin Herbert?
You were gung ho on one of the rawest QB prospects in recent memory in Lamar Jackson... who might not even play QB in the NFL. You actually said you thought he was the best player in the draft, right? But Justin Herbert is where we draw the line as being too raw of a prospect?
He needs to improve in certain areas - he needs to cycle through reads faster. His progressions are where he needs the most work. But he's loaded with ability.
Maybe Herbert isn't even the guy we wind up with.
My point is - Sam Darnold looks pretty good. He doesn't look like a generational player that we'll never have another shot at.
Barkley actually does.
Regarding Herbert I'll also add that he grew up in Eugene. I don't know if he's ever been spent significant time west of the Cascades, let alone in the New York metro area. As someone that's been out here from Jersey a couple years I can tell you it's a pretty damn different place. I'd expect it to be quite an adjustment for him. All while sharing a locker room with Beckham and a couple other first round offensive players.
And that's if we even get him, which is an enormous assumption in and of itself.
The two teams who look worse than us right now are Arizona and Buffalo. They both just drafted QB's and neither are a threat to take him.
Tennessee is invested in Mariota still, so they won't either.
Unless the Raiders move Derek Carr, they are committed to him for a while.
IND has Andrew Luck. ATL will stick with Ryan. SF just paid Garropolo.
Outside of maybe Denver, we're not going to have much competition as far as QB suitors go in the upcoming draft.
That's the main issue.
We could have taken literally anyone in this draft and we'd almost certainly still be 1-5 or worse right now.
If we had Sam Darnold instead of Saquon Barkley, Darnold would still be running for his life, we'd have Wayne Gallman as our lead back and ??? behind him. We'd be turning the ball over like crazy, we'd have no running game and the offense would still be terrible.
Unless anyone is convinced that we won't be able to get a QB as good as Darnold in an upcoming draft.. which I don't buy.. then I don't see what makes it a bad pick.
I also realize that Barkley has a bunch of checkdown receptions and catches in garbage time - but he also has some pretty big ones. Including a huge 3rd down conversion in Houston on a pass down the right sideline.
He is fantastic as a dual threat and is one of the best players in the league. We need talent. No one player was going to fix this in one offseason even if it was a QB.
If we wind up with someone like Herbert, and he's on Darnold's level or better, then Barkley would appear to very much be the correct pick, in my opinion.
It's hard for me to agree that the best player in a draft could be a bad pick or a wrong pick because none of the alternatives would have improved the Giants any more than he has so far.
This
The two teams who look worse than us right now are Arizona and Buffalo. They both just drafted QB's and neither are a threat to take him.
Tennessee is invested in Mariota still, so they won't either.
Unless the Raiders move Derek Carr, they are committed to him for a while.
IND has Andrew Luck. ATL will stick with Ryan. SF just paid Garropolo.
Outside of maybe Denver, we're not going to have much competition as far as QB suitors go in the upcoming draft.
But more importantly, if the team with the #1 pick doesn't need a QB, they will sell the pick for a king's ransom, so it matters not who is #1 if it's not the Giants.
On the other hand, if there should come a time when they are convinced that they it doesn't make sense to bring Eli (and the $17M in compensation he is due) back next year, it might make sense to give Lauletta two or three starts at the end of the season. But the 9th game is too soon to start the rookie if you don't truly believe he makes the offense better, not worse.
We are at the point where everyone is overreacting now. I heard Colin Coeherd today say the Jets would own the town for 10 years. People talk like Barkley is a bust. I do think the next few weeks are crucial - can Gettleman trade some of these vets for draft picks?
I agree with your take on Lauletta, I’d rather play him with his cheap salary then settle/talk into a reach QB early (see Ereck Flowers). I know the NFL isn’t Madden, but this is what I’d do:
-Start Lauletta ASAP
-Trade anyone not named Barkley for picks
-I don’t know if it’s doable, but trade Beckham after the season. He’d be happier elsewhere & the team/culture would improve here.
-Use the draft to go BPA again, build up the trenches.
Those moves would go a long way in building a more cost effective team with a lot less drama. 1-5 with a bunch of high priced guys doesn’t work, if we are going to struggle, let’s at least root for a young/scrappy bunch of guys.
And if Lauletta stinks, maybe we have a shot at the Alabama QB in 2020 or whoever else comes about. If the 2019 QB class is uninspiring, maybe Lauletta does make the most sense.
Quote:
If we still look this incompetent (which I am fairly sure we will), Lauletta should be playing as soon as Week 10 following the bye.
Only if they think Lauletta gives them a better chance to win. It's not all about the QB. There are ten other guys on offense who are still learning the system. If Eli is the QB who gives them a better chance of keeping the chains moving, keeping the defense off the field, then he should be the one out there.
On the other hand, if there should come a time when they are convinced that they it doesn't make sense to bring Eli (and the $17M in compensation he is due) back next year, it might make sense to give Lauletta two or three starts at the end of the season. But the 9th game is too soon to start the rookie if you don't truly believe he makes the offense better, not worse.
Everything should be done with the future in mind. We don't need the guy who gives us the best chance to win this year because we aren't going anywhere this year.
We have nothing to lose by giving Lauletta the second half starts if they can get him up to speed enough by then.
Either he sucks and we wind up losing every game he starts and sit at the top of the draft in 2019, or he provides a spark and gives us reason to believe he might be worth going with next season or at least deserves more time.
Eli has no future here. We need to figure out what our next move is.
Everything should be done with the future in mind. We don't need the guy who gives us the best chance to win this year because we aren't going anywhere this year.
We have nothing to lose by giving Lauletta the second half starts if they can get him up to speed enough by then.
Quote:
Everything should be done with the future in mind. We don't need the guy who gives us the best chance to win this year because we aren't going anywhere this year.
We have nothing to lose by giving Lauletta the second half starts if they can get him up to speed enough by then.
Lauletta isn't the only player on the offense with a future on the team. It's not just about the QB position. Other players need to grow as well. And if Eli helps the rest of the offense develop, there is value in keeping him behind center.
Like who? Will Hernandez?
Nothing will change about anything he does with a different QB under center. Joe Thomas played with awful QB's his entire career and was an all pro for most of it.
If our "best chance to win" has yielded 1 in 6 tries and 4 in the last 18, I think it's safe to say it's not much of a chance...
Guys like Barkley and Hernandez aren't going to stop developing if we switch QB's.
I think Evan Engram will survive as well.
Nobody’s evaluating process is foolproof and sometimes risks need to be taken based on the greater potential outcome (meaning a QB is more valuable than a RB). And I am not suggesting DG didn’t think thru this. I am only suggesting many of the posters on this thread didn’t, based on their comments of being satisfied that we have Barkley and that a QB is only another draft away.
While DG clearly was sold on Barkley and was right. He was clearly wrong on Eli, or at least Eli behind this Oline (for the defenders of the faith...).
In the end, we have a wonderful asset in Barkley but are just wasting time until DG gets somebody else under center...
Quote:
Not that it was anything special because a lot of scouts were using superlatives in their description of Barkley as well, but I had LaDainian Tomlinson as his only peer in the last 25 years coming out of the draft.
I don't hold LDT in nearly the esteem you do, so comparing Barkley to him doesn't move the needle for me. Try Gale Sayers instead - ( New Window )
Gale Sayers, great player in his time but sorry, LdT is one of the best ever. 31 TDs in a season. 31. NFL record. 28 rushing, NFL record. Second best rushing season of all time next to Dickerson. 5th most scrimmage yards of all-time. 3rd most TDs of all-time next to Rice and Emmitt. Sayers was good but for a short time. I mean, seriously, Sayers wasnt the player LdT was. Not close. The fact that I'm saying Barkley is in LdT's class, which is saying Barkley is and will be one of the top half-dozen or so RBs ever. A group that doesn't include Sayers.
While DG clearly was sold on Barkley and was right. He was clearly wrong on Eli, or at least Eli behind this Oline (for the defenders of the faith...).
Yeah, that's the one concern I have.
I'm fine with acquiring Barkley as part of an overall team improvement effort that is intended to unfold over 2-3 seasons. If the Giants handle their next few offseasons correctly, I see no reason why they can't become a top offensive team within 2 seasons.
But if the decision behind drafting Barkley was based upon poor self-evaluation that led to a belief that a winning 2018 season was possible... well, that would be scary.
How are you calculating that? He doesn't rank near Dickerson as far as single season rushing yardage.
NFL Films ranks Sayers #22 all time
NFL Films ranks LDT #61 all time
Quote:
Sayers was good but for a short time. I mean, seriously, Sayers wasn't the player LdT was. Not close.
If you're talking about comparisons to Barkley, longevity shouldn't be part of the conversation because there's no telling what Barkley's longevity will be. As for comparing their natural talent...
NFL Films ranks Sayers #22 all time
NFL Films ranks of LDT #61 all time
Oh well if NFL Films says it. Gale Sayers is one of the most overrated "legends" of the game ever. And the reasons why are 1) he died, and 2) Brian's Song.
Saying Sayers is anywhere near Tomlinson's equal is akin to saying Olivier Vernon is Lawrence Taylor's equal. Nice player, has had a few good years, doesn't belong in the best ever conversation and not close. You know who Sayers would be today? Kenyan Drake. (I kid, kinda).
Barkley is the only thing making this year tollerable.
Quote:
In comment 14133634 allstarjim said:
Quote:
Sayers was good but for a short time. I mean, seriously, Sayers wasn't the player LdT was. Not close.
If you're talking about comparisons to Barkley, longevity shouldn't be part of the conversation because there's no telling what Barkley's longevity will be. As for comparing their natural talent...
NFL Films ranks Sayers #22 all time
NFL Films ranks of LDT #61 all time
Oh well if NFL Films says it. Gale Sayers is one of the most overrated "legends" of the game ever. And the reasons why are 1) he died, and 2) Brian's Song.
Saying Sayers is anywhere near Tomlinson's equal is akin to saying Olivier Vernon is Lawrence Taylor's equal. Nice player, has had a few good years, doesn't belong in the best ever conversation and not close. You know who Sayers would be today? Kenyan Drake. (I kid, kinda).
I realize Gale Sayers is still alive. Momentary bout of insanity.
Still, his seasons nor his play never reached LdT's accomplishments, and certainly not for the years LdT did it for. He doesn't belong in the same class as LdT.
Barkley is the only thing making this year tolerable.
My buddy at NFL Films (who admittedly is a massive Jets fan) sent me a video clip of Darnold talking to his offensive line in the fourth quarter of the Colts game this week. He couldn't use the clip because Darnold drops like four or five F bombs, but he was basically saying, completely calmly, "It's time to put the knife in these fucking guys right now. We're going to get really fucking good at this." It was the kind of thing that BBI would make BBI go nuts in love with him. He sounded like a ten year vet. Complete command.
The Jets hit big with this guy. I think I was wrong on him.
allstarjim : 10/17/2018 10:23 pm : link : reply
Gale Sayers, great player in his time but sorry, LdT is one of the best ever. 31 TDs in a season. 31. NFL record. 28 rushing, NFL record. Second best rushing season of all time next to Dickerson. 5th most scrimmage yards of all-time. 3rd most TDs of all-time next to Rice and Emmitt. Sayers was good but for a short time. I mean, seriously, Sayers wasnt the player LdT was. Not close. The fact that I'm saying Barkley is in LdT's class, which is saying Barkley is and will be one of the top half-dozen or so RBs ever. A group that doesn't include Sayers.
You never saw Gayle Sayers play......
It's not as simple as "Barkley is fun to watch". I agree that he looks incredible, but if it doesn't amount to wins then so what? In another thread yesterday Jerry in DC shared compelling statistical evidence that passing, not rushing, correlates to wins and playoff appearances.
Barkley looks amazing and right now he's the only thing we have that's good, but that doesn't mean he was the right pick. I'd rather be boring and win.
With all due respect to Jetty. I posted those articles and about 20 some more, back in April BEFORE the draft.
I was arguing then that no matter how good Barkley is he would be the wrong pick. And Barkley is GREAT, he's all we have. Based on all the statistical evidence, what is happening to us now was easily predicted. I predicted this back then, only to have most of BBI jump on me and call me a troll.
Some additional tidbits that i posted was that runs of less than 2 yards are drive killers, I forget the % exactly now, but it was something like 90% of all drives that start with a run of 1 yard or less, fail to get a first down or touchdown. Don't pin me on that 90%, I don't recall the exact number but it was astonishingly high.
Barkley, as great as he is, has a penchant for always trying to hit the homerun, and as a result he has a higher rate of 1 yard or less runs than most backs. In fact he was at somewhere around 15% a Penn St. while the rest of the top back were at 5% or less. Those runs kill drives, and we see that in gory detail every single week.
Some of the articles I posted tied both run and pass efficiency to the OL. So, if pass efficiency is correlated with winning, and pass efficiency is correlated to the OL. It stands to reason that to be successful you HAVE TO HAVE A VERY GOOD OL. This is why I keep harping on fixing the OL.
If we get the QB first then so be it. Personally I would rather fix the OL first. I fear ruining kids behind shitty OLs. How many of those QBs that failed with the Browns, Bills, Cardinals, Jets, Miami, etc failed because of the awfulness of the team, and OL around them. So many perpetually bad teams, with so many failed QBs. Some were shell shocked, some got injured, some just never got a chance to succeed, got labeled and thrown out with yesterday's trash. Now, many, perhaps most were simply bad in their own right. But I think some were turned bad. Just like we've turned Eli bad.
Want to win, protect your QB, and get to the opposing QB. Right now, we can't do either. Fixing this team will take more than one really outstanding off-season going forward.
It's not as simple as "Barkley is fun to watch". I agree that he looks incredible, but if it doesn't amount to wins then so what? In another thread yesterday Jerry in DC shared compelling statistical evidence that passing, not rushing, correlates to wins and playoff appearances.
Barkley looks amazing and right now he's the only thing we have that's good, but that doesn't mean he was the right pick. I'd rather be boring and win.
Haven't seen the thread/post in question, but from what I've seen, it's generally (passing/receiving) yards/attempt that best correlates with wins. Which makes sense if you think about it because even the worst QBs average >6.0 yards/attempt whereas the best RBs are 5.0 (maybe 5.5) yards/rush so the passing game is clearly more efficient.
That said, Barkley isn't a typical RB and as we've seen this year, he can do just as much damage in the passing game. He's got great hands, which means fewer drops/incompletes, can run all the routes, and obviously is unbelievable with the ball in his hands. Even with the 14 catch dumpoff game significantly skewing his stats (only averaged 5.7 yards/rec that game), he's averaging 9.3 yards/rec on the season which is good for 4th best in the NFL among RBs (min 20 rec). And that's with 14+ more receptions than the 3 guys ahead of him (Cohen, Gurley, Conner).
The other thing that ypa doesn't account for is a RBs impact on the overall passing game. Here are Prescott's stats last season:
With Elliott: 62.9% 1818 yds 16 TD 4 INT 97.9 Rate 7.02 yards/att 7.56 adj yards/att
Without Elliott: 64% 1146 yds 5 TD 7 INT 76.6 Rate 6.86 yards/att 5.57 adj yards/att
In other words, a great RB opens things up for the entire offense.
Quote:
On his podcast Simmons also said that if Darnold ends up as good as Philip Rivers then it was a bad pick by the Giants.
It's not as simple as "Barkley is fun to watch". I agree that he looks incredible, but if it doesn't amount to wins then so what? In another thread yesterday Jerry in DC shared compelling statistical evidence that passing, not rushing, correlates to wins and playoff appearances.
Barkley looks amazing and right now he's the only thing we have that's good, but that doesn't mean he was the right pick. I'd rather be boring and win.
Haven't seen the thread/post in question, but from what I've seen, it's generally (passing/receiving) yards/attempt that best correlates with wins. Which makes sense if you think about it because even the worst QBs average >6.0 yards/attempt whereas the best RBs are 5.0 (maybe 5.5) yards/rush so the passing game is clearly more efficient.
That said, Barkley isn't a typical RB and as we've seen this year, he can do just as much damage in the passing game. He's got great hands, which means fewer drops/incompletes, can run all the routes, and obviously is unbelievable with the ball in his hands. Even with the 14 catch dumpoff game significantly skewing his stats (only averaged 5.7 yards/rec that game), he's averaging 9.3 yards/rec on the season which is good for 4th best in the NFL among RBs (min 20 rec). And that's with 14+ more receptions than the 3 guys ahead of him (Cohen, Gurley, Conner).
The other thing that ypa doesn't account for is a RBs impact on the overall passing game. Here are Prescott's stats last season:
With Elliott: 62.9% 1818 yds 16 TD 4 INT 97.9 Rate 7.02 yards/att 7.56 adj yards/att
Without Elliott: 64% 1146 yds 5 TD 7 INT 76.6 Rate 6.86 yards/att 5.57 adj yards/att
In other words, a great RB opens things up for the entire offense.
Those statistics are polluted by the fact that they suffered some injuries on the OL without zeke, and got some of them back with Zeke.
Look no doubt that an *EFFICIENT* running game helps the pass, and does so in ways that are difficult for statistics to capture in an obvious way.
Before you comment on the statistics and cherry pick one situation that is actually not very indicative you should read up. What the statistics over a 25 year period (yes some are over 25 years, that's a very long time), what they sow is that passing correlates MORE than running for a lot of yards. What's more is that highly efficient running games also correlated high with winning. AND THAT IS WHERE THE RUNNING GAME HELPS THE PASSING GAME. To understand this you have to define what an efficient running game is.
A plus running play is one that gains
- A touchdown
- A first down
- On first or second down, gains at least 50% of the remaining yards for a first down or touchdown (some metrics say 4 yards on 1st and 10)
Using that as the metric, a high percentage of plus running plays correlates strongly with wins.
The point is you need consistency. NOT BOOM OR BUST...
THe other thing that statistics show is that wins do not correlate with yards gained, or with elite running backs.
Plain and simple they correlate with efficiency and consistency. The statistics also show that that consistency is independent of the RB, by highly dependent on the quality of the OL (tested by using other OL metrics).
As it turns out, passing efficiency (yards per attempt) also correlates highly with quality OLs (also measured by certain pass blocking metrics).
So BOTH passing efficiency and running efficiency correlates highly with winning and BOTH correlates highly with the quality of the OL. If you want to win, the single most important unit on the field is the OL. As individuals they are not as important as the QB, but as a unit they are least as important, probably more so. Want to see better QB play, want to see a better running game, get a better OL.
That's the main issue.
We could have taken literally anyone in this draft and we'd almost certainly still be 1-5 or worse right now.
If we had Sam Darnold instead of Saquon Barkley, Darnold would still be running for his life, we'd have Wayne Gallman as our lead back and ??? behind him. We'd be turning the ball over like crazy, we'd have no running game and the offense would still be terrible.
Unless anyone is convinced that we won't be able to get a QB as good as Darnold in an upcoming draft.. which I don't buy.. then I don't see what makes it a bad pick.
I also realize that Barkley has a bunch of checkdown receptions and catches in garbage time - but he also has some pretty big ones. Including a huge 3rd down conversion in Houston on a pass down the right sideline.
He is fantastic as a dual threat and is one of the best players in the league. We need talent. No one player was going to fix this in one offseason even if it was a QB.
If we wind up with someone like Herbert, and he's on Darnold's level or better, then Barkley would appear to very much be the correct pick, in my opinion.
It's hard for me to agree that the best player in a draft could be a bad pick or a wrong pick because none of the alternatives would have improved the Giants any more than he has so far.
Outside of the Eagles game when did Barkley have all of these catches in garbage time? Every other game was close in the 4th quarter. The Cowboys and Saints games had garbage time, but it's not like it came in the first half.
Dude he’s just a running back.
Seriously Uconn, you of all people know what I said back then and that its coming to pass.
p.s.-- there's also an Ahmed Bradshaw mention in the video!
Matt Waldman talks Saquon Barkley - ( New Window )
p.s.-- there's also an Ahmed Bradshaw mention in the video! Matt Waldman talks Saquon Barkley - ( New Window )
Thanks Milton...
Yes that does show the boom or bust nature of Barkley. And right now we are still seeing some of that. I would say that its doesn't seem as bad as that particular game though. So hopefully he is learning.
But, clearly, his decision making isn't always the best, he thinks he can hit a homerun on every play.
We are at the point where everyone is overreacting now. I heard Colin Coeherd today say the Jets would own the town for 10 years. People talk like Barkley is a bust. I do think the next few weeks are crucial - can Gettleman trade some of these vets for draft picks?
I agree with your take on Lauletta, I’d rather play him with his cheap salary then settle/talk into a reach QB early (see Ereck Flowers). I know the NFL isn’t Madden, but this is what I’d do:
-Start Lauletta ASAP
-Trade anyone not named Barkley for picks
-I don’t know if it’s doable, but trade Beckham after the season. He’d be happier elsewhere & the team/culture would improve here.
-Use the draft to go BPA again, build up the trenches.
Those moves would go a long way in building a more cost effective team with a lot less drama. 1-5 with a bunch of high priced guys doesn’t work, if we are going to struggle, let’s at least root for a young/scrappy bunch of guys.
And if Lauletta stinks, maybe we have a shot at the Alabama QB in 2020 or whoever else comes about. If the 2019 QB class is uninspiring, maybe Lauletta does make the most sense.
I think what you're saying is a pipe dream. So you're saying - start Lauletta now and if he stinks you're going to play him another year anyways in hopes of 2020 you can really stink again in order to draft a better QB?
Quote:
Hopefully he lasts much longer in the league.
Barkley is the only thing making this year tolerable.
He has a body like Bo, but Bo don't know moves like Barkley. That's why I say Gale Sayers is the best comparison. They're built differently, but both could catch and run and were magicians in the open field.
He's more like Billy Sims imo.
p.s.-- there's also an Ahmed Bradshaw mention in the video! Matt Waldman talks Saquon Barkley - ( New Window )
Barkley is a lock to become a great RB. FOr him it comes down having at least a decent OL just as it is for any RB. And just like any RB -- they become exponentially better if they have a QB. There is no real bust to Barkley. It's just noise and youth. He gets hit behind the line because the OL is awful. AT the moment the OL (and teh QB) makes him a boom or bust runner.