This helps explain his lackluster end to the season.
People knew his injuries in college made him a risk, but it’s just sad to see a guy so talented probably have his career derailed or at least significantly impacted by this.
Todd Gurley: Arthritis in Knee - (
New Window )
I could see it playing out like you describe. You put one of the 2 Alabama RB’s behind that line and you have a potential ROY favorite.
And it’s not just injury concern it’s cap allocation too. I don’t have time to get into this today but will happily post a deeper analysis on the next week sometime
I don't blame them.
Enjoy the first contract. The guy is already the best rb in football.
Mind boggling, isn’t it?
And it’s not just injury concern it’s cap allocation too. I don’t have time to get into this today but will happily post a deeper analysis on the next week sometime
Please don't.
He's had 1 outstanding season when the Rams fixed their OL.
Something like this may never happen to Barkley. But as of now, Gurley is the poster child for why you just don't gamble resources on RBs.
Oh yeah, here is one those folks... Yeah he knows now!
He's had 1 outstanding season when the Rams fixed their OL.
Something like this may never happen to Barkley. But as of now, Gurley is the poster child for why you just don't gamble resources on RBs.
2 and also with a good rookie year
He's had 1 outstanding season when the Rams fixed their OL.
Something like this may never happen to Barkley. But as of now, Gurley is the poster child for why you just don't gamble resources on RBs.
The gamble was with his knee injury which was know before drafting him. Plenty of other RBs with long careers, the examples are endless.
Quote:
Who threw Gurley in my face when I said that you just don't use such high picks on RBs...
He's had 1 outstanding season when the Rams fixed their OL.
Something like this may never happen to Barkley. But as of now, Gurley is the poster child for why you just don't gamble resources on RBs.
2 and also with a good rookie year
I said outstanding for a reason!
For what the resources the Rams used on him, good is not good enough.
He's had 1 outstanding season when the Rams fixed their OL.
Something like this may never happen to Barkley. But as of now, Gurley is the poster child for why you just don't gamble resources on RBs with bad knees and a history of injury to the knee.
Fixed it for you.
Quote:
Who threw Gurley in my face when I said that you just don't use such high picks on RBs...
He's had 1 outstanding season when the Rams fixed their OL.
Something like this may never happen to Barkley. But as of now, Gurley is the poster child for why you just don't gamble resources on RBs.
The gamble was with his knee injury which was know before drafting him. Plenty of other RBs with long careers, the examples are endless.
And plenty more with short ones... Far more with short ones, than long ones. Far far more!
How many QBs taken in the top 10 never went to or even sniffed a super bowl? Those examples are endless as well.
The Barley pick is an example of a player being so much better than anyone else, with such a rare skill set, that you take him and feel comfortable knowing that barring an injury that can happen to anyone, he’s going to give you all pro years every season.
I’m happy with that. If you can’t capitalize on that, shame on those in charge.
How many QBs taken in the top 10 never went to or even sniffed a super bowl? Those examples are endless as well.
Gurley wasn't nearly as impactful in 2018, and he barely played in the playoffs. It wasn't Gurley that got them to the SB.
Outside of Richardson and Wilson, most taken in the last 10-15 years had long careers. Richardson just sucked and Wilson had a more rare injury that was likely there most of his life and made worse by football.
I can’t have this debate anymore, not worth it.
He's had 1 outstanding season when the Rams fixed their OL.
Something like this may never happen to Barkley. But as of now, Gurley is the poster child for why you just don't gamble resources on RBs.
Close. You don’t gamble high draft picks or big contracts.
It’s the most fungible position in football - RB. It should be renamed the Widget.
The Barley pick is an example of a player being so much better than anyone else, with such a rare skill set, that you take him and feel comfortable knowing that barring an injury that can happen to anyone, he’s going to give you all pro years every season.
I’m happy with that. If you can’t capitalize on that, shame on those in charge.
THe data NEVER helped your arguement. That's laughable.
Lets make sure we understand the the point here. What needs to be compared is the marginal benefit to the team of having a great RB vs. a league avg. RB., along with the higher risk of injuries shotening their career, vs. the marginal benefit of taking other positions such as ER, QB, OT, and to a lesser extent OG, OC, CB, WR and DL, and even lesser extent S, LB and TE.
And while I am not going to post all the numbers stuff AGAIN (the stuff you mostly refused to read). THe number paint a picture that the marginal benefit of a great RB over an average one is small compared the marginal benefit of great at most other positions vs avg at most other positions. Add the risk factor in at RB, and its simply just not worth it.
Sure you can go out and spend massive resources on a great RB and it may turn out extremely well... But you are making the anti-percentage play. Its like going to Roulette table an playing red all the time. You will win some, but more often, 20 times out of 38, you lose. In the long run the house wins in roulette a higher percentage of the time than any other game. Why play it? Smart players look for games where they can turn the advantage to themselves. If you can count cards, you can win in Black Jack! I want my GM counting cards!
I can’t have this debate anymore, not worth it.
Last time I checked, Wentz hasn't won a single playoff game, including the Superbowl!
Your point is???? I'm confused, you seem to be making my point.
Quote:
Who threw Gurley in my face when I said that you just don't use such high picks on RBs...
He's had 1 outstanding season when the Rams fixed their OL.
Something like this may never happen to Barkley. But as of now, Gurley is the poster child for why you just don't gamble resources on RBs.
Close. You don’t gamble high draft picks or big contracts.
It’s the most fungible position in football - RB. It should be renamed the Widget.
Agreed, when I say resources, that to me is both draft picks and money...
This is the world we live in today, some people want their inferences to be more and more backed up by data and some just want their inferences.
Quote:
that’s like saying Wentz didn’t take the Eagles to the Supervowl.
I can’t have this debate anymore, not worth it.
Last time I checked, Wentz hasn't won a single playoff game, including the Superbowl!
Your point is???? I'm confused, you seem to be making my point.
My point is clear. You see it your way or no way at all. It’s all good. You were the smartest guy in the room until the other guy showed up, I’ll let you two stroke each other’s egos. I really have no desire debating this.
Enjoy.
Quote:
In comment 14311994 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
that’s like saying Wentz didn’t take the Eagles to the Supervowl.
I can’t have this debate anymore, not worth it.
Last time I checked, Wentz hasn't won a single playoff game, including the Superbowl!
Your point is???? I'm confused, you seem to be making my point.
My point is clear. You see it your way or no way at all. It’s all good. You were the smartest guy in the room until the other guy showed up, I’ll let you two stroke each other’s egos. I really have no desire debating this.
Enjoy.
You don't get it... I have no specific "way"...
As people often say, there are many ways to do it.
Look at it this way. At any given point in time you are faced with a decisions. Eache decision you make changes of the probability of you team winning a Superbowl (or perhaps multiple ones). Lets say you had a supercomputer that can instantly analyze all possible outcomes of a decision and determine the likelihood of success. Wouldn't you always make the decision that yielded the highest probability of success? Of course we don't have such a super computer. But we have methods that can approximate some of what that super computer might do. We have methods that can give approximate probabilistic outcomes. Even when the methods are not perfect, doesn't it make sense to take advantage of them and choose the path that leads to the highest likelihood of success? What that path is for any given team at any given time will be very different. There is not just one way. But what the best models we have now suggest is that RBs are not worthy of high draft picks and large contracts. Spending a high draft pick or a large percentage of cap space on a RB, is pretty much never the choice that yields the highest probability of success.
Quote:
In comment 14311994 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
that’s like saying Wentz didn’t take the Eagles to the Supervowl.
I can’t have this debate anymore, not worth it.
Last time I checked, Wentz hasn't won a single playoff game, including the Superbowl!
Your point is???? I'm confused, you seem to be making my point.
My point is clear. You see it your way or no way at all. It’s all good. You were the smartest guy in the room until the other guy showed up, I’ll let you two stroke each other’s egos. I really have no desire debating this.
Enjoy.
You don't get it... I have no specific "way"...
As people often say, there are many ways to do it.
Look at it this way. At any given point in time you are faced with a decisions. Eache decision you make changes of the probability of you team winning a Superbowl (or perhaps multiple ones). Lets say you had a supercomputer that can instantly analyze all possible outcomes of a decision and determine the likelihood of success. Wouldn't you always make the decision that yielded the highest probability of success? Of course we don't have such a super computer. But we have methods that can approximate some of what that super computer might do. We have methods that can give approximate probabilistic outcomes. Even when the methods are not perfect, doesn't it make sense to take advantage of them and choose the path that leads to the highest likelihood of success? What that path is for any given team at any given time will be very different. There is not just one way. But what the best models we have now suggest is that RBs are not worthy of high draft picks and large contracts. Spending a high draft pick or a large percentage of cap space on a RB, is pretty much never rises to the best choice, the choice that yields the highest probability of success.
By premium, if you mean high first round picks or huge contracts with huge guaranteed money, then correct - never make that investment.
With such a reliable, abundant supply every year in the draft, and in free agency, smart management should be able to identify a group of 3 to 5 that are interchangeable and reliable for the team,
Quote:
Rb? No matter what?
By premium, if you mean high first round picks or huge contracts with huge guaranteed money, then correct - never make that investment.
With such a reliable, abundant supply every year in the draft, and in free agency, smart management should be able to identify a group of 3 to 5 that are interchangeable and reliable for the team,
Exactly right bw!
Quote:
In comment 14311994 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
that’s like saying Wentz didn’t take the Eagles to the Supervowl.
I can’t have this debate anymore, not worth it.
Last time I checked, Wentz hasn't won a single playoff game, including the Superbowl!
Your point is???? I'm confused, you seem to be making my point.
My point is clear. You see it your way or no way at all. It’s all good. You were the smartest guy in the room until the other guy showed up, I’ll let you two stroke each other’s egos. I really have no desire debating this.
Enjoy.
Not saying I'm the smartest guy in the room, but smarter than you, yeah... I remember you were the one who could not distinguish the difference between value and cost.
We all feel for Gurley, or should, but he was damaged goods coming into the league and anyone that paid attention knew it.
To cite him as a warning case, 'I told you we shouldn't have drafted Barkley' is ignoring the fact that their circumstances are entirely different. Both coming into the league and in the way they play the game. Saquon will never take the sustained punishment Gurley does by virtue of his superior elusiveness.
Sanders didn't take a lot of big hits and neither did Faulk. For me they are the best comps for Saquon and we're all familiar with their longevity and success.
Injuries can happen to any player but all I can say is I'm not wringing my hands waiting for the other shoe to drop regarding drafting Barkley. I'm watching and enjoying as one of the purest football talents that has ever donned the Blue goes about his business. I didn't think I'd see a better player on the roster once OBJ emerged but it happened. Barkley is the most gifted player I've seen since LT.
I wanted Darnold last year, good thing I'm not making the decisions.
Obviously, there's some selection bias here, since nobody's using Ki-Jana Carter or Blair Thomas as a comp anymore. But among the rare running backs who were close to Barkley's skill set, a decade of sustained success hasn't been uncommon. Aside from the two examples Torrag mentioned, you could add Walter Payton, LaDainian Tomlinson, Eric Dickerson, and maybe Marcus Allen and Thurman Thomas. Curtis Martin might belong on the list too, though he was wildly underrated coming out of Pitt. Edgerrin James is a mixed case, since injuries made him ordinary fairly early in his career. Gale Sayers is the worst-case scenario.
The harder question is whether ANY running back can offer enough "value above replacement" to justify a big investment, especially when injury risk is factored in. I would argue that Faulk did with the Rams, although he probably didn't with the Colts. What was the difference? Surrounding talent? The way he was used? Faulk mastering his craft? I honestly don't know. Maybe all of the above.
Quote:
In comment 14312005 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 14311994 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
that’s like saying Wentz didn’t take the Eagles to the Supervowl.
I can’t have this debate anymore, not worth it.
Last time I checked, Wentz hasn't won a single playoff game, including the Superbowl!
Your point is???? I'm confused, you seem to be making my point.
My point is clear. You see it your way or no way at all. It’s all good. You were the smartest guy in the room until the other guy showed up, I’ll let you two stroke each other’s egos. I really have no desire debating this.
Enjoy.
Not saying I'm the smartest guy in the room, but smarter than you, yeah... I remember you were the one who could not distinguish the difference between value and cost.
Right, I forgot how both are absolutes because analytics say so.
We disagree dude, move on.
Quote:
Rb? No matter what?
By premium, if you mean high first round picks or huge contracts with huge guaranteed money, then correct - never make that investment.
With such a reliable, abundant supply every year in the draft, and in free agency, smart management should be able to identify a group of 3 to 5 that are interchangeable and reliable for the team,
Choosing to have an absolutely closed mind about something isn't necessarily a good thing. It's fine that it's something you would probably never do, but to totally discount it ever single time is a bit short sighted in my opinion.
Choosing to have an absolutely closed mind about something isn't necessarily a good thing. It's fine that it's something you would probably never do, but to totally discount it ever single time is a bit short sighted in my opinion.
Closed minded? I’m just being practical and economical.
If you a great team that is pretty well stacked, and have a high pick via a prior trade, then taking a RB high as a luxury move might make sense.
Quote:
Exceptions. Are there not any exceptions to this rule?
If you a great team that is pretty well stacked, and have a high pick via a prior trade, then taking a RB high as a luxury move might make sense.
So a certain player couldn't himself be an exception? A great, maybe once in a lifetime prospect couldn't be an exception even if the team has various holes to fill?
Now granted a prospect could always turn out to be not as advertised.
Sucks, he's fun to watch. Great player.
He's had 1 outstanding season when the Rams fixed their OL.
Something like this may never happen to Barkley. But as of now, Gurley is the poster child for why you just don't gamble resources on RBs.
Bullshit.
Quote:
Who threw Gurley in my face when I said that you just don't use such high picks on RBs...
He's had 1 outstanding season when the Rams fixed their OL.
Something like this may never happen to Barkley. But as of now, Gurley is the poster child for why you just don't gamble resources on RBs.
Close. You don’t gamble high draft picks or big contracts.
It’s the most fungible position in football - RB. It should be renamed the Widget.
More bullshit.
Quote:
Exceptions. Are there not any exceptions to this rule?
If you a great team that is pretty well stacked, and have a high pick via a prior trade, then taking a RB high as a luxury move might make sense.
Oh ok cool. Lol.
Hilarious
Quote:
Exceptions. Are there not any exceptions to this rule?
If you a great team that is pretty well stacked, and have a high pick via a prior trade, then taking a RB high as a luxury move might make sense.
That’s the definition of being close minded. So is simply chalking anyone with the RB label as having the same “value”. For example, Barkley and Fournette are in different strasphoeres of both skill and value - one I wouldn’t take top 5 and the other I would.
But that requires a bit of nuance and critical thinking and probably goes against the neat little analytics models that the computers pump out.
Go listen to episode 65 of the Taekcast podcast. It's entitled "Running backs don't matter".
It was a bad use of a premium draft pick, and proof that Gettleman doesn't care about analytics because the math says it's a bad pick.
Running backs do matter, which is why they are getting drafted high again and contracts are bouncing back. Just because there’s a podcast doesn’t make it true.
Running backs do matter, which is why they are getting drafted high again and contracts are bouncing back. Just because there’s a podcast doesn’t make it true.
It's not true because there's a podcast about it, it's true because the math supports it. The podcast just tells us about it (as do other sources).
Besides, even if running backs do indeed matter, Barkley didn't in 2018. That's also backed up by the math.
Just blaming Eli for everything isn't an argument.
That’s the definition of being close minded. So is simply chalking anyone with the RB label as having the same “value”. For example, Barkley and Fournette are in different strasphoeres of both skill and value - one I wouldn’t take top 5 and the other I would.
But that requires a bit of nuance and critical thinking and probably goes against the neat little analytics models that the computers pump out.
I'm not suggesting RBs are all of the same value. Of course some of more talented, athletic and productive than others. Indeed, Barkley is fun to watch and, of course, a unique, productive talent.
But this about economics. And why invest a lot of cap money in a Barkley-type when you can get other RBs who are 85-90% of that Barkley-type, and at a cheaper bundled rate? Furthermore, I always lean on thise football actuarial tables and just don't trust the shelf life of RBs.
Look, you may not like it, but RBs grow on trees. They are a commodity. Every year you find new guys taken later in the draft, or even un-drafted, who are productive and reliable, and contribute to the team's scheme of winning. So why - literally - waste cap money on a position where the supply is as abundant as soda.
A guy getting 121 targets absolutely has to get more than 721 yards.
Barkley picked up a lot of receptions because outside of OBJ there's nothing outside.
Those targets need to be going downfield. It's a passing league, with the rule book written to encourage going downfield.
Barkley is great (no arguments from anybody), he is like Sanders, Falk, etc. etc. etc. We all get wistful thinking back the highlight reel careers of great RBs in the past. And no doubt Barkley is already doing his share in that department. Its exciting, its fun, its an emotional high. Oh they make comments about moving linebackers and safeties around causing mismatches, make it sound like they really know football. Who can argue against fun, exciting, highlight reel touchdowns, and football for dummies logic right!
The problem is that for the numbers and math guys, even if it reasons are really hard to explain, we can see in the numbers that no matter how you shape and mold them, no matter how many gods hands touch them, they just don't have the impact on offensive numbers and ultimately wins the you would expect.
It took thousands of years for people to believe that the Earth was a sphere, and that it orbited the Sun, not the other way around.People were looking at the mat and saying it just didn't add up, there was something wrong witht he Earth centric theory. Eventually people worked it out and showed that ALL the planets go around the sun, but the emotional side prevailed for several hundred more years. Newton came along and put the final nail in the old theory...
Even if we can't always explain it, rigorous math always wins these debates in the end.
So the emotional guys run into the math guys who are not going to be moved by emotion, and the emotional guys say the math guys are the close minded ones. They argue that the math guys say there is only one way, that the math guys are not flexible enough. Its the same debate that has been had for centuries, millennia even. What the emotional guys will never understand is that while the math guys may sympathize with them, and from an emotional perspective their argument may be satisfying, the math guys are always going to go back to the numbers in a dispassionate way and say but, but, but look at this. How do we explain this? Emotional guys don't care to explain it, its not satisfying to them.
Barkley sure is going to make it easier for the next qb that I have no doubt about. Perhaps not as much as I think which is possible.
Barkley sure is going to make it easier for the next qb that I have no doubt about. Perhaps not as much as I think which is possible.
I was never a draft a QB guy last year, I am on the record as saying that the only one I liked was Mayfield (but that Mayfield and NYC would be a bad mix), and that was months before the draft.
I thought the best play last year, was to trade down.
I think that's the best play again this year...
But alas, Gettleman has a severe allergy to trading down.
Two, math isn’t the end all be all. Math doesn’t measure intangibles, character, work ethic, want to, etc so while I embrace analytics, it really isn’t the alimighty power you are making it out to be.
Keep stroking your ego if you want, you aren’t really getting anywhere with it.
Two, math isn’t the end all be all. Math doesn’t measure intangibles, character, work ethic, want to, etc so while I embrace analytics, it really isn’t the alimighty power you are making it out to be.
Keep stroking your ego if you want, you aren’t really getting anywhere with it.
First of all, I said that there are many ways... You're insistence on saying that I am rigid inflexible and that I believe its only my way continues to make the point I made above. You are welcome to disagree. But you have never once provided a sound fact based argument to back up your view. I've provided volumes of facts, data, and research that backs up my point of view. Your only approach to this debate was to attack and try to undermine the analysis and math behind the various studies that have been done. Pretty pathetic attempts, since you mostly didn't read them, nor did you understand the few snippets that you did read (just the last paragraph usually) because you grossly misinterpreted what was said. So your only form of persuasion, is to attack the math, say its wrong, and that you are right because, um? Well just because you disagree and think you are right, no real specific reason, just you are. And dammit McL you are too rigid and accepting of Uconn's thinking...
To which, I am left saying, um, what thinking, I have yet to see any thinking...
To your other point, I also agree that assessing individuals you certainly have to take into account character, work ethic, desire, instincts... Watch enough games and films on guys and scouts will grade players on all of these attributes. Hmm interesting word there. Even scouts GRADE the players. At the end of the day, everybody needs a basis for comparison. So, what people naturally do is provide a numeric score for all those attributes you name. Granted its people who have to provide the score right now. But make no mistake about, every attribute you want to look at is given a number that can be plugged into a formula used to compare the prospects. Even in the past you pointed to numerical grades put out by various sources. Whoops, that sounds suspiciously like analytics...
I have news for you, everything we know of in the universe obeys natural laws. Math is the language of those natural laws. Everything we see can be described by math. Humans are limited in applying it based on how well we can come up with the models.
Quote:
To hit on their pick last year. No one knows how good these qbs are going to be that the giants chose to not select. How good do one of the qbs have to be to be a better pick than Barkley, Average? Above average? Good? Great?
Barkley sure is going to make it easier for the next qb that I have no doubt about. Perhaps not as much as I think which is possible.
I was never a draft a QB guy last year, I am on the record as saying that the only one I liked was Mayfield (but that Mayfield and NYC would be a bad mix), and that was months before the draft.
I thought the best play last year, was to trade down.
I think that's the best play again this year...
But alas, Gettleman has a severe allergy to trading down.
I don’t blame him if the value isn’t there. You set up your board into tiers for a reason. Dallas, I believe, got burned one year because they traded down so much that they ended up with a boatload of picks and none received a second contract from the team while they passed on talented players at original spot. You don’t trade down for the sake of trading down. Ernie Accorsi traded down when he could have had Santonio Holmes and instead took Kiwanuka. The reason being that they had a lot of players in same tier and figured at least one would be there at 32. With all of the DL/EDGE looking strong and OL and WR performances, I am hopeful we face a similar situation at #6 where we get an offer to trade down and still get a comparable player. This team is not in a position that we can sacrifice a chance at blue chip talent unless compensated accordingly.
I think it is worth adding Tomlinson, Le’Veon Bell and Adrian Peterson to your list of comps (Faulk and Sanders). Bell and LDT for the receiving ability and Peterson for the game breaking ability.
You are right that it is hard to measure leadership and chemistry, so let’s look out how their teams did:
The mediocre when being generous teams
Sanders – 78-82 career record, 48-48 on his second contract
Peterson – 80-79 Career record, 44-51 on 2nd contract when he was taking up an average of 9.59%* of the cap per year
Colts Faulk – 32-48 (if you want to say Faulk is talented enough to win a super bowl, wasn’t really the case for the Colts when he was much more cost effective)
The Discounted QB Winners
Rams Faulk – Think this is about resources more than records. Faulk took up on average 6.24%* of the Rams cap, obviously less than 9.59%* for Peterson but in addition to that Kurt Warner during his 5 years on the Rams took up an average of 8.29%* of the cap. Compare this to the average % of cap for say Kirk Cousins an average to above average QB in the open market at 15.85%* (projecting the cap to rise $10M next year) or even Eli Manning at 13.38%* of the cap for “home grown” as an additional point of reference.
LDT – Quite Simply the entire time LDT was on the Chargers they were successful overall. However, they went from Brees on a rookie deal to Rivers on a rookie deal. There was only one year where Rivers and LDT were on non-rookie deals and LDT was gone the season after.
The Le’Veon Bell Situation
Most viewed Le’Veon bell as the best RB in the league. I think James Connor’s year really calls into question why anyone would spend significant resources on an RB looking at that fact alone. The amount spent on Connor vs. the ~$17M Bell was asking for serves as a warning to anyone thinking about paying even an RB that is one of the better dual threats we’ve seen in a while. This really speaks to investing resources in the QB, OL and WR positions for team success with a star RB not having much impact. Even having to allocate cap dollars in case Bell came to play the Steelers team offense ranks from NFL.com 2018 – 4th YPG, 6th PPG. 2017 – 3rd YPG, 8th PPG.
I’m fine with saying there are things that we as fans can’t evaluate like chemistry and leadership. The problem is that there isn’t any evidence that even the most talented RBs can lead to the most successful teams unless they are paired with a top QB on a discounted deal. If you even want to point to the Chargers, they never even made the Superbowl. If you do want to point to Faulk as the exemplar it is really hard to do that without acknowledging that it looks like Faulk got a relatively cheap deal compared to someone like Peterson and all the arguments people are making on this thread could be used by Saquon’s agent to argue that maybe he deserves more than 9.59% of the cap.
There is additional evidence that if you have an amazing talent at RB and don’t pair them with a great QB you are liable to wallow in mediocrity which in turn makes it more difficult to get a pick that could land you the QB that you need to win. People like to talk about Gurley but Goff playing well on a rookie deal has at minimum the same amount of explanation for this. Maybe more. Mahomes lost a star RB and was still a hair away from the SB, Brady gives the Patriots a deep discount and Brees, while not cheap could certainly make something closer to Rodgers 33.5M AAV than $25M AAV.
One more thing before I throw this back to the anti-analytics sharks. If, IF you want to make the argument that someone is going to be the first example of something working, it is nice to have some basis for this other than your own belief that it will work out. That is the emotional part that McL is referring to. As we’ve talked about in some of these other threads it is possible to quantify the things like leadership and chemistry if you commit to technology. Do players block with more force when Saquon is on the field vs. another RB? Do they move faster? Do they have better body language on the sideline after interacting with him? I would wager that New England has had WaR and expected win delta calculations for years now, the kinds of information that would very much help you quantify whether a safer more talented player like Saquon beats taking more of a risk on a higher value position like QB. Or like McL suggests, trading down (of which Gettlman also seemed to joke about not even entertaining) the Patriots have done wonders with these kinds of moves over the years.
The root of this problem is Saquon might be the most valuable player ever at the least valuable position and instead of having the best tools possible to help us decide if this guy is the person to actually buck the trend we have a guy that wants to mock the idea of this type of analysis while justifying this by confidently saying Stewart “hasn’t lost a step” right before he completely falls off a cliff. Basically showing the errors in his qualitative analysis on this subject IMMIDIATELY.
I want to re-iterate before the end here that I’m not willing to say it’s the wrong pick, Barkley could be the guy to buck this trend, I would love for him to be, but betting on someone breaking with a data set is simply not as prudent as betting that they or their teams will perform closer to their comps any kind of advanced math aside.
*I got all the contract info from Spotrac and Salary cap from Wikipedia, I looked all the years of a contract and divided the cap number each year by total salary cap and averaged these %’s over the life of the contract.
I think the rules are so pro-receiver that it's easier than ever to find WRs to make any impact. So I almost feel that WR is a position that is almost as fungible as RB.
Did Barry Sanders' contract prevent them from moving on from Scott Mitchell?
Do the rams get to two super bowls without Faulk? I believe Faulk was the engine in that offense.
I'm not saying spend premium resources on just any back or even a good back. A great back to me is different though. They really add another dimension. However a team that has problems wherever can somewhat cancel out the great back, not unlike any other position though
Barkley doesn’t have the same injury history. I see zero reason to compare the two. You can say that about any player’s 2nd contract.
Did Barry Sanders' contract prevent them from moving on from Scott Mitchell?
Do the rams get to two super bowls without Faulk? I believe Faulk was the engine in that offense.
I'm not saying spend premium resources on just any back or even a good back. A great back to me is different though. They really add another dimension. However a team that has problems wherever can somewhat cancel out the great back, not unlike any other position though
The sample size is way too small to make any real determination, however, there does seem to a bit of a pattern that teams with great running backs tend to over rely on them to the detriment of other parts of the team, and a sound and balanced offensive strategy.
Sound familiar?
Quote:
And the Vikings needed a qb, did Peterson's contract prevent them attempting to acquire one?
Did Barry Sanders' contract prevent them from moving on from Scott Mitchell?
Do the rams get to two super bowls without Faulk? I believe Faulk was the engine in that offense.
I'm not saying spend premium resources on just any back or even a good back. A great back to me is different though. They really add another dimension. However a team that has problems wherever can somewhat cancel out the great back, not unlike any other position though
The sample size is way too small to make any real determination, however, there does seem to a bit of a pattern that teams with great running backs tend to over rely on them to the detriment of other parts of the team, and a sound and balanced offensive strategy.
Sound familiar?
The good news is the giants and Barkley are just getting started. Hopefully they can balance the offense out by adding more key players.
Also, realize that numbers and math can provide facts, they can't answer the why the facts are true. Its up to us humans to do that.
An anecdotal story from a player or coach about what they saw and how they reacted and how it led to a big play or a win is a relatable human experience. It is much more satisfying emotionally than cold numbers that don't answer "The Why"!
I have always been willing to debate the subject, but folks need to bring to the table something other than what they believe to be true. Without a factual basis for making an argument, it doesn't hold water.
Last year Uconn held up Todd Gurley as proof that everything analytics says about RBs is wrong... Gurley was his poster child for his side of the argument. Ignoring the fact that picking one player is inherently selection bias, the choice of Gurley was problematic for the counter analytics argument. But now after this unfortunate turn with injuries, Gurley has gone from being the anti-analytics poster child, to the poster child in favor of analytics. And frankly Uconn knew it and can't handle it, and can't come up with any arguments for his side.
I looked at the other leading rushers since LDT came into the league on their second contracts and their teams records.
Foster (Texans) 32-32
McCoy (Eagles) 24-24
Chris Johnson (Titans) 22-26
Jones-Drew (Jags) 26-54
Murray (Eagles) 7-9 - Traded after one season
The problem isn't that you can point out why any and all of these players might be different from Barkley. The problem is that giving a big contract to a running back has proven to be quite an ineffective strategy for winning. If we had our solution as a cost effective QB this is a different analysis, but we don't, we have the opposite, a old QB we are overpaying. As I pointed out above Barkley actually makes it harder to get that cheaper good QB that in theory could help him win, not easier.
I think beyond math the frustrating thing for some of us that are called "closed-minded" is that people like me that are being labeled as such are actually trying to support their assertions while the other side tends to not have much evidence to support their assertions and instead just try's to poke holes in the evidence we bring.
Even if I have an idea i'm quite confident in before I start writing about it on BBI I make sure I have some way to back it up with a strong basis of sources. It would be nice if that could happen on both sides.
Numbers I again got from Spotrac - ( New Window )
I think the rules are so pro-receiver that it's easier than ever to find WRs to make any impact. So I almost feel that WR is a position that is almost as fungible as RB.
I tend to agree on this from a general approach. The formula is there. Invest heavily in the QB, OL and DL (CB right after i'd say) and that's how you win.
That being said, much to what i'm writing about on the thread, I am willing to admit that NFL teams have better information than me and if something works it can work again.
I think the Rams teams were just as much about Bruce and Holt as Faulk. (A cheaper Warner helping them assemble more talent)
Steelers value receivers i'd say. In 2009 Ward and Holmes were pretty darn good.
One of the things that I think is missing in Eli's game when we talk about the drop off is the way he used to just let it rip to a guy like Plax when the rush was bearing down on him. Or throw up a quick back shoulder fade. Not sure why that's out of the playbook now but maybe guys like Plax, Toomer and Nicks were better suited for that.
Broncos 2016 with Thomas and Sanders (Ronnie Hillman was the RB here lol)
Any time you start paying a RB or WR big dollars instead of in the trenches you are i'd say lowering the probability that you can create a winning team but i'd almost say that the exception looking at this is if you can have a few talented receivers it definitely seems to help.
I think some tend to look too far ahead with judgements that can't accurately be made at this point.
Giving a rb a mega deal (second contract) is obviously risky because of age/wear and tear. Even so when and if that time comes we should assess the situation instead of automaically
concluding to not give SB a second contract because it didn't work out well for past teams.
Too many people shitting on the Rams for the pick but it wasn’t exactly a bad move.
If Gurley can’t strap them up anymore, what I’ll remember him for are his instincts. He wasn’t the complete freak some others like Barkley were, he was just a natural born RB with incredible vision/patience on top of a great speed/physicality combo.
I think some tend to look too far ahead with judgements that can't accurately be made at this point.
Giving a rb a mega deal (second contract) is obviously risky because of age/wear and tear. Even so when and if that time comes we should assess the situation instead of automaically
concluding to not give SB a second contract because it didn't work out well for past teams.
I would not call Barkley a wasted pick... Not by a long shot.
I think the team could have been improved more going in a different direction... But that is a far cry from calling Barkley a wasted pick.