When Barkley was taken number two overall the plan was to build our team around him.Last year we were all onboard with the shiny new toy. Barkley had a few big games and established himself as an offensive weapon. His great talent was obvious. This year I expected more carries more yards and more production from him. It hasn't happened . Yes - he is not being utilized correctly but much of the blame falls on him as well. He NEVER squares his shoulders and hits the hole. He hesitates when he gets the ball and loses all momentum. He does not move the chains and has been poor in short yardage situations. His blocking has been non-existent.
Watching Elliot and McCaffery play I am reminded of what I thought we were getting with the number two pick. If he is never going to be the dominant RB Elliot is he was over drafted.
I think he's been trying to do that the last two games, but he's fighting his instincts and thinking too much. For me, I wouldn't want to try and take away what makes him special, but that he has to be smarter about it. Nothing wrong with bouncing outside when the hole isn't there, but don't try to run 5 yards backwards in an attempt to reverse the field.
But the other thing is he came back too soon. He isn't 100%. But his 90% is better than 29 or so other starting RBs in the NFL. I really wish we had the bye week this week. But one more week and then he gets the extra week to rest. And hopefully that will be very meaningful for him.
This x a million
Seriously, all he needs is a LITTLE bit of light and he can bust one open. He's not getting ANY holes. Not even a sliver.
Besides, I think he's more hurt than he's letting on
+1
Barkley is a all or nothing guy. Elliott is a down after down grind it out guy.
We also do nothing to get him in space, anyway. Our play calling is horrific. On the first screen pass to Barkley, he had a ton of room and gained 65 yards. We simply make no effort to get him in space.
Think about the other guys, Giants took that low: LT and Eli
Saquon is s talent to be sure but he also can’t block
And is not great running between the tackles
Thanks for the blistering insights
On a side note, I felt the same way when the Giants selected Beckham. At the time I preferred a stud LT who stayed on the team for 10 years and was rarely injured than a diva WR (at this point Beckham hadn't displayed his weird side). I had to eat my words the first few years while OBJ played well, but now it seems I was right.
Quote:
Fits your posts perfectly.
Thanks for the blistering insights
This thread doesn't require any blistering insights. Maybe form a complete thought for yourself in the future instead of synapse-firing all over the place and expecting everyone else to point you in the direction of common sense.
Barkley is a all or nothing guy. Elliott is a down after down grind it out guy.
this^
elliott is closer to emmitt and gore
barkley comp is sanders
On a side note, I felt the same way when the Giants selected Beckham. At the time I preferred a stud LT who stayed on the team for 10 years and was rarely injured than a diva WR (at this point Beckham hadn't displayed his weird side). I had to eat my words the first few years while OBJ played well, but now it seems I was right.
Oh please Zeke is "decisive" because they part the red sea for him. SB dances around because teams get penetration against us constantly.
Quote:
people feel like they have to demean Zeke in order to pump up Barkley. Zeke is fucking incredible. If you don't see it I can't help you but you're wrong. Barkley is not twice the player Zeke is. You are talking about a back that led the NFL in rushing his first two seasons and leads in per game rushing since coming into the league. You are dreaming if you think Barkley would run for 300. Is BArkley better? Well athletically he is slightly better. But Zeke might be the better more decisive RB. Time will tell. Zeke runs in a classic style and athletically he is no slouch. He is dynamic, powerful and decisive. He is more decisive than SB and gets himself into less trouble dancing around.
Oh please Zeke is "decisive" because they part the red sea for him. SB dances around because teams get penetration against us constantly.
yea.. ok Zeke isn't good because he doesn't play for our team. naked homer-ism.. next..
Quote:
In comment 14665052 Brown Recluse said:
Quote:
Fits your posts perfectly.
Thanks for the blistering insights
This thread doesn't require any blistering insights. Maybe form a complete thought for yourself in the future instead of synapse-firing all over the place and expecting everyone else to point you in the direction of common sense.
Here's a complete thought - you are a self important jackass that feels compelled to critique posters rather than participate in the discussion at hand.
It always has been about the OL.
If the OL can open holes, an average runner will gain yards, perhaps not as many explosive plays, but he will gain yards and thats all you really need from the running game. If the OL can pass block, the explosive plays come from the passing game. The OL is the engine that makes the offense go. It hasn't been a RB for 30 years.
I remember posters thinking they were so football savvy, talking about how SB will cause the defenses to move LBs and Safeties around and how that will "open up the offense"?
I have been shouting this forever....
You want to move LBs and safeties around build a better OL, and let them move the LBs and safeties. It works better and more consistently that way!
I was hoping he'd have a breakout year so maybe the Giants could sucker the Browns or some other sad sack into a Herschel Walker deal.
I was hoping he'd have a breakout year so maybe the Giants could sucker the Browns or some other sad sack into a Herschel Walker deal.
no. it was the wrong pick. you will never get a top-5 pick for Barkley, never mind the #2 pick. Yes you might be able to get a pick in the #20 to #30 range, which is still a first.
Nelson's addition would have meant very, very little if the Colts didn't ALSO draft Braden Smith (their starting RT) in the 2nd round of that same draft, if they didn't draft Ryan Kelly in 2016, and if they didn't have Anthony Castonzo doing a great job at LT.
Further, other than the QB, the greatest player that has contributed to their turnaround directly impacting the wins and losses on that team was Darius Leonard.
Nelson is a great player, but he's one of five OL that all have to be good for it to be meaningful, because an OL is only as good as your weakest link.
Does that mean the Giants should continue to invest a lot of resources into fixing this line? Yes. I've said in the past that they should be using at least 1 draft pick on OL every single season, and dare I say I would do it within the first 4 rounds every single year. You NEVER stop building the OL.
In terms of the Colts, they are good because in GENERAL, they've drafted very well across many positions, with Nelson being one of many good picks in recent drafts.
Quote:
In comment 14665033 AndyMilligan said:
Quote:
people feel like they have to demean Zeke in order to pump up Barkley. Zeke is fucking incredible. If you don't see it I can't help you but you're wrong. Barkley is not twice the player Zeke is. You are talking about a back that led the NFL in rushing his first two seasons and leads in per game rushing since coming into the league. You are dreaming if you think Barkley would run for 300. Is BArkley better? Well athletically he is slightly better. But Zeke might be the better more decisive RB. Time will tell. Zeke runs in a classic style and athletically he is no slouch. He is dynamic, powerful and decisive. He is more decisive than SB and gets himself into less trouble dancing around.
Oh please Zeke is "decisive" because they part the red sea for him. SB dances around because teams get penetration against us constantly.
yea.. ok Zeke isn't good because he doesn't play for our team. naked homer-ism.. next..
Who ever said that Zeke isn’t good? I think it’s completely reasonable to admit that Zeke is really good while ALSO admitting that he gets a TON of help from his OL. Good for him. But it also makes what Barkley did last year all the more impressive. Put Zeke behind the Giants OL and he will look a lot less impressive. That’s a pretty safe bet.
The anti-Barkley hot takes are fascinating. And, yeah, this place absolutely sucks when the Giants are losing.
There's no way you can possibly know that, Marty. Guys like Barkley can easily play 10 seasons or more. Hell, Gore is playing his 15th season. Yeah, he's a shadow of his former self, but Gore had one of his absolute best seasons at 29 years old, and was very good for several seasons after that. Barkley has one of the best and strongest, most athletic NFL bodies ever to come into the NFL, and he takes impeccable care of his body. If you are a betting man, bet on Barkley to be around for awhile.
The great ones last longer than just 5 or 6 years most of the time.
And this thing can get turned around next year, but I think it will be turned around at the latest in the 2021 season. Barkley will still be here, and he will only be 24 years old at that time with a lot of football ahead of him.
Nelson's addition would have meant very, very little if the Colts didn't ALSO draft Braden Smith (their starting RT) in the 2nd round of that same draft, if they didn't draft Ryan Kelly in 2016, and if they didn't have Anthony Castonzo doing a great job at LT.
Further, other than the QB, the greatest player that has contributed to their turnaround directly impacting the wins and losses on that team was Darius Leonard.
Nelson is a great player, but he's one of five OL that all have to be good for it to be meaningful, because an OL is only as good as your weakest link.
Does that mean the Giants should continue to invest a lot of resources into fixing this line? Yes. I've said in the past that they should be using at least 1 draft pick on OL every single season, and dare I say I would do it within the first 4 rounds every single year. You NEVER stop building the OL.
In terms of the Colts, they are good because in GENERAL, they've drafted very well across many positions, with Nelson being one of many good picks in recent drafts.
the best player from that draft is Lamar Jackson -- full stop.
it's not just terrible value. Most times a team can get equal or better production from two journeymen backs - Breida/Coleman, White/Burkhead, Hyde/Johnson, etc etc there is no decided advantage overall from having an elite talent at RB.
Quote:
In comment 14665081 averagejoe said:
Quote:
In comment 14665052 Brown Recluse said:
Quote:
Fits your posts perfectly.
Thanks for the blistering insights
This thread doesn't require any blistering insights. Maybe form a complete thought for yourself in the future instead of synapse-firing all over the place and expecting everyone else to point you in the direction of common sense.
Here's a complete thought - you are a self important jackass that feels compelled to critique posters rather than participate in the discussion at hand.
Participate in what? How many times has this topic been beaten to death? In what ways has this thread added any value whatsoever to the topic that the other five thousand haven't? The answer is zero. Its just another rehashed topic triggered purely by emotion. Par for the course around here lately
....
Depending on whether or not you believe wikipedia, Ottis Anderson was the 8th overall pick when drafted.
I was hoping he'd have a breakout year so maybe the Giants could sucker the Browns or some other sad sack into a Herschel Walker deal.
could we trade him for a #2 overall? not a fukn chance
+1
Quote:
Yes, there are a handful of backs who play longer but for the majority, their best years are when they are younger and they fizzle out by their late 20's. I am not even certain that Barkley will get a second contract from the Giants. I see a tag for a year and then evaluate him and that would be after his 6th season. Running back at #2 on a bad team is terrible value.
it's not just terrible value. Most times a team can get equal or better production from two journeymen backs - Breida/Coleman, White/Burkhead, Hyde/Johnson, etc etc there is no decided advantage overall from having an elite talent at RB.
*none* of those guys are taking that screen pass last night like Barkley did. None of those guys are giving us his long runs. Yeah, with a shitty line maybe they will give equivalent aggregate production on the non-long runs. With teh Cowboys line or even an nfl quality one, your statement has no foundation at all.
Plus, Dallas is a very solid D and well coached. They get paid, too, and deserve credit...
Further, Jones is still a rookie, and leveling off some, so teams are essentially willing to live with Jones beating them over SB.
In comment 14664844 Eric on Li said:
2019 - 105 total yards per game, 5.6 yards per touch, 4.6 ypc, 20 touches per game
Also note that the numbers in the post above skew down from the partial game played against Tampa (not to mention yesterday's game which happened to be Barkley's worst as a pro). So Barkley being "worse" than last year is basically a 1 game phenomenon (last night).
The offensive number that's glaringly different from last year is PPG - this year they are only averaging 19 ppg when last year they averaged 23 ppg (and even more than that at the end of the year). So there has been big time regression year over year in overall offensive effectiveness. Part of that may be the increased turnovers with a rookie QB, and injuries, and losing beckham, but that's the main thing that's different and I find it hard to blame that regression on Saquon (other than obviously the games he missed due to injury). In fact it's pretty amazing his numbers are so close to last year given the overall offensive struggles. Over a full year he'd be on pace for 1700 total yards and 75 receptions.
Shurmur's offense has stalled - plain and simple. Perhaps he deserves some credit for Jones looking good for a rookie, but he has failed at finding creative ways to involve Engram and Barkley when the defenses key on them. And the OL seems to have regressed too, though that could just be Jones holding the ball to go downfield more.
Quote:
In comment 14665812 Marty866b said:
Quote:
Yes, there are a handful of backs who play longer but for the majority, their best years are when they are younger and they fizzle out by their late 20's. I am not even certain that Barkley will get a second contract from the Giants. I see a tag for a year and then evaluate him and that would be after his 6th season. Running back at #2 on a bad team is terrible value.
it's not just terrible value. Most times a team can get equal or better production from two journeymen backs - Breida/Coleman, White/Burkhead, Hyde/Johnson, etc etc there is no decided advantage overall from having an elite talent at RB.
*none* of those guys are taking that screen pass last night like Barkley did. None of those guys are giving us his long runs. Yeah, with a shitty line maybe they will give equivalent aggregate production on the non-long runs. With teh Cowboys line or even an nfl quality one, your statement has no foundation at all.
RB committees perform as well or better than a single elite bell cow back - period - irrespective of the surrounding players including the line. Look it up yourself. It's not a secret.
Quote:
In comment 14665812 Marty866b said:
Quote:
Yes, there are a handful of backs who play longer but for the majority, their best years are when they are younger and they fizzle out by their late 20's. I am not even certain that Barkley will get a second contract from the Giants. I see a tag for a year and then evaluate him and that would be after his 6th season. Running back at #2 on a bad team is terrible value.
it's not just terrible value. Most times a team can get equal or better production from two journeymen backs - Breida/Coleman, White/Burkhead, Hyde/Johnson, etc etc there is no decided advantage overall from having an elite talent at RB.
*none* of those guys are taking that screen pass last night like Barkley did. None of those guys are giving us his long runs. Yeah, with a shitty line maybe they will give equivalent aggregate production on the non-long runs. With teh Cowboys line or even an nfl quality one, your statement has no foundation at all.
THe point you are missing Bill is that 1 highlight reel play mixed in with 19 bad ones means you are going to have a bad offense. It doesn't matter if a lesser RB won't get as many yards on that screen pass. What matters is overall offensive production. That comes from having a good OL, QB and play designs. Other positions help but not nearly as much.