Today's performances by Saquon and Leveon are all you needed to see to understand why you don't invest in RB's in today's NFL. Whether you want to blame it on injury, situation, offensive line, it simply doesn't matter. RB's are successful when the situation around them is ideal and they aren't when it becomes their responsibility to lift everyone else. It's are a complementary position, not a prime one.
On top of that, the shelf life of RB's and their ability to stay on the field are both below optimal. For better or worse, workhorse backs take a beating and as seasons progress the bumps and bruises starts to affect them.
As much as we all love Barkley as a player, taking him at #2 last year was a collasal mistake. It would have been a good pick if everything else was in place and we needed a playmaker to get us over the top. Unfortunately, nothing else was in place and by the time everything gets in place, he'll be done with his rookie contract and it will be foolish to pay him what he's going to want. That pick set this franchise back and this is not soething that's being said in hindsight. Many people here said it at the time.
It's time this team invests in the offensive line and defense FIRST before addressing positions that don't mean anything in today's league. This franchise has been a failure for far too long and it's inexcusable.
YPC does not correlate to wins.
Total yards does not correlate to wins.
Running efficiency has some correlation to wins.
Passing efficiency has the most correlation to wins.
As a person who reportedly understands statistics, what has the highest correlation to winning over the past 25 years?
This is what I mean about creating a narrative. It’s a fact that McCaffery is their team MVP and why the offense even scores points but he’s a RB and that hurts the argument, so let’s just default to making things up.
Kyle Allen is t turning the ball over. But he isn’t winning them games.
Quote:
That RB production does not correlate to wins.
YPC does not correlate to wins.
Total yards does not correlate to wins.
Running efficiency has some correlation to wins.
Passing efficiency has the most correlation to wins.
As a person who reportedly understands statistics, what has the highest correlation to winning over the past 25 years?
Passing efficiency...
This whole argument is so odd. Why do teams even run the ball then if the value is so low?
This whole argument is so odd. Why do teams even run the ball then if the value is so low?
See, here we go with the whys...
Over the course of a large enough sample, and 32 teams, 16 games a year each, for 20 - 25 years is a large enough sample set, there are teams that had good running and bad running. Those teams offset each other, by definition, in the final analysis. Same when you look at running the ball, there have been teams that passed well, and teams that passed poorly. In the end the overall passing efficiency is the stat that correlates the best. As far as I have seen the best measure of passing efficiency is ANY/A (adjusted net yard per attempt - it accounts for sacks and interceptions), but there are various debates over the best passing efficiency stat.
And when they run they look for running efficiency, which does have a mild correlation with winning.
What's more is that it can be shown that teams do not run the ball to get the lead. Teams pass the ball to get the lead. Teams run the ball to run out the clock and protect that lead.
Of course that's an over simplification. Football strategy is more complex, and deception is a key element. And running the ball can be part of the deception.
But it isn't repeatable nor something you can control.
Team health.
And it is yet one more stat that the Pats don't follow the rule on.
There’s no golden rule. Teams win many ways, regardless of what the odds or analytics say.
RB’s don’t mean dick in today’s NFL and it’s really that simple. It comes down to replacement value...if you build a good team and a good oline it’s easy to replace the value of a top end RB. You may not replace 100% of value but your can still get pretty damn close with any average player at the position. I truly don't understand why this concept (that is so obvious to many) is so complicated for some people to understand. The data and analytics prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.
But it isn't repeatable nor something you can control.
Team health.
And it is yet one more stat that the Pats don't follow the rule on.
2 things.
1) Team health is definitely correlated with winning, but its not a performance metric, furthermore its relatively random for any given ten team in any given year. (Except for the Giants it seems)
2) Passing efficiency is consistently correlated with winning, it is in fact the only performance metric that has been consistently correlated with winning. All other metrics have less correlation and more variability.
Again, there isn’t an absolute rule, don’t know how many times that needs to be repeated.
Whatever the reason, Barkley hasn't made a difference for the Giants in the 19 games since they picked him. The offense has still sucked, the running game has been below league average, and the team continues to lose.
Even if you can build a team around a great running back, the Giants have failed to do so to this point with Barkley. They've failed catastrophically.
RB’s don’t mean dick in today’s NFL and it’s really that simple. It comes down to replacement value...if you build a good team and a good oline it’s easy to replace the value of a top end RB. You may not replace 100% of value but your can still get pretty damn close with any average player at the position. I truly don't understand why this concept (that is so obvious to many) is so complicated for some people to understand. The data and analytics prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think there is a difference between the clearly provable statistical analysis that says that RBs are not a position of value, as an aggregation of ALL NFL data, and saying that NO RUNNING BACKS ARE VALUABLE. If you want to talk about aggregate data, I don't argue with you. But to say that CMC or, in the instance of your specific example from above, Todd Gurley are not players of significant value is simply just not true.
Do not try to tell people that the Rams didn't miss a beat on the way to the Super Bowl, they were an offensive dynamo before Gurley's injury and were a shell of themselves afterwards. They scored a measly three points in the Bowl and - now that Gurley has settled into this whole arthritic knee era - haven't really had it all year this year either.
None of this makes Saquon a smart pick for this Giants team at #2 with a shit line and toasted Eli but Saquon - in better times, last year - was inarguably an extremely valuable player for this team. Not enough on his own naturally. And maybe not the best building block. But value is not measured only in aggregates, its measured in individuals too, because that's literally the building blocks of how it gets measured to begin with.
There’s no golden rule. Teams win many ways, regardless of what the odds or analytics say.
To you, saying that "the data clearly shows" or "x is not correlated" is speaking in absolutes. To me, I am not the one doing the speaking, the data is, I'm just quoting it.
Furthermore there is nothing absolute in statistical analysis, the analysis uses historical information to predict the most probably future outcome of a given question. Let me ask you, how certain are you that you exists, and you are typing on a keyboard, and creating a bunch of 1s and 0s that you are sending off into some nebulous electronic cloud. I think you are likely to talk about your existence in absolutes...
The fact is, that if you understand quantum physics, all of what we perceive as absolute solid evidence of our existence and the existence of the world around us is an illusion. It is the product of statistical probabilistic behaviors of sub atomic particles. Fortunately for us, the aggregate probabilistic behavior supports our existence. But its not guaranteed.
Similarly, there is a statistical probability, an extremely high probability, that supports the conclusion that RBs, and rushing yards are not likely to impact winning. In a very large sample, there is some chance that there will be exceptions. All outcomes fall along a normal curve.
I find it amazing that people on this board are so often excoriated for making claims that are not backed by any data or evidence. But when somebody makes a claim and backs it with data and evidence, if the claim is counter to somebody's opinion, then that somebody will discount the evidence (without real counter evidence) and accuse the original claimant of speaking in absolutes because they had temerity of providing supporting evidence for their claim.
Based on our previous conversation, I don't think you are well versed in statistical analysis. Before you claim that somebody is speaking in absolutes about something you don't really understand, I suggest you do some critical reading. I'm not going to be holding a class in statistical analysis on this board.
I didn’t do well in physics during high school. This is triggering.
Again, there isn’t an absolute rule, don’t know how many times that needs to be repeated.
He is not proof of anything other than another example that lies somewhere along the normal curse of probable statistical outcomes.
What's more is you assume that the Panthers would not be as good or better if they used the resources (draft picks and money) on players at different positions. This of course is unprovable. akso as Josh said, the Panthers are competitve, but they don't look like a SB contender. So what does it matter what kind of season MCC is having. A 5-4 record on a team that is a coin flip to make the playoffs doesn't scream to me that investing in even an MVP RB is a sure winning move.
Quote:
Talking about CMC like he’s proof of the counter argument? What has he ever won? The panthers are 1 game over .500 this yr and hes having as good a statistical season as a RB could have. Is that good enough? Not to me and if anything proves my point! When I’m talking about building a winning team I’m not talking about being .500. I’m talking about building a team capable of competing for a Super Bowl. Todd Gurley is the better example of what happens when a well built great team loses a stud RB. They don’t miss a beat during their playoff run to the Super Bowl.
RB’s don’t mean dick in today’s NFL and it’s really that simple. It comes down to replacement value...if you build a good team and a good oline it’s easy to replace the value of a top end RB. You may not replace 100% of value but your can still get pretty damn close with any average player at the position. I truly don't understand why this concept (that is so obvious to many) is so complicated for some people to understand. The data and analytics prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think there is a difference between the clearly provable statistical analysis that says that RBs are not a position of value, as an aggregation of ALL NFL data, and saying that NO RUNNING BACKS ARE VALUABLE. If you want to talk about aggregate data, I don't argue with you. But to say that CMC or, in the instance of your specific example from above, Todd Gurley are not players of significant value is simply just not true.
Do not try to tell people that the Rams didn't miss a beat on the way to the Super Bowl, they were an offensive dynamo before Gurley's injury and were a shell of themselves afterwards. They scored a measly three points in the Bowl and - now that Gurley has settled into this whole arthritic knee era - haven't really had it all year this year either.
None of this makes Saquon a smart pick for this Giants team at #2 with a shit line and toasted Eli but Saquon - in better times, last year - was inarguably an extremely valuable player for this team. Not enough on his own naturally. And maybe not the best building block. But value is not measured only in aggregates, its measured in individuals too, because that's literally the building blocks of how it gets measured to begin with.
The problem with what you are saying is that there has been specific analysis of teams with bell cow RBs. Yes its an aggregate of such teams, but the goal is to see if bellcow RBs have a more statistical impact on winning. The answer has come back as they have no significant correlation to wins above the aggregate of all RBs.
The conclusion from that is that it doesn't really matter how good the RB is when it comes to winning.
Again, you can come up with outcomes that fall all along the normal curve. But for every positive example, there is a negative one. And a shit ton that fall in the middle.
Again, its not me saying that, its the data.
Chances are that the RB isn't going to last 10 years so you've shortened your window by selecting him (which is fine.). However, that means you need to go after OLinemen in quantity. The G-men needed five OL at one point before Solder. Overpaying for 1 in such an extreme manner and then claim "But we had to fill LT" -- you didn't. The team was going to suck anyway. Sure you try to fill it but not at the expense of getting two players instead. The two didn;t need to be better than a "decent enough Solder if he produced." They just couldn't suck like Omamaeh, Remmers, and Halapio do. When you are rebuilding-- you also have to consider a strategy is a game of numbers. SO unless you are getting an absolute stud-- two players is better than 1. But to go after an older guy to boot was moronic. It could be excused a bit if he was young.
Next year there must be a priority to get at least two starting OLinemen. The garbage that DG is trying for with Omameh, and Remmers and Halapio are not they type of linemen you want when you invest a pick so high in a RB whose football life-limit is much shorter than many, many positions. The moment G-men took Barkley -- there should've been an immediate decision by DG to upgrade the OL and not with Omameh, Remmers and Halapio types. The RT and Center are the 2nd and 3rd most important positions on the OL. You have to do better if you are building around a RB and such a young QB. Who we see now loves to hold on to the ball too long.
****Jones has been sacked 22 times in the last 4 games. ONE LEFT TACKLE IS NOT GOING TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.
-----------
If LW signs with Giants it was a good move. Just because Hill and Tomlinson are better than the LB's and the safety doesn't mean that both of them are good. The GMen need good football players on defense. You need at least two "pretty good DL."
As far as LW can hold G-men hostage. It should be that DG did his due diligence and as a result LW won't. If LW holds G-men hostage then it's just another reason to call DG a fucking dolt.
Quote:
if you understand quantum physics
I didn’t do well in physics during high school. This is triggering.
LOL...
As an undergrad, I was a physics major... Can't make money doing that though, I switched to comp sci/machine learning in graduate school. We called machine learning intelligent systems back then.
Quote:
Quote:
if you understand quantum physics
I didn’t do well in physics during high school. This is triggering.
LOL...
As an undergrad, I was a physics major... Can't make money doing that though, I switched to comp sci/machine learning in graduate school. We called machine learning intelligent systems back then.
I was arrogant and skipped the recommended pre-requisites for physics. I screwed myself.
I was an Econ major in college. I’ve been taking some coding classes ‘for fun’ now - I was in the dark at the level of statistical analysis/rigor required (I was fortunately good at statistics). It’s opened my eyes quite a bit, and I’m fearful the Giants aren’t knowledgeable about what’s capable in the data science field (although we may have beaten that discussion to death in other threads).
Quote:
In comment 14678172 BrettNYG10 said:
Quote:
Quote:
if you understand quantum physics
I didn’t do well in physics during high school. This is triggering.
LOL...
As an undergrad, I was a physics major... Can't make money doing that though, I switched to comp sci/machine learning in graduate school. We called machine learning intelligent systems back then.
I was arrogant and skipped the recommended pre-requisites for physics. I screwed myself.
I was an Econ major in college. I’ve been taking some coding classes ‘for fun’ now - I was in the dark at the level of statistical analysis/rigor required (I was fortunately good at statistics). It’s opened my eyes quite a bit, and I’m fearful the Giants aren’t knowledgeable about what’s capable in the data science field (although we may have beaten that discussion to death in other threads).
Yeah, unfortunately there are not many who actually do understand, math, statistics, and data science. But there is no shortage of people willing to dismiss them. Funny thing, that is.
A data scientist friend recommended I learn about quantum physics about 3 years into my career in that field. Such important concepts to understand in predictive analytics.
Once you start seeing the inherent randomness (at least based on what we can measure) in the world it becomes pretty obvious that all you can do is gather more data, learn about a problem more and understand the probabilities of the system better and better through that.
It seemed the main argument of the kind of Giants loyalists in the many "it doesn't really look like we are playing the probabilities or have people that understand these concepts" debates was how audacious people were to suggest the Giants didn't have the right people in place to optimize performance with these concepts.
This LW move might be the biggest game theory blunder yet. The only way it made sense was if it could get us to the playoffs this year which it would be kind to call a low probability event.
As for CMC he’s got the same record as the Colts. The same Colts that are applauded for building their team “correctly” according to many on this board. Maybe that’s because there isn’t some hard rule?
The Cowboys built their team correctly and “haven’t won shit” (BBIs favorite go to when refuting how good a player in their impact is). Same record as the Panthers.
In the end it’s been Brady/Brees/Rodgers/Wilson and the top couple young guys while everyone else is jockeying for position and trying to get a lucky break. If you don’t have a top tier QB the NFL is a difficult place to win and teams will look to many different avenues to improve - some successfully and some not. For example the Vikings. Usually a solid defense but they lose their best WR and then commit to the run more and are a much better football team than last year. Cook will have 2000 yards outside of injury.
But it isn't repeatable nor something you can control.
Team health.
And it is yet one more stat that the Pats don't follow the rule on.
That's an incredibly bold claim. Can you point to the studies that have eliminated the consistency of every other factor?
If there is a metric out there with as statistically high of a correlation to winning, I'm all for seeing it.
And team health is hardly mentioned when discussing teams who have risen to the top or had quick turnarounds. Since 2000, there have only been two SB's that didn't have a Top 5 team in health participate. And since that time, over 75% of the top 5 teams in overall health have made the playoffs!! That's extraordinary. And the teams in the Top 5 in health have been at .500 or better about 86% of the time. In fact, the last time (and only time since 2000) that the Giants finished in the Top 5 in health was - 2016. The rest of the time, they've been 20th or worse.
But the rub is that it is fairly random, difficult to achieve and even when using preventative or proactive measures to stay healthy - it often fails.
But on the topic of health, I'd be interested in seeing on a positional level what positions miss the most time on average per season, and what positions have the shortest career expectancy.
Availability and durability do seem to be indicative of win share and value.
As for CMC he’s got the same record as the Colts. The same Colts that are applauded for building their team “correctly” according to many on this board. Maybe that’s because there isn’t some hard rule?
The Cowboys built their team correctly and “haven’t won shit” (BBIs favorite go to when refuting how good a player in their impact is). Same record as the Panthers.
In the end it’s been Brady/Brees/Rodgers/Wilson and the top couple young guys while everyone else is jockeying for position and trying to get a lucky break. If you don’t have a top tier QB the NFL is a difficult place to win and teams will look to many different avenues to improve - some successfully and some not. For example the Vikings. Usually a solid defense but they lose their best WR and then commit to the run more and are a much better football team than last year. Cook will have 2000 yards outside of injury.
You've got to be kidding me with this absurdity! The Colts lost their starting QB (the position that most correlates to wins and losses) in the pre-season due to an unexpected retirment. Now you're going to use them as an example to try and prove your position that couldn't be any further from the truth!?
The Colts went from a 4-12 team in 2017 to a 10-6 team in 2018 for the exact reason you're trying to invalidate. If anything they're the exact perfect example of positional value in today's NFL and what happens when you build a team the right way. The ignorance of some people is unfathomable.
Unfathomable!
Josh, your self awareness could easily be described by many of these terms.
gidie nailed you early in this thread. That's exactly what is happening here, and you're doubling down.
We all remember what and how you posted. It was pretty prolific.
No idea why you are such a dick on this thread though. People don't agree with you, you should probably handle it better. You are taking offense to every counterpoint, to me that's unfathomable.
RB, LB and DB has the greatest propensity to miss more than 4 games
Meanwhile, exactly one calendar year later, we took one. And he is just as skilled as the others we passed on. And we won't even go into how you reacted about that pick.
Just stop.
They just lost to the fucking Dolphins at home!!
We lose to the Jets and this place hits DefCon 1. The Colts lose to the Dolphins and they are putting a respectable product on the field!!
It is like saying you put respectable posts on BBI.
Quote:
But because the Colts actually built from he trenches outward (the right way to build a team) they are still able to put a respectable product on the field.
They just lost to the fucking Dolphins at home!!
We lose to the Jets and this place hits DefCon 1. The Colts lose to the Dolphins and they are putting a respectable product on the field!!
It is like saying you put respectable posts on BBI.
He didn't even want Nelson. He wanted Darnold.
This whole argument is so odd. Why do teams even run the ball then if the value is so low?
There's some merit to that argument, but you do have to consider that certain inefficient behavior is habitual. I would compare it to baseball managers continuing to trot out low OBP speedsters at the top of their lineup for a while even though the data revolution in baseball had begun to clearly show that high OBP was far more valuable even if that meant a lack of speed.
Sometimes coaches (and managers in any industry) do things because they've always been done that way, and not just because it's necessarily the most efficient way to operate. I'm not saying that's definitely the case with regard to running the ball vs. passing, but I don't think we can always draw conclusions that the data is unsupported simply because the established actors in the scenario act in a way that's inconsistent with what the data suggests they should do.
I look at Aaron Rodgers/Packers as another prime example of this. They are off to their best start in years. Part of that is a better defense but the other is a much better commitment to the run. They've also lost their stud WR for half the season but are controlling the ball much better and will have their first winning record since 2016 and have a shot at their best record since 2014. I think its clear that the run is helping the pass.
Quote:
since running the ball directly impacts passing efficiency.
This whole argument is so odd. Why do teams even run the ball then if the value is so low?
There's some merit to that argument, but you do have to consider that certain inefficient behavior is habitual. I would compare it to baseball managers continuing to trot out low OBP speedsters at the top of their lineup for a while even though the data revolution in baseball had begun to clearly show that high OBP was far more valuable even if that meant a lack of speed.
Sometimes coaches (and managers in any industry) do things because they've always been done that way, and not just because it's necessarily the most efficient way to operate. I'm not saying that's definitely the case with regard to running the ball vs. passing, but I don't think we can always draw conclusions that the data is unsupported simply because the established actors in the scenario act in a way that's inconsistent with what the data suggests they should do.
It doesn't even necessarily have to be habitual. Where analytics and the strategy of football come to a crossroads is on the topic of efficiency. And moreso than any other sport - what the numbers reveal may not be predictive of success. I think you'll find that before analytics play a major part in shaping football strategy, there will need to be a much deeper understanding of what the numbers reveal. People I know in the data industry think it could take 20 years or more to have this understanding.
I look at Aaron Rodgers/Packers as another prime example of this. They are off to their best start in years. Part of that is a better defense but the other is a much better commitment to the run. They've also lost their stud WR for half the season but are controlling the ball much better and will have their first winning record since 2016 and have a shot at their best record since 2014. I think its clear that the run is helping the pass.
Don’t think anyone is arguing that running the ball isn’t important. It’s about replacement value of a running back. If you have a good oline then an average RB will be effective enough to force the defense to respect the run. In today’s nfl you’re also seeing way more teams use the pass to set up the run. The point is that getting a “stud” rb doesn’t equate to more wins vs an average one which is why investing heavily in one is a poor use of assets (whether its draft capital or salary cap allocation). It’s also why I hope the giants don’t make SB the highest paid RB in the nfl in a couple of yrs when his roomie contract is up.
Josh in the City : 9:20 am : link : reply
And just is still out whether that would have been the right or wrong move (even if some would say it’s already clear I disagree). But that’s not the point.
Your recent posts keep talking about how we needed to draft anything other than a RB. Not investing in them. Picking OL guys instead.
But for the past two years, you incessantly posted not about these other options, but about how passing on a QB - Darnold specifically - set this team back and will set the team back several years.
So while your points keep changing, there's one consistency. Threads that come off as ridiculous whining all with one intent - to invalidate picking Barkley. Do you not see that?
That is what I am speaking to. I will never defend building a team around and/or paying Melvin Gordon.
Quote:
In comment 14678057 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
since running the ball directly impacts passing efficiency.
This whole argument is so odd. Why do teams even run the ball then if the value is so low?
There's some merit to that argument, but you do have to consider that certain inefficient behavior is habitual. I would compare it to baseball managers continuing to trot out low OBP speedsters at the top of their lineup for a while even though the data revolution in baseball had begun to clearly show that high OBP was far more valuable even if that meant a lack of speed.
Sometimes coaches (and managers in any industry) do things because they've always been done that way, and not just because it's necessarily the most efficient way to operate. I'm not saying that's definitely the case with regard to running the ball vs. passing, but I don't think we can always draw conclusions that the data is unsupported simply because the established actors in the scenario act in a way that's inconsistent with what the data suggests they should do.
It doesn't even necessarily have to be habitual. Where analytics and the strategy of football come to a crossroads is on the topic of efficiency. And moreso than any other sport - what the numbers reveal may not be predictive of success. I think you'll find that before analytics play a major part in shaping football strategy, there will need to be a much deeper understanding of what the numbers reveal. People I know in the data industry think it could take 20 years or more to have this understanding.
I think that's fair - especially when considering that so much of what the data represents can often be misleading early in a data-awareness environment. What I mean by that is, even if we take at face value that passing efficiency is a more predictive metric for overall team success than any other, we do have to question how much of that success is because of the passing efficiency itself or if successful teams in general were just the earliest adopters of a new strategy that bucked a trend and made them more difficult to defend, and not just that efficient passing as an absolute is the reason for their success.
And I do understand McL's point that when the data provides clear evidence, that spending tons of time poring over the why can be a fool's errand - more often than not you find yourself hung up on outliers and exceptions while dismissing the majority of data that is consistent with the conclusion itself. So I don't want to toss away his point either - the data is already pretty substantial.
But to the extent that a possibility exists that innovation is the valuable takeaway and that the teams with the most efficient passing metrics were the most innovative franchises, we should be careful not to chase byproducts instead of causes.
That said, the Giants have been neither innovative nor efficient in recent years, and thus we, as Giants fans, can't find much room for comfort in either view of the data. And we can look at our own impossibly small sample size and see that no matter what the macro view of RBs is, Barkley's incredible talent is not yet translating into wins for the team, so something about the full composition of the team around him isn't working even if you do believe in him as a good starting point for the team's rebuild.
We have already wasted nearly 40% of his rookie contract (not counting his 5th year option which will be close to the value of the franchise tag), and it's a certainty that the minimum amount of his contract that we'll waste is 50%, possibly more depending on how the team performs next season. Barkley may have been the right pick, but the subsequent moves that should have supported that pick have not been successful. That's an indictment of the front office even if the selectionf itself is defensible.
None of us are. Some are smart enough to realize this and not bash the board over the head incessantly when it doesn't appear that performance meets the evaluation.
I wasn't a Jones fan. Hated what I saw from him in college. A few other people shared the same view. Have we posted over and over again about the Giants picking him since that day because it didn't meet with my opinion?? Even bw who hates both the Giants and hated what he saw of Jones isn't killing the team for drafting him:)
There's legitimate arguments to make and then there's holding onto opinions so tightly that it causes a shitload of useless threads and posts to be created.
Quote:
Yes, I wanted Darnold
Josh in the City : 9:20 am : link : reply
And just is still out whether that would have been the right or wrong move (even if some would say it’s already clear I disagree). But that’s not the point.
Your recent posts keep talking about how we needed to draft anything other than a RB. Not investing in them. Picking OL guys instead.
But for the past two years, you incessantly posted not about these other options, but about how passing on a QB - Darnold specifically - set this team back and will set the team back several years.
So while your points keep changing, there's one consistency. Threads that come off as ridiculous whining all with one intent - to invalidate picking Barkley. Do you not see that?
What you aren't understanding is that the two points aren't mutually exclusive. I personally would have picked Darnold in 2018 (still think he's going to be a good QB) but if the Giants didn't believe in him as their future franchise QB then I also believed that under no circumstance should the 2nd overall pick have been a RB. And yes, I have stated that numerous times over the past two years.
Yes yes and yes!!!!! I hated the SB pick. However with that pick being made and a belief that we have our QB - either in the past year or two or now, the next move or past moves afer the RB and qb picks for this upcoming drat tand FA -- the GMEN need to follow through and get at least two OL.
IMO you have to do things differently when you are building around a RB. With Barkley his greatness is more than just giving him the ball on running plays. He's a legit weapon receiving passes.
You could invest in this RB but the OLINE and the QB had to be gotten in a hurry. The RB is more apt ot get hurt or slow down quickly. To get what he does best -- you have to build that OL as soon as possible. If Jones is the real deal and you give him time and the GMEN can run the ball, Barkley puts the GMEn on the contending map. He's that explosive unless anything we've seen in a long time -- when healthy. IMO the team needs to go down fighting by trying to use SB like the rams used Faulk.
Quote:
Barkley may have been the right pick, but the subsequent moves that should have supported that pick have not been successful. That's an indictment of the front office even if the selectionf itself is defensible.
Yes yes and yes!!!!! I hated the SB pick. However with that pick being made and a belief that we have our QB - either in the past year or two or now, the next move or past moves afer the RB and qb picks for this upcoming drat tand FA -- the GMEN need to follow through and get at least two OL.
IMO you have to do things differently when you are building around a RB. With Barkley his greatness is more than just giving him the ball on running plays. He's a legit weapon receiving passes.
You could invest in this RB but the OLINE and the QB had to be gotten in a hurry. The RB is more apt ot get hurt or slow down quickly. To get what he does best -- you have to build that OL as soon as possible. If Jones is the real deal and you give him time and the GMEN can run the ball, Barkley puts the GMEn on the contending map. He's that explosive unless anything we've seen in a long time -- when healthy. IMO the team needs to go down fighting by trying to use SB like the rams used Faulk.
Meant to say
He's that explosive unlike anything we've seen in a long time -- when healthy. IMO the team needs to go down fighting by trying to use SB like the rams used Faulk.