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.
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.