to attract top talent. If Nelson were here and the results were the same or if Darnold were here and the results were the same, the argument would be that we need playmakers or defensive standouts.
Nelson could very well have solidified a side of the line, only to see a mediocre back or RBBC put up pedestrian numbers for a team that still had often injured WR's and Engram.
I also guarantee that if Chubb were here and missed his sophomore season that there wouldn't be some glowing optimism about him. People would bitch that we wasted a high pick on a oft-injured guy.
were still the same, I would feel pretty good that we had a better OL and Edge Rusher to rely upon going forward. And that the search for a solid running back(s) would be an easier path.
RE: Well if Nelson or Chubb were here and the results
were still the same, I would feel pretty good that we had a better OL and Edge Rusher to rely upon going forward. And that the search for a solid running back(s) would be an easier path.
Yeah but what good is "feeling good"? Isn't that what people who like Barkley get criticized for - liking the potential of our run game/offense?
4-12 is 4-12 regardless of feeling good and if we are going to play the money game on top of it then we can just talk about having to pay Chubb $20-$25m per year in another year and whether we should do that for a guy on a 4-12 team. Rinse, repeat.
How about lets get more good players in here? Positional value means nothing if we don't draft well or spend money wisely or get better coaching (hopefully the arrow is pointing up here).
A lot of the times these narratives are constructed
The "get better coaching" thing that gets tossed around all the time kind of disregards the fact that we had the most dead money last year of any team. Puzzling to make coaching the biggest problem when you have the least money to spend on players.
Even more puzzling when you spend very high resource amounts on a position that many teams do not.
This idea that you can shoot yourself in the foot and then say how can you dance with all this blood on the floor?
That's essentially what the "get more good players" argument amounts to. You get "more good players" when you allocate resources efficiently from a high level. High level it isn't magic, it isn't actually overly complicated conceptually.
You amass draft picks and get your starting players at lower costs, you make bets on players upside and you win them. When you have a top player at a valuable position you pay them top dollar.
Anything other than this and you are making your job more difficult.
were still the same, I would feel pretty good that we had a better OL and Edge Rusher to rely upon going forward. And that the search for a solid running back(s) would be an easier path.
Yeah but what good is "feeling good"? Isn't that what people who like Barkley get criticized for - liking the potential of our run game/offense?
4-12 is 4-12 regardless of feeling good and if we are going to play the money game on top of it then we can just talk about having to pay Chubb $20-$25m per year in another year and whether we should do that for a guy on a 4-12 team. Rinse, repeat.
How about lets get more good players in here? Positional value means nothing if we don't draft well or spend money wisely or get better coaching (hopefully the arrow is pointing up here).
I think everybody would support having more good players in the door. It's a nice result but it also requires a thoughtful and strategic process of doing so (unless you want to go with luck) which is the conversation.
You can feel real good about your 12-4 team or you can feel real good about your Best RB in the NFL on your 4-12 team.
RE: A lot of the times these narratives are constructed
The "get better coaching" thing that gets tossed around all the time kind of disregards the fact that we had the most dead money last year of any team. Puzzling to make coaching the biggest problem when you have the least money to spend on players.
Even more puzzling when you spend very high resource amounts on a position that many teams do not.
This idea that you can shoot yourself in the foot and then say how can you dance with all this blood on the floor?
That's essentially what the "get more good players" argument amounts to. You get "more good players" when you allocate resources efficiently from a high level. High level it isn't magic, it isn't actually overly complicated conceptually.
You amass draft picks and get your starting players at lower costs, you make bets on players upside and you win them. When you have a top player at a valuable position you pay them top dollar.
Anything other than this and you are making your job more difficult.
good post
RE: A lot of the times these narratives are constructed
The "get better coaching" thing that gets tossed around all the time kind of disregards the fact that we had the most dead money last year of any team. Puzzling to make coaching the biggest problem when you have the least money to spend on players.
Even more puzzling when you spend very high resource amounts on a position that many teams do not.
This idea that you can shoot yourself in the foot and then say how can you dance with all this blood on the floor?
That's essentially what the "get more good players" argument amounts to. You get "more good players" when you allocate resources efficiently from a high level. High level it isn't magic, it isn't actually overly complicated conceptually.
You amass draft picks and get your starting players at lower costs, you make bets on players upside and you win them. When you have a top player at a valuable position you pay them top dollar.
Anything other than this and you are making your job more difficult.
It doesn't disregard anything. It means just that - we have had terrible coaching and we need to make better players out of our non-star talent. We need better teachers/leaders, plain and simple.
I think Saquon vs. Nick Chubb is probably going to be the key to wondering if Barkley was "worth it" at #2. Going by the list that the thread is referring to, Barkley is #1 and Chubb is #7.
1. Saquon Barkley, New York Giants
2. Christian McCaffrey, Carolina Panthers
3. Ezekiel Elliott, Dallas Cowboys
4. Alvin Kamara, New Orleans Saints
5. Derrick Henry, Tennessee Titans
6. Dalvin Cook, Minnesota Vikings
7. Nick Chubb, Cleveland Browns
8. Joe Mixon, Cincinnati Bengals
9. Josh Jacobs, Las Vegas Raiders
10. Le’Veon Bell, New York Jets
Chubb actually had the clearly superior season last year, due to Barkley dealing with injuries. His contract is cheaper. If we waited to draft him in the 2nd round, we could have also drafted Quenton Nelson in the 1st and arguably done a better job of fixing our run game.
Quenton Nelson/Nick Chubb vs. Barkley/Will Hernandez... as of right now it seems like the gap between Nelson and Hernandez is far greater than the one between Barkley and Chubb. But it's still early and I wouldn't be surprised if Hernandez stepped his game up with the ex-Dallas guys coaching him. Hernandez's development + Barkley distancing himself from Nick Chubb will be what decides if we made the right choice.
RE: RE: RE: Well if Nelson or Chubb were here and the results
You can feel real good about your 12-4 team or you can feel real good about your Best RB in the NFL on your 4-12 team.
What are you talking about, honest question? Who wouldn't be happy about 12-4 regardless of team makeup? I don't give a shit if my aunt is our starting RB on a 12-4 team, but what does that have to do with sucking with Barkley or Chubb or Darnold?
You made the "feel good" comment about having a top edge rusher on a bad team, not me. I would only ever feel good about 4-12 in a Peyton Manning scenario as QB is the only player with enough upside to "feel good" about a shit rookie year.
I think Saquon vs. Nick Chubb is probably going to be the key to wondering if Barkley was "worth it" at #2. Going by the list that the thread is referring to, Barkley is #1 and Chubb is #7.
1. Saquon Barkley, New York Giants
2. Christian McCaffrey, Carolina Panthers
3. Ezekiel Elliott, Dallas Cowboys
4. Alvin Kamara, New Orleans Saints
5. Derrick Henry, Tennessee Titans
6. Dalvin Cook, Minnesota Vikings
7. Nick Chubb, Cleveland Browns
8. Joe Mixon, Cincinnati Bengals
9. Josh Jacobs, Las Vegas Raiders
10. Le’Veon Bell, New York Jets
Chubb actually had the clearly superior season last year, due to Barkley dealing with injuries. His contract is cheaper. If we waited to draft him in the 2nd round, we could have also drafted Quenton Nelson in the 1st and arguably done a better job of fixing our run game.
Quenton Nelson/Nick Chubb vs. Barkley/Will Hernandez... as of right now it seems like the gap between Nelson and Hernandez is far greater than the one between Barkley and Chubb. But it's still early and I wouldn't be surprised if Hernandez stepped his game up with the ex-Dallas guys coaching him. Hernandez's development + Barkley distancing himself from Nick Chubb will be what decides if we made the right choice.
And not only that...think about Nick Chubb running behind Nelson.
You can feel real good about your 12-4 team or you can feel real good about your Best RB in the NFL on your 4-12 team.
What are you talking about, honest question? Who wouldn't be happy about 12-4 regardless of team makeup? I don't give a shit if my aunt is our starting RB on a 12-4 team, but what does that have to do with sucking with Barkley or Chubb or Darnold?
You made the "feel good" comment about having a top edge rusher on a bad team, not me. I would only ever feel good about 4-12 in a Peyton Manning scenario as QB is the only player with enough upside to "feel good" about a shit rookie year.
No, you missed it. I would feel good about being able to find my starting RB that I was happy with much easier than I would a top flight Edge Rusher or All-Pro Guard.
I know i'm way behind on this but was Bettcher considered a bad choice for DC?. I know there were other candidates. How was the hiring received here?
I didn't like the Schumer hire either but what was the consensus on him?
I ask these questions because i'm wondering how did we get to the point that it was the coaching and not the players?
My direct quote that's apparently only isolating coaching.
"How about lets get more good players in here? Positional value means nothing if we don't draft well or spend money wisely or get better coaching (hopefully the arrow is pointing up here)."
That's where I find the more suspect draft pick of that pair of draft picks : Will Hernandez ... SB and a better OL there is a tough combo to beat in terms of talent and upside, including Nelson + Chubb.
GMan - posters point to better coaching on the horizon
Thanks. I was wondering about that. The players were bad last year. the team was bad. I don't think coaching would have made that much of a difference.
It needs aanother year or 2 of drafting and FA to get the right players and get lucky..
Wasted pick, should have drafted QB or OL. RB don't win championships. -most of BBI
I would not say that RB are easy to get. The problems are they generally require an OL to be in place and the difference between an elite RB and a good RB is not as large as elite vs. good at other positions. How many playoff wins did Barkley/CMac/Zeke account for last year? I get that there are other players on the field, but the need for a RB is heavily decreased in today's game. Yes keeping more men in the box allows less players to be in coverage, but as long as your OL can hold up someone is going to get open or draw a penalty in today's offense. The only scenarios where having the running game matters is in the 4th Quarter when you are trying to protect a lead and need a 10 or 15 play clock eating drive. Even then, what you need is a RB who can consistently get 4-5 yards when you touch a ball, not a guy who is just as much of a threat to take it to the house everytime he touches the ball as he is to get tackled for a gain of 2 yards or less.
Then what's the rationale behind elite WR's not being seemingly critical to a team's playoff success? You can do this same exercise for many positions not named QB.
A lot of the angst and positional value discussion on RB's arose because the Giants picked Barkley. The Cowboys and Jags weren't as scrutinized for drafting RB's high.
I am sure glad we had Plaxico in the Green Bay playoff game.
Wasted pick, should have drafted QB or OL. RB don't win championships. -most of BBI
I would not say that RB are easy to get. The problems are they generally require an OL to be in place and the difference between an elite RB and a good RB is not as large as elite vs. good at other positions. How many playoff wins did Barkley/CMac/Zeke account for last year? I get that there are other players on the field, but the need for a RB is heavily decreased in today's game. Yes keeping more men in the box allows less players to be in coverage, but as long as your OL can hold up someone is going to get open or draw a penalty in today's offense. The only scenarios where having the running game matters is in the 4th Quarter when you are trying to protect a lead and need a 10 or 15 play clock eating drive. Even then, what you need is a RB who can consistently get 4-5 yards when you touch a ball, not a guy who is just as much of a threat to take it to the house everytime he touches the ball as he is to get tackled for a gain of 2 yards or less.
Then what's the rationale behind elite WR's not being seemingly critical to a team's playoff success? You can do this same exercise for many positions not named QB.
A lot of the angst and positional value discussion on RB's arose because the Giants picked Barkley. The Cowboys and Jags weren't as scrutinized for drafting RB's high.
I am sure glad we had Plaxico in the Green Bay playoff game.
Ummmm. Okay. So you were equally glad we had Jacobs and Bradshaw in the SB's??
The Giants will contend again when they have good coaching and a balanced, deep lineup.
The former is a pretty linear path, the latter can come from many angles and combinations.
If you can forget the nonsense of Barkley being uncommonly good, and accept he’s just damn good (like CMC and Elliot are as well) — it’s easier to contextualize he’s both a fantastic player and may or may not have been the right choice.
That's where I find the more suspect draft pick of that pair of draft picks : Will Hernandez ... SB and a better OL there is a tough combo to beat in terms of talent and upside, including Nelson + Chubb.
I think we all thought Hernandez could be the Chris Snee to Barkley's Eli Manning. People on here really liked the pick and a ton of draft prognosticators were very high on him. If he performed like Snee did in his first 2 years, I think we'd see less people complain about drafting Quenton Nelson at least. A Chris Snee type would also be an ideal piece to have with Jones/Barkley as your building blocks.
We'll see if he steps up. I am definitely optimistic about Garrett and Colombo's experience with the great Dallas OL rubbing off on our guys.
The Giants will contend again when they have good coaching and a balanced, deep lineup.
The former is a pretty linear path, the latter can come from many angles and combinations.
If you can forget the nonsense of Barkley being uncommonly good, and accept he’s just damn good (like CMC and Elliot are as well) — it’s easier to contextualize he’s both a fantastic player and may or may not have been the right choice.
But I don't think it's nonsense to say Barkley is uncommonly good though. He's clearly an outlier when it comes to natural athleticism and big-play ability.
Last year he was disappointing and clearly playing at less than 100% after he came back from his injury. But he led the league in 50+ yard plays from RBs (5 plays) and was 2nd in the league among 50+ yard plays among all players (AJ Brown had 6). So even in a down year where he missed games and struggled, he was still the most dangerous big play RB in football. His rookie season was obviously on another level.
Code:
2018-19: 50+ Yard Plays from Scrimmage (RBs only)
1. Barkley ----- 13
2. Henry ------- 6
3. McCaffrey --- 5
4. Chubb ------- 5
5. Jones ------- 4
6. Fournette --- 3
7. Crowell ----- 3
8. Peterson ---- 3
0. Elliot ------ 0
That's the entire list of RBs who had 3 or more plays of 50+ yards from scrimmage over these past 2 seasons. 8 players. Barkley had 13 such plays which is more than twice as many as any other player despite missing 3 games last year and probably coming back too early.
To put Barkley's 13 plays of 50+ yards in more perspective, let's take a look at the RBs with the most 50+ yard plays from scrimmage during the entire 2010s decade.
Code:
2010-19: 50+ Yard Plays from Scrimmage (RBs only)
1. Peterson ---- 17
2. Barkley ----- 13
3. McCoy ------- 10
0. McCaffrey --- 5
0. Elliot ------ 4
Yep, that's right, only Adrian Peterson had more 50+ yard plays from scrimmage during the entire decade than Barkley who only played 29 games in this decade! And LeSean Mccoy is the only other RB with double digit 50+ yard plays from scrimmage during this span.
McCaffery is amazing, he combines the Wes Welker role with that of a classic stud RB and it's great to watch. Ezekiel Elliot is aguably the most complete back in football from a run/catch/block perspective. But neither of them are gamebreakers in the mold of Saquon.
Part of the reason RBs are less valued in today's game is because completion percentages are up, meaning you can still control TOP with short passes in order to maintain drives. So the RB who consistently gets you 3-4 yards isn't quite as valuable as he was in the 80s. But a RB like Saquon who is a true outlier when it comes to big play ability is an extremely rare commodity who causes defenses to adjust their gameplans in ways they aren't used to.
Also, what makes Saquon's big play ability even better is his ability to protect the football. Fumbles are the ultimate "Negative Big Play" that hurts your team if you're a RB. So we have a guy who is historically great at creating positive big plays at his position while also being excellent at preventing negative big plays.
He has his flaws, I wish he would resemble Elliot more often at times and just explode up the gut for a solid 6 yard gain. But I think a lot of that has to do with our pathetic OL. I think with an improved OL, the new coaching, an improved Daniel Jones, and returning to 100% health; Saquon could have a monster season. I really think he's a different caliber of talent at the RB position than anyone else in the league.
The Giants will contend again when they have good coaching and a balanced, deep lineup.
The former is a pretty linear path, the latter can come from many angles and combinations.
If you can forget the nonsense of Barkley being uncommonly good, and accept he’s just damn good (like CMC and Elliot are as well) — it’s easier to contextualize he’s both a fantastic player and may or may not have been the right choice.
But I don't think it's nonsense to say Barkley is uncommonly good though. He's clearly an outlier when it comes to natural athleticism and big-play ability.
Last year he was disappointing and clearly playing at less than 100% after he came back from his injury. But he led the league in 50+ yard plays from RBs (5 plays) and was 2nd in the league among 50+ yard plays among all players (AJ Brown had 6). So even in a down year where he missed games and struggled, he was still the most dangerous big play RB in football. His rookie season was obviously on another level.
Code:
2018-19: 50+ Yard Plays from Scrimmage (RBs only)
1. Barkley ----- 13
2. Henry ------- 6
3. McCaffrey --- 5
4. Chubb ------- 5
5. Jones ------- 4
6. Fournette --- 3
7. Crowell ----- 3
8. Peterson ---- 3
0. Elliot ------ 0
That's the entire list of RBs who had 3 or more plays of 50+ yards from scrimmage over these past 2 seasons. 8 players. Barkley had 13 such plays which is more than twice as many as any other player despite missing 3 games last year and probably coming back too early.
To put Barkley's 13 plays of 50+ yards in more perspective, let's take a look at the RBs with the most 50+ yard plays from scrimmage during the entire 2010s decade.
Code:
2010-19: 50+ Yard Plays from Scrimmage (RBs only)
1. Peterson ---- 17
2. Barkley ----- 13
3. McCoy ------- 10
0. McCaffrey --- 5
0. Elliot ------ 4
Yep, that's right, only Adrian Peterson had more 50+ yard plays from scrimmage during the entire decade than Barkley who only played 29 games in this decade! And LeSean Mccoy is the only other RB with double digit 50+ yard plays from scrimmage during this span.
McCaffery is amazing, he combines the Wes Welker role with that of a classic stud RB and it's great to watch. Ezekiel Elliot is aguably the most complete back in football from a run/catch/block perspective. But neither of them are gamebreakers in the mold of Saquon.
Part of the reason RBs are less valued in today's game is because completion percentages are up, meaning you can still control TOP with short passes in order to maintain drives. So the RB who consistently gets you 3-4 yards isn't quite as valuable as he was in the 80s. But a RB like Saquon who is a true outlier when it comes to big play ability is an extremely rare commodity who causes defenses to adjust their gameplans in ways they aren't used to.
Also, what makes Saquon's big play ability even better is his ability to protect the football. Fumbles are the ultimate "Negative Big Play" that hurts your team if you're a RB. So we have a guy who is historically great at creating positive big plays at his position while also being excellent at preventing negative big plays.
He has his flaws, I wish he would resemble Elliot more often at times and just explode up the gut for a solid 6 yard gain. But I think a lot of that has to do with our pathetic OL. I think with an improved OL, the new coaching, an improved Daniel Jones, and returning to 100% health; Saquon could have a monster season. I really think he's a different caliber of talent at the RB position than anyone else in the league.
The Giants will contend again when they have good coaching and a balanced, deep lineup.
Outstanding Post Osi! +1
The former is a pretty linear path, the latter can come from many angles and combinations.
If you can forget the nonsense of Barkley being uncommonly good, and accept he’s just damn good (like CMC and Elliot are as well) — it’s easier to contextualize he’s both a fantastic player and may or may not have been the right choice.
But I don't think it's nonsense to say Barkley is uncommonly good though. He's clearly an outlier when it comes to natural athleticism and big-play ability.
Last year he was disappointing and clearly playing at less than 100% after he came back from his injury. But he led the league in 50+ yard plays from RBs (5 plays) and was 2nd in the league among 50+ yard plays among all players (AJ Brown had 6). So even in a down year where he missed games and struggled, he was still the most dangerous big play RB in football. His rookie season was obviously on another level.
Code:
2018-19: 50+ Yard Plays from Scrimmage (RBs only)
1. Barkley ----- 13
2. Henry ------- 6
3. McCaffrey --- 5
4. Chubb ------- 5
5. Jones ------- 4
6. Fournette --- 3
7. Crowell ----- 3
8. Peterson ---- 3
0. Elliot ------ 0
That's the entire list of RBs who had 3 or more plays of 50+ yards from scrimmage over these past 2 seasons. 8 players. Barkley had 13 such plays which is more than twice as many as any other player despite missing 3 games last year and probably coming back too early.
To put Barkley's 13 plays of 50+ yards in more perspective, let's take a look at the RBs with the most 50+ yard plays from scrimmage during the entire 2010s decade.
Code:
2010-19: 50+ Yard Plays from Scrimmage (RBs only)
1. Peterson ---- 17
2. Barkley ----- 13
3. McCoy ------- 10
0. McCaffrey --- 5
0. Elliot ------ 4
Yep, that's right, only Adrian Peterson had more 50+ yard plays from scrimmage during the entire decade than Barkley who only played 29 games in this decade! And LeSean Mccoy is the only other RB with double digit 50+ yard plays from scrimmage during this span.
McCaffery is amazing, he combines the Wes Welker role with that of a classic stud RB and it's great to watch. Ezekiel Elliot is aguably the most complete back in football from a run/catch/block perspective. But neither of them are gamebreakers in the mold of Saquon.
Part of the reason RBs are less valued in today's game is because completion percentages are up, meaning you can still control TOP with short passes in order to maintain drives. So the RB who consistently gets you 3-4 yards isn't quite as valuable as he was in the 80s. But a RB like Saquon who is a true outlier when it comes to big play ability is an extremely rare commodity who causes defenses to adjust their gameplans in ways they aren't used to.
Also, what makes Saquon's big play ability even better is his ability to protect the football. Fumbles are the ultimate "Negative Big Play" that hurts your team if you're a RB. So we have a guy who is historically great at creating positive big plays at his position while also being excellent at preventing negative big plays.
He has his flaws, I wish he would resemble Elliot more often at times and just explode up the gut for a solid 6 yard gain. But I think a lot of that has to do with our pathetic OL. I think with an improved OL, the new coaching, an improved Daniel Jones, and returning to 100% health; Saquon could have a monster season. I really think he's a different caliber of talent at the RB position than anyone else in the league.
The Giants will contend again when they have good coaching and a balanced, deep lineup.
Outstanding Post Osi! +1
The former is a pretty linear path, the latter can come from many angles and combinations.
If you can forget the nonsense of Barkley being uncommonly good, and accept he’s just damn good (like CMC and Elliot are as well) — it’s easier to contextualize he’s both a fantastic player and may or may not have been the right choice.
But I don't think it's nonsense to say Barkley is uncommonly good though. He's clearly an outlier when it comes to natural athleticism and big-play ability.
Last year he was disappointing and clearly playing at less than 100% after he came back from his injury. But he led the league in 50+ yard plays from RBs (5 plays) and was 2nd in the league among 50+ yard plays among all players (AJ Brown had 6). So even in a down year where he missed games and struggled, he was still the most dangerous big play RB in football. His rookie season was obviously on another level.
Code:
2018-19: 50+ Yard Plays from Scrimmage (RBs only)
1. Barkley ----- 13
2. Henry ------- 6
3. McCaffrey --- 5
4. Chubb ------- 5
5. Jones ------- 4
6. Fournette --- 3
7. Crowell ----- 3
8. Peterson ---- 3
0. Elliot ------ 0
That's the entire list of RBs who had 3 or more plays of 50+ yards from scrimmage over these past 2 seasons. 8 players. Barkley had 13 such plays which is more than twice as many as any other player despite missing 3 games last year and probably coming back too early.
To put Barkley's 13 plays of 50+ yards in more perspective, let's take a look at the RBs with the most 50+ yard plays from scrimmage during the entire 2010s decade.
Code:
2010-19: 50+ Yard Plays from Scrimmage (RBs only)
1. Peterson ---- 17
2. Barkley ----- 13
3. McCoy ------- 10
0. McCaffrey --- 5
0. Elliot ------ 4
Yep, that's right, only Adrian Peterson had more 50+ yard plays from scrimmage during the entire decade than Barkley who only played 29 games in this decade! And LeSean Mccoy is the only other RB with double digit 50+ yard plays from scrimmage during this span.
McCaffery is amazing, he combines the Wes Welker role with that of a classic stud RB and it's great to watch. Ezekiel Elliot is aguably the most complete back in football from a run/catch/block perspective. But neither of them are gamebreakers in the mold of Saquon.
Part of the reason RBs are less valued in today's game is because completion percentages are up, meaning you can still control TOP with short passes in order to maintain drives. So the RB who consistently gets you 3-4 yards isn't quite as valuable as he was in the 80s. But a RB like Saquon who is a true outlier when it comes to big play ability is an extremely rare commodity who causes defenses to adjust their gameplans in ways they aren't used to.
Also, what makes Saquon's big play ability even better is his ability to protect the football. Fumbles are the ultimate "Negative Big Play" that hurts your team if you're a RB. So we have a guy who is historically great at creating positive big plays at his position while also being excellent at preventing negative big plays.
He has his flaws, I wish he would resemble Elliot more often at times and just explode up the gut for a solid 6 yard gain. But I think a lot of that has to do with our pathetic OL. I think with an improved OL, the new coaching, an improved Daniel Jones, and returning to 100% health; Saquon could have a monster season. I really think he's a different caliber of talent at the RB position than anyone else in the league.
Osi, respectfully, what I read all of that to say is:
1. Barkley is the best big play back, and on track to be one of the better big play backs of all time - I completely agree.
2. You really think he's a different caliber of talent - that's tough to quantify so I don't know how to respond to that.
My point is Elliot and McCaffery are certainly in his class, and arguably more balanced running backs. Elliot is in a more talented offense, I'd argue McCaffery and Barkley are in equally bad circumstances.
All things considered, the superlatives and hyperbole to separate him from his peers and in turn argue he is so unique no other approach in the draft was valid, is totally nonsense.
Now if the argument is he's a fantastic player, and that offsets the cost and longevity associated with good running backs, that's arguable but fair.
But it's silly to argue he's in a class of his own when you consider durability and production -- there are two backs in the league just as good as him.
he’s in a class by himself has a playmaker. The rest is filler on your part. I’m not sure how much more clear that post can be, over the past decade only 1 RB has had more 50+ yard plays and that was covering a full decade vs less than 2 full seasons for Barkley.
If that isn’t unique than what is?
That's really cool to see that quantified like that, Osi.
My original, and consistent point — that Osi responded to:
- Barkley is not an uncommonly good running back. McCaffery and Elliot are as good and arguably better overall.
- He’s not so beyond his contemporaries and therefore the value of a running back, that some of the cautions of drafting a running back so high don’t apply to him.
Being a tremendous big play back doesn’t tell the entire story.
You might consider that filler, but that’s the conversation he and I are having.
uncommon means just that - unlikely, rare, etc. your list is a grand total of 3...not 20 or 10 or even 5....3. I’d go so far as to say Barkley is up there in being “uncommon“ at his position than most other top players are at theirs. Osi actually gave assessments on each RB which you didn’t really bother commenting on - tells me a lot about your angle in this.
If Barkley is providing more big play ability in a big play ability league (more than anyone in the last half decade), and doing so despite the poor online play, you can honestly sit here and say that its not uncommon? I’d love to see Elliot on the Giants - something tells me those stats would be taking a 10% hit at a bare minimum, likely a lot more. He’s just doesn’t have that explosive ability despite all the other things he does well. He rarely gets hit behind the LOS, Barkley on the other hand...
Just wish you were more honest in these arguments. Your heavy bias against drafting a RB high (and for the record I agree I just think there’s a difference between drafting a Fournette or Barkley) clouds these conversations. I don’t see Barkley as RB like you do, he’s more than that and that’s what we drafted.
-3rd rookie in NFL to break 2000 total yards
-Broke the Giants NFL Rookie TD Record that stood since 1946
-Broke the NFL all time rookie running back record in receptions
-Broke Eric Dickerson's record for most 100 yard games from scrimmage by a rookie
-Tied (with OBJ) the Giants rookie record for receptions among all players
-Barkley had the fastest TD run (78 yards) where he reached a top speed of 21.91 miles per hour, which was the fastest of ANY player during the 2018 season
-1st Giants rookie RB to rush for 1000 yards
-Joined Randy Moss as the only two rookies in NFL history to rack up 5 TD's of 50 yards or more (the Giants had just THREE rushing touchdowns of 50 yards or more during their past ten seasons (2008-2017) before Barkley arrived)
-Scored the most TD's by any rookie in Giants history
-His 170 rushing yard performance was a Giants single game rushing record by a rookie
-Most total yards by any Giants rookie in history
-1st 1000 yard rusher on the Giants since 2012.
And Lawrence Tynes with some historical perspective on Saquon's unreal rookie season:
Quote:
𝗟𝗮𝘄𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗧𝘆𝗻𝗲𝘀
@lt4kicks
Even more impressive: Saquon Barkley’s 2,000+ scrimmage yards in Rookie season come on a 5-11 team
•Eric Dickerson 9-7 in 1983
•Edgerrin James 13-3 in 1999
And finally:
Quote:
Next Gen Stats
@NextGenStats
Saquon Barkley rushed for 141 yards and 1 TD when facing 8+ defenders in the box (8 carries) in Week 14 against the Redskins.
This is the most rush yards when facing 8+ defenders since #NextGenStats began tracking defenders in the box in 2016.
juke and avoid defenders that had crossed the LOS as much as Barkley has over the past two years.
Hope he doesn’t get frustrated this year with it because I think the OL will need another year before it is more stable. Barkley showed some of that last season and I think it affected his overall game moreso (drops, losing focus on pass protection, etc).
I believe Barkley’s big play ability is uncommon. I don’t believe his overall value as a back is so uncommon that it throws out all of the conventional arguments against drafting a running back no. 2 overall on its face.
That’s my only point.
I don’t believe Barkley is a generational back when there are arguably two better runnings back in the NFL right now. He’s a terrific back. He’s likely to prove to have been worth the pick, but that remains to be seen.
But I don’t believe it’s unequivocal. And I don’t believe he’s such an outlier that it invalidates any argument against drafting a running back no. 2.
I look at McCaffery — with a shit line, shit QB, and shit WRs — and what he did last year from a productivity perspective puts him squarely atop the best in my view.
if you don’t think any RB at all should be taken at 2 then fine, say it and be done with it. But the rest is just getting absurd.
Of course a running back can be taken at #2 but imv that should be a function of both that player and roster construction timing. Barkley clearly checks the former and arguably Giants didn’t check the latter.
Barkley played basically half of 4-6 games last year with a
high ankle sprain, and it seriously hurt his stats. He came back way too early. Plus the Giants team is substantially worse that either Carolina or Dallas.
RE: Barkley played basically half of 4-6 games last year with a
high ankle sprain, and it seriously hurt his stats. He came back way too early. Plus the Giants team is substantially worse that either Carolina or Dallas.
I don’t believe the Panthers had a better offensive situation by any measure over the Giants last year. Equally bad line, worse quarterback, worse offensive weapons.
Nelson could very well have solidified a side of the line, only to see a mediocre back or RBBC put up pedestrian numbers for a team that still had often injured WR's and Engram.
I also guarantee that if Chubb were here and missed his sophomore season that there wouldn't be some glowing optimism about him. People would bitch that we wasted a high pick on a oft-injured guy.
Yeah but what good is "feeling good"? Isn't that what people who like Barkley get criticized for - liking the potential of our run game/offense?
4-12 is 4-12 regardless of feeling good and if we are going to play the money game on top of it then we can just talk about having to pay Chubb $20-$25m per year in another year and whether we should do that for a guy on a 4-12 team. Rinse, repeat.
How about lets get more good players in here? Positional value means nothing if we don't draft well or spend money wisely or get better coaching (hopefully the arrow is pointing up here).
The "get better coaching" thing that gets tossed around all the time kind of disregards the fact that we had the most dead money last year of any team. Puzzling to make coaching the biggest problem when you have the least money to spend on players.
Even more puzzling when you spend very high resource amounts on a position that many teams do not.
This idea that you can shoot yourself in the foot and then say how can you dance with all this blood on the floor?
That's essentially what the "get more good players" argument amounts to. You get "more good players" when you allocate resources efficiently from a high level. High level it isn't magic, it isn't actually overly complicated conceptually.
You amass draft picks and get your starting players at lower costs, you make bets on players upside and you win them. When you have a top player at a valuable position you pay them top dollar.
Anything other than this and you are making your job more difficult.
Quote:
were still the same, I would feel pretty good that we had a better OL and Edge Rusher to rely upon going forward. And that the search for a solid running back(s) would be an easier path.
Yeah but what good is "feeling good"? Isn't that what people who like Barkley get criticized for - liking the potential of our run game/offense?
4-12 is 4-12 regardless of feeling good and if we are going to play the money game on top of it then we can just talk about having to pay Chubb $20-$25m per year in another year and whether we should do that for a guy on a 4-12 team. Rinse, repeat.
How about lets get more good players in here? Positional value means nothing if we don't draft well or spend money wisely or get better coaching (hopefully the arrow is pointing up here).
I think everybody would support having more good players in the door. It's a nice result but it also requires a thoughtful and strategic process of doing so (unless you want to go with luck) which is the conversation.
You can feel real good about your 12-4 team or you can feel real good about your Best RB in the NFL on your 4-12 team.
The "get better coaching" thing that gets tossed around all the time kind of disregards the fact that we had the most dead money last year of any team. Puzzling to make coaching the biggest problem when you have the least money to spend on players.
Even more puzzling when you spend very high resource amounts on a position that many teams do not.
This idea that you can shoot yourself in the foot and then say how can you dance with all this blood on the floor?
That's essentially what the "get more good players" argument amounts to. You get "more good players" when you allocate resources efficiently from a high level. High level it isn't magic, it isn't actually overly complicated conceptually.
You amass draft picks and get your starting players at lower costs, you make bets on players upside and you win them. When you have a top player at a valuable position you pay them top dollar.
Anything other than this and you are making your job more difficult.
good post
The "get better coaching" thing that gets tossed around all the time kind of disregards the fact that we had the most dead money last year of any team. Puzzling to make coaching the biggest problem when you have the least money to spend on players.
Even more puzzling when you spend very high resource amounts on a position that many teams do not.
This idea that you can shoot yourself in the foot and then say how can you dance with all this blood on the floor?
That's essentially what the "get more good players" argument amounts to. You get "more good players" when you allocate resources efficiently from a high level. High level it isn't magic, it isn't actually overly complicated conceptually.
You amass draft picks and get your starting players at lower costs, you make bets on players upside and you win them. When you have a top player at a valuable position you pay them top dollar.
Anything other than this and you are making your job more difficult.
It doesn't disregard anything. It means just that - we have had terrible coaching and we need to make better players out of our non-star talent. We need better teachers/leaders, plain and simple.
1. Saquon Barkley, New York Giants
2. Christian McCaffrey, Carolina Panthers
3. Ezekiel Elliott, Dallas Cowboys
4. Alvin Kamara, New Orleans Saints
5. Derrick Henry, Tennessee Titans
6. Dalvin Cook, Minnesota Vikings
7. Nick Chubb, Cleveland Browns
8. Joe Mixon, Cincinnati Bengals
9. Josh Jacobs, Las Vegas Raiders
10. Le’Veon Bell, New York Jets
Chubb actually had the clearly superior season last year, due to Barkley dealing with injuries. His contract is cheaper. If we waited to draft him in the 2nd round, we could have also drafted Quenton Nelson in the 1st and arguably done a better job of fixing our run game.
Quenton Nelson/Nick Chubb vs. Barkley/Will Hernandez... as of right now it seems like the gap between Nelson and Hernandez is far greater than the one between Barkley and Chubb. But it's still early and I wouldn't be surprised if Hernandez stepped his game up with the ex-Dallas guys coaching him. Hernandez's development + Barkley distancing himself from Nick Chubb will be what decides if we made the right choice.
What are you talking about, honest question? Who wouldn't be happy about 12-4 regardless of team makeup? I don't give a shit if my aunt is our starting RB on a 12-4 team, but what does that have to do with sucking with Barkley or Chubb or Darnold?
You made the "feel good" comment about having a top edge rusher on a bad team, not me. I would only ever feel good about 4-12 in a Peyton Manning scenario as QB is the only player with enough upside to "feel good" about a shit rookie year.
1. Saquon Barkley, New York Giants
2. Christian McCaffrey, Carolina Panthers
3. Ezekiel Elliott, Dallas Cowboys
4. Alvin Kamara, New Orleans Saints
5. Derrick Henry, Tennessee Titans
6. Dalvin Cook, Minnesota Vikings
7. Nick Chubb, Cleveland Browns
8. Joe Mixon, Cincinnati Bengals
9. Josh Jacobs, Las Vegas Raiders
10. Le’Veon Bell, New York Jets
Chubb actually had the clearly superior season last year, due to Barkley dealing with injuries. His contract is cheaper. If we waited to draft him in the 2nd round, we could have also drafted Quenton Nelson in the 1st and arguably done a better job of fixing our run game.
Quenton Nelson/Nick Chubb vs. Barkley/Will Hernandez... as of right now it seems like the gap between Nelson and Hernandez is far greater than the one between Barkley and Chubb. But it's still early and I wouldn't be surprised if Hernandez stepped his game up with the ex-Dallas guys coaching him. Hernandez's development + Barkley distancing himself from Nick Chubb will be what decides if we made the right choice.
And not only that...think about Nick Chubb running behind Nelson.
I didn't like the Schumer hire either but what was the consensus on him?
I ask these questions because i'm wondering how did we get to the point that it was the coaching and not the players?
Its unreal. Because I didn't address it means I "forget it". Must be nice being so humble...
Quote:
You can feel real good about your 12-4 team or you can feel real good about your Best RB in the NFL on your 4-12 team.
What are you talking about, honest question? Who wouldn't be happy about 12-4 regardless of team makeup? I don't give a shit if my aunt is our starting RB on a 12-4 team, but what does that have to do with sucking with Barkley or Chubb or Darnold?
You made the "feel good" comment about having a top edge rusher on a bad team, not me. I would only ever feel good about 4-12 in a Peyton Manning scenario as QB is the only player with enough upside to "feel good" about a shit rookie year.
No, you missed it. I would feel good about being able to find my starting RB that I was happy with much easier than I would a top flight Edge Rusher or All-Pro Guard.
I didn't like the Schumer hire either but what was the consensus on him?
I ask these questions because i'm wondering how did we get to the point that it was the coaching and not the players?
My direct quote that's apparently only isolating coaching.
"How about lets get more good players in here? Positional value means nothing if we don't draft well or spend money wisely or get better coaching (hopefully the arrow is pointing up here)."
The correct answer is the problem is BOTH the players and the coaching and nobody has the crystal ball as to the % to assign to each.
It needs aanother year or 2 of drafting and FA to get the right players and get lucky..
Quote:
In comment 14930788 Darth Paul said:
Quote:
Wasted pick, should have drafted QB or OL. RB don't win championships. -most of BBI
I would not say that RB are easy to get. The problems are they generally require an OL to be in place and the difference between an elite RB and a good RB is not as large as elite vs. good at other positions. How many playoff wins did Barkley/CMac/Zeke account for last year? I get that there are other players on the field, but the need for a RB is heavily decreased in today's game. Yes keeping more men in the box allows less players to be in coverage, but as long as your OL can hold up someone is going to get open or draw a penalty in today's offense. The only scenarios where having the running game matters is in the 4th Quarter when you are trying to protect a lead and need a 10 or 15 play clock eating drive. Even then, what you need is a RB who can consistently get 4-5 yards when you touch a ball, not a guy who is just as much of a threat to take it to the house everytime he touches the ball as he is to get tackled for a gain of 2 yards or less.
Then what's the rationale behind elite WR's not being seemingly critical to a team's playoff success? You can do this same exercise for many positions not named QB.
A lot of the angst and positional value discussion on RB's arose because the Giants picked Barkley. The Cowboys and Jags weren't as scrutinized for drafting RB's high.
I am sure glad we had Plaxico in the Green Bay playoff game.
Definately a +1 for Gettleman.
Quote:
In comment 14930804 Mike in NY said:
Quote:
In comment 14930788 Darth Paul said:
Quote:
Wasted pick, should have drafted QB or OL. RB don't win championships. -most of BBI
I would not say that RB are easy to get. The problems are they generally require an OL to be in place and the difference between an elite RB and a good RB is not as large as elite vs. good at other positions. How many playoff wins did Barkley/CMac/Zeke account for last year? I get that there are other players on the field, but the need for a RB is heavily decreased in today's game. Yes keeping more men in the box allows less players to be in coverage, but as long as your OL can hold up someone is going to get open or draw a penalty in today's offense. The only scenarios where having the running game matters is in the 4th Quarter when you are trying to protect a lead and need a 10 or 15 play clock eating drive. Even then, what you need is a RB who can consistently get 4-5 yards when you touch a ball, not a guy who is just as much of a threat to take it to the house everytime he touches the ball as he is to get tackled for a gain of 2 yards or less.
Then what's the rationale behind elite WR's not being seemingly critical to a team's playoff success? You can do this same exercise for many positions not named QB.
A lot of the angst and positional value discussion on RB's arose because the Giants picked Barkley. The Cowboys and Jags weren't as scrutinized for drafting RB's high.
I am sure glad we had Plaxico in the Green Bay playoff game.
Ummmm. Okay. So you were equally glad we had Jacobs and Bradshaw in the SB's??
The former is a pretty linear path, the latter can come from many angles and combinations.
If you can forget the nonsense of Barkley being uncommonly good, and accept he’s just damn good (like CMC and Elliot are as well) — it’s easier to contextualize he’s both a fantastic player and may or may not have been the right choice.
As long as you know what player to block!
I think we all thought Hernandez could be the Chris Snee to Barkley's Eli Manning. People on here really liked the pick and a ton of draft prognosticators were very high on him. If he performed like Snee did in his first 2 years, I think we'd see less people complain about drafting Quenton Nelson at least. A Chris Snee type would also be an ideal piece to have with Jones/Barkley as your building blocks.
We'll see if he steps up. I am definitely optimistic about Garrett and Colombo's experience with the great Dallas OL rubbing off on our guys.
The former is a pretty linear path, the latter can come from many angles and combinations.
If you can forget the nonsense of Barkley being uncommonly good, and accept he’s just damn good (like CMC and Elliot are as well) — it’s easier to contextualize he’s both a fantastic player and may or may not have been the right choice.
But I don't think it's nonsense to say Barkley is uncommonly good though. He's clearly an outlier when it comes to natural athleticism and big-play ability.
Last year he was disappointing and clearly playing at less than 100% after he came back from his injury. But he led the league in 50+ yard plays from RBs (5 plays) and was 2nd in the league among 50+ yard plays among all players (AJ Brown had 6). So even in a down year where he missed games and struggled, he was still the most dangerous big play RB in football. His rookie season was obviously on another level.
1. Barkley ----- 13
2. Henry ------- 6
3. McCaffrey --- 5
4. Chubb ------- 5
5. Jones ------- 4
6. Fournette --- 3
7. Crowell ----- 3
8. Peterson ---- 3
0. Elliot ------ 0
That's the entire list of RBs who had 3 or more plays of 50+ yards from scrimmage over these past 2 seasons. 8 players. Barkley had 13 such plays which is more than twice as many as any other player despite missing 3 games last year and probably coming back too early.
To put Barkley's 13 plays of 50+ yards in more perspective, let's take a look at the RBs with the most 50+ yard plays from scrimmage during the entire 2010s decade.
1. Peterson ---- 17
2. Barkley ----- 13
3. McCoy ------- 10
0. McCaffrey --- 5
0. Elliot ------ 4
Yep, that's right, only Adrian Peterson had more 50+ yard plays from scrimmage during the entire decade than Barkley who only played 29 games in this decade! And LeSean Mccoy is the only other RB with double digit 50+ yard plays from scrimmage during this span.
McCaffery is amazing, he combines the Wes Welker role with that of a classic stud RB and it's great to watch. Ezekiel Elliot is aguably the most complete back in football from a run/catch/block perspective. But neither of them are gamebreakers in the mold of Saquon.
Part of the reason RBs are less valued in today's game is because completion percentages are up, meaning you can still control TOP with short passes in order to maintain drives. So the RB who consistently gets you 3-4 yards isn't quite as valuable as he was in the 80s. But a RB like Saquon who is a true outlier when it comes to big play ability is an extremely rare commodity who causes defenses to adjust their gameplans in ways they aren't used to.
Also, what makes Saquon's big play ability even better is his ability to protect the football. Fumbles are the ultimate "Negative Big Play" that hurts your team if you're a RB. So we have a guy who is historically great at creating positive big plays at his position while also being excellent at preventing negative big plays.
He has his flaws, I wish he would resemble Elliot more often at times and just explode up the gut for a solid 6 yard gain. But I think a lot of that has to do with our pathetic OL. I think with an improved OL, the new coaching, an improved Daniel Jones, and returning to 100% health; Saquon could have a monster season. I really think he's a different caliber of talent at the RB position than anyone else in the league.
Quote:
The Giants will contend again when they have good coaching and a balanced, deep lineup.
The former is a pretty linear path, the latter can come from many angles and combinations.
If you can forget the nonsense of Barkley being uncommonly good, and accept he’s just damn good (like CMC and Elliot are as well) — it’s easier to contextualize he’s both a fantastic player and may or may not have been the right choice.
But I don't think it's nonsense to say Barkley is uncommonly good though. He's clearly an outlier when it comes to natural athleticism and big-play ability.
Last year he was disappointing and clearly playing at less than 100% after he came back from his injury. But he led the league in 50+ yard plays from RBs (5 plays) and was 2nd in the league among 50+ yard plays among all players (AJ Brown had 6). So even in a down year where he missed games and struggled, he was still the most dangerous big play RB in football. His rookie season was obviously on another level.
Code:
2018-19: 50+ Yard Plays from Scrimmage (RBs only)
1. Barkley ----- 13
2. Henry ------- 6
3. McCaffrey --- 5
4. Chubb ------- 5
5. Jones ------- 4
6. Fournette --- 3
7. Crowell ----- 3
8. Peterson ---- 3
0. Elliot ------ 0
That's the entire list of RBs who had 3 or more plays of 50+ yards from scrimmage over these past 2 seasons. 8 players. Barkley had 13 such plays which is more than twice as many as any other player despite missing 3 games last year and probably coming back too early.
To put Barkley's 13 plays of 50+ yards in more perspective, let's take a look at the RBs with the most 50+ yard plays from scrimmage during the entire 2010s decade.
Code:
2010-19: 50+ Yard Plays from Scrimmage (RBs only)
1. Peterson ---- 17
2. Barkley ----- 13
3. McCoy ------- 10
0. McCaffrey --- 5
0. Elliot ------ 4
Yep, that's right, only Adrian Peterson had more 50+ yard plays from scrimmage during the entire decade than Barkley who only played 29 games in this decade! And LeSean Mccoy is the only other RB with double digit 50+ yard plays from scrimmage during this span.
McCaffery is amazing, he combines the Wes Welker role with that of a classic stud RB and it's great to watch. Ezekiel Elliot is aguably the most complete back in football from a run/catch/block perspective. But neither of them are gamebreakers in the mold of Saquon.
Part of the reason RBs are less valued in today's game is because completion percentages are up, meaning you can still control TOP with short passes in order to maintain drives. So the RB who consistently gets you 3-4 yards isn't quite as valuable as he was in the 80s. But a RB like Saquon who is a true outlier when it comes to big play ability is an extremely rare commodity who causes defenses to adjust their gameplans in ways they aren't used to.
Also, what makes Saquon's big play ability even better is his ability to protect the football. Fumbles are the ultimate "Negative Big Play" that hurts your team if you're a RB. So we have a guy who is historically great at creating positive big plays at his position while also being excellent at preventing negative big plays.
He has his flaws, I wish he would resemble Elliot more often at times and just explode up the gut for a solid 6 yard gain. But I think a lot of that has to do with our pathetic OL. I think with an improved OL, the new coaching, an improved Daniel Jones, and returning to 100% health; Saquon could have a monster season. I really think he's a different caliber of talent at the RB position than anyone else in the league.
Thanks for this info. Very interesting stats.
Quote:
The Giants will contend again when they have good coaching and a balanced, deep lineup.
Outstanding Post Osi! +1
The former is a pretty linear path, the latter can come from many angles and combinations.
If you can forget the nonsense of Barkley being uncommonly good, and accept he’s just damn good (like CMC and Elliot are as well) — it’s easier to contextualize he’s both a fantastic player and may or may not have been the right choice.
But I don't think it's nonsense to say Barkley is uncommonly good though. He's clearly an outlier when it comes to natural athleticism and big-play ability.
Last year he was disappointing and clearly playing at less than 100% after he came back from his injury. But he led the league in 50+ yard plays from RBs (5 plays) and was 2nd in the league among 50+ yard plays among all players (AJ Brown had 6). So even in a down year where he missed games and struggled, he was still the most dangerous big play RB in football. His rookie season was obviously on another level.
Code:
2018-19: 50+ Yard Plays from Scrimmage (RBs only)
1. Barkley ----- 13
2. Henry ------- 6
3. McCaffrey --- 5
4. Chubb ------- 5
5. Jones ------- 4
6. Fournette --- 3
7. Crowell ----- 3
8. Peterson ---- 3
0. Elliot ------ 0
That's the entire list of RBs who had 3 or more plays of 50+ yards from scrimmage over these past 2 seasons. 8 players. Barkley had 13 such plays which is more than twice as many as any other player despite missing 3 games last year and probably coming back too early.
To put Barkley's 13 plays of 50+ yards in more perspective, let's take a look at the RBs with the most 50+ yard plays from scrimmage during the entire 2010s decade.
Code:
2010-19: 50+ Yard Plays from Scrimmage (RBs only)
1. Peterson ---- 17
2. Barkley ----- 13
3. McCoy ------- 10
0. McCaffrey --- 5
0. Elliot ------ 4
Yep, that's right, only Adrian Peterson had more 50+ yard plays from scrimmage during the entire decade than Barkley who only played 29 games in this decade! And LeSean Mccoy is the only other RB with double digit 50+ yard plays from scrimmage during this span.
McCaffery is amazing, he combines the Wes Welker role with that of a classic stud RB and it's great to watch. Ezekiel Elliot is aguably the most complete back in football from a run/catch/block perspective. But neither of them are gamebreakers in the mold of Saquon.
Part of the reason RBs are less valued in today's game is because completion percentages are up, meaning you can still control TOP with short passes in order to maintain drives. So the RB who consistently gets you 3-4 yards isn't quite as valuable as he was in the 80s. But a RB like Saquon who is a true outlier when it comes to big play ability is an extremely rare commodity who causes defenses to adjust their gameplans in ways they aren't used to.
Also, what makes Saquon's big play ability even better is his ability to protect the football. Fumbles are the ultimate "Negative Big Play" that hurts your team if you're a RB. So we have a guy who is historically great at creating positive big plays at his position while also being excellent at preventing negative big plays.
He has his flaws, I wish he would resemble Elliot more often at times and just explode up the gut for a solid 6 yard gain. But I think a lot of that has to do with our pathetic OL. I think with an improved OL, the new coaching, an improved Daniel Jones, and returning to 100% health; Saquon could have a monster season. I really think he's a different caliber of talent at the RB position than anyone else in the league.
Quote:
The Giants will contend again when they have good coaching and a balanced, deep lineup.
Outstanding Post Osi! +1
The former is a pretty linear path, the latter can come from many angles and combinations.
If you can forget the nonsense of Barkley being uncommonly good, and accept he’s just damn good (like CMC and Elliot are as well) — it’s easier to contextualize he’s both a fantastic player and may or may not have been the right choice.
But I don't think it's nonsense to say Barkley is uncommonly good though. He's clearly an outlier when it comes to natural athleticism and big-play ability.
Last year he was disappointing and clearly playing at less than 100% after he came back from his injury. But he led the league in 50+ yard plays from RBs (5 plays) and was 2nd in the league among 50+ yard plays among all players (AJ Brown had 6). So even in a down year where he missed games and struggled, he was still the most dangerous big play RB in football. His rookie season was obviously on another level.
Code:
2018-19: 50+ Yard Plays from Scrimmage (RBs only)
1. Barkley ----- 13
2. Henry ------- 6
3. McCaffrey --- 5
4. Chubb ------- 5
5. Jones ------- 4
6. Fournette --- 3
7. Crowell ----- 3
8. Peterson ---- 3
0. Elliot ------ 0
That's the entire list of RBs who had 3 or more plays of 50+ yards from scrimmage over these past 2 seasons. 8 players. Barkley had 13 such plays which is more than twice as many as any other player despite missing 3 games last year and probably coming back too early.
To put Barkley's 13 plays of 50+ yards in more perspective, let's take a look at the RBs with the most 50+ yard plays from scrimmage during the entire 2010s decade.
Code:
2010-19: 50+ Yard Plays from Scrimmage (RBs only)
1. Peterson ---- 17
2. Barkley ----- 13
3. McCoy ------- 10
0. McCaffrey --- 5
0. Elliot ------ 4
Yep, that's right, only Adrian Peterson had more 50+ yard plays from scrimmage during the entire decade than Barkley who only played 29 games in this decade! And LeSean Mccoy is the only other RB with double digit 50+ yard plays from scrimmage during this span.
McCaffery is amazing, he combines the Wes Welker role with that of a classic stud RB and it's great to watch. Ezekiel Elliot is aguably the most complete back in football from a run/catch/block perspective. But neither of them are gamebreakers in the mold of Saquon.
Part of the reason RBs are less valued in today's game is because completion percentages are up, meaning you can still control TOP with short passes in order to maintain drives. So the RB who consistently gets you 3-4 yards isn't quite as valuable as he was in the 80s. But a RB like Saquon who is a true outlier when it comes to big play ability is an extremely rare commodity who causes defenses to adjust their gameplans in ways they aren't used to.
Also, what makes Saquon's big play ability even better is his ability to protect the football. Fumbles are the ultimate "Negative Big Play" that hurts your team if you're a RB. So we have a guy who is historically great at creating positive big plays at his position while also being excellent at preventing negative big plays.
He has his flaws, I wish he would resemble Elliot more often at times and just explode up the gut for a solid 6 yard gain. But I think a lot of that has to do with our pathetic OL. I think with an improved OL, the new coaching, an improved Daniel Jones, and returning to 100% health; Saquon could have a monster season. I really think he's a different caliber of talent at the RB position than anyone else in the league.
Outstanding Post Osi!
1. Barkley is the best big play back, and on track to be one of the better big play backs of all time - I completely agree.
2. You really think he's a different caliber of talent - that's tough to quantify so I don't know how to respond to that.
My point is Elliot and McCaffery are certainly in his class, and arguably more balanced running backs. Elliot is in a more talented offense, I'd argue McCaffery and Barkley are in equally bad circumstances.
All things considered, the superlatives and hyperbole to separate him from his peers and in turn argue he is so unique no other approach in the draft was valid, is totally nonsense.
Now if the argument is he's a fantastic player, and that offsets the cost and longevity associated with good running backs, that's arguable but fair.
But it's silly to argue he's in a class of his own when you consider durability and production -- there are two backs in the league just as good as him.
2018/2019 Overall Production:
Barkley: Gs 29 | TDs 23 | Yscm 3469 | Y/T 5.6 | 1Ds 139
Elliot: Gs 31 | TDs 23 | Yscm 3778 | Y/T 5.15 | 1Ds 207
McCaffrey: Gs 32 | TDs 32 | 4294 | Y/T 5.95 | 1Ds 209
If that isn’t unique than what is?
- Barkley is not an uncommonly good running back. McCaffery and Elliot are as good and arguably better overall.
- He’s not so beyond his contemporaries and therefore the value of a running back, that some of the cautions of drafting a running back so high don’t apply to him.
Being a tremendous big play back doesn’t tell the entire story.
You might consider that filler, but that’s the conversation he and I are having.
If Barkley is providing more big play ability in a big play ability league (more than anyone in the last half decade), and doing so despite the poor online play, you can honestly sit here and say that its not uncommon? I’d love to see Elliot on the Giants - something tells me those stats would be taking a 10% hit at a bare minimum, likely a lot more. He’s just doesn’t have that explosive ability despite all the other things he does well. He rarely gets hit behind the LOS, Barkley on the other hand...
Just wish you were more honest in these arguments. Your heavy bias against drafting a RB high (and for the record I agree I just think there’s a difference between drafting a Fournette or Barkley) clouds these conversations. I don’t see Barkley as RB like you do, he’s more than that and that’s what we drafted.
-Broke the Giants NFL Rookie TD Record that stood since 1946
-Broke the NFL all time rookie running back record in receptions
-Broke Eric Dickerson's record for most 100 yard games from scrimmage by a rookie
-Tied (with OBJ) the Giants rookie record for receptions among all players
-Barkley had the fastest TD run (78 yards) where he reached a top speed of 21.91 miles per hour, which was the fastest of ANY player during the 2018 season
-1st Giants rookie RB to rush for 1000 yards
-Joined Randy Moss as the only two rookies in NFL history to rack up 5 TD's of 50 yards or more (the Giants had just THREE rushing touchdowns of 50 yards or more during their past ten seasons (2008-2017) before Barkley arrived)
-Scored the most TD's by any rookie in Giants history
-His 170 rushing yard performance was a Giants single game rushing record by a rookie
-Most total yards by any Giants rookie in history
-1st 1000 yard rusher on the Giants since 2012.
And Lawrence Tynes with some historical perspective on Saquon's unreal rookie season:
@lt4kicks
Even more impressive: Saquon Barkley’s 2,000+ scrimmage yards in Rookie season come on a 5-11 team
•Eric Dickerson 9-7 in 1983
•Edgerrin James 13-3 in 1999
And finally:
@NextGenStats
Saquon Barkley rushed for 141 yards and 1 TD when facing 8+ defenders in the box (8 carries) in Week 14 against the Redskins.
This is the most rush yards when facing 8+ defenders since #NextGenStats began tracking defenders in the box in 2016.
More Detail here:
Every mind-blowing all-time record Saquon Barkley set in 2018 - ( New Window )
Hope he doesn’t get frustrated this year with it because I think the OL will need another year before it is more stable. Barkley showed some of that last season and I think it affected his overall game moreso (drops, losing focus on pass protection, etc).
That’s my only point.
I don’t believe Barkley is a generational back when there are arguably two better runnings back in the NFL right now. He’s a terrific back. He’s likely to prove to have been worth the pick, but that remains to be seen.
But I don’t believe it’s unequivocal. And I don’t believe he’s such an outlier that it invalidates any argument against drafting a running back no. 2.
I look at McCaffery — with a shit line, shit QB, and shit WRs — and what he did last year from a productivity perspective puts him squarely atop the best in my view.
Of course a running back can be taken at #2 but imv that should be a function of both that player and roster construction timing. Barkley clearly checks the former and arguably Giants didn’t check the latter.
I don’t believe the Panthers had a better offensive situation by any measure over the Giants last year. Equally bad line, worse quarterback, worse offensive weapons.
CBS Sports HQ
@CBSSportsHQ
Despite missing 3 games in 2019 Saquon Barkley is in ELITE company.
In their first 2 seasons, only 2 players in NFL history have accumulated at least 20 total TD, 3,400 scrimmage yds in under 625 touches.
SAQUON BARKLEY
Barry Sanders