Saquon Barkley named the best RB in the NFL by NFL personnel

expect him to get much better.

would've guessed he would be graded 3rd. He's certainly the most talented and explosive, but after the year McCaffery had I'm really surprised he's not #1. I'd take CMC over Elliot, but Elliot is also a hell of a runner and has an argument as #1 as well.

I really hope Barkley stays healthy and reaches his ceiling.

What he can become if given a chance to take more than 3-5
steps before having to avoid the first defender

he will be hell to deal with.

:-)

Wasted pick, should have drafted QB or OL. RB don't win championships. -most of BBI

Get the OL fixed in front of him, and it should help slow the game down for him so he uses his vision, which was excellent at the college level, and develops patience to allow the blocks to set up in front of him.

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.

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.

He's a threat to take it to the house any time he touches the ball. Similar to what Odell brought to the table. He can also catch a bomb over his shoulder like a WR downfield. He's a great player, not just a great RB. He's a special talent.

Barkley has a few things to prove before he leap frogs CMC and Elliot.

The obvious one is his pass protection — if Jones is going meaningfully cut down on his turnovers he needs to trust his last line of defense. Barkley was a mess in pass pro last year.

The Giants need consistent production on the ground, game to game, and this goes to the running backs and blocking. I look forward to how he is used by Garrett, who has no problem wracking up the carries for a back.

you wouldn't NOT want either of these guys on your team as players.

Best RBs!

Football. Barkley & McCaffrey are 20-44 the past two years with all their big RB stat numbers.

This new recognition should help Barkley size up his second contract demands.

He is one of the top players. Pure running and receiving I think he is the best. He has a lot to prove as a blocker though. The debate on Barkley for me was that we didnt have the pieces in place to value a RB that high. If we were a few guys away from competing for the playoffs I think the pick would have been received better. Now 2 seasons in and Barkey has not elevated the team yet.

In comment 14930836 arniefez said:

Quote:

Football. Barkley & McCaffrey are 20-44 the past two years with all their big RB stat numbers.

That's not the definition of worthless, that's the definition of it being a team game. Why didn't you add Zeke to this? Hmmm, i wonder....

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.

In comment 14930836 arniefez said:

Quote:

Football. Barkley & McCaffrey are 20-44 the past two years with all their big RB stat numbers.

Cause running backs coach and play defense as well. I get the thought process

In comment 14930856 FatMan in Charlotte said:

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.

The Cowboys had the OL in place. A number of people did question whether they should have taken Jalen Ramsey instead. It wasn't like there was a QB or WR there that the Cowboys should have taken instead.

With Leonard Fournette there were many people who said this was the Jags being the Jags again and reaching. The Jags don't get a lot of coverage nationally so it mainly faded quickly. I would not say a draft strategy was good because the Jags did it.

With the selection of Barkley, you had a team that did not have the OL in place and lacked a QB. Would the Giants have been better off drafting Quentin Nelson at #2 and drafting Nick Chubb at #34 instead of Will Hernandez? Sam Bradford, by many, was the top QB in this draft. At that time he was my #2 guy (behind Baker Mayfield), but I did think he needed to be brought along like Manning or Mahomes where he was not looked at as the opening day starter.

said it then and still believe it now. Barkley isn't in that mold, completely different and more explosive player. And I wouldn't pay Fournette either, Barkley I would.

Thanks for making my point. Wasting top 10 picks on RBs gets coaches fired and takes away too much cap room from the positions that do matter to winning OTs, DEs, QBs etc. Next year the Maras are probably going to give Barkley the biggest contract in NFL history for a RB. Good for Barkley he seems like a good person. Bad for anyone who wants the Giants to win a lot of games.

In comment 14930890 arniefez said:

Quote:

Thanks for making my point. Wasting top 10 picks on RBs gets coaches fired and takes away too much cap room from the positions that do matter to winning OTs, DEs, QBs etc. Next year the Maras are probably going to give Barkley the biggest contract in NFL history for a RB. Good for Barkley he seems like a good person. Bad for anyone who wants the Giants to win a lot of games.

Snoooooooooooooozeeee.......

Saying the Cowboys built an OL and then plugged in the RB is a bit misleading. The guy they plugged in could well be in the HoF in ten years. Saying the Giants should've picked a QB or Nelson doesn't guarantee a better build either, just look at the progress of Darnold so far, for example. He's an average QB, and Rosen is a bust.

I get saying RB isn't a great use of the #2 pick. But, if he was the best player in that draft, they did just fine. They picked a HoF talent in Barkley. That's not good enough, in light of the other players they could've drafted?

DG is poised to make a bigger cap mistake in LW, if you want to be concerned about waste. Look at the contract he handed to Solder, the contract of Zeitler, picking Hernandez in the top 40, $15M per to a CB not considered elite. Overpaying is part of the game now, going to have to look past it. If you're doing a good job overall, your face of the franchise tailback can be afforded rather easily in the big financial picture.

If we can get a functional O-line built and DJ continues to develop the sky is the limit for him and us offensively.

but that's where positional value becomes very important.

RB is the position with the largest potential delta between "talent" and production because:

1) It is very reliant on the offensive line

2) Largest durability and career longevity concerns

3) Easier to game-plan around stopping the running game than the pass (without the presence of a top flight OL)

4) Threat of the running game or shorter passes is negated when your team is behind

5) Sometimes running game is non viable because of the clock

and I'm still ok with the selection of Barkley. He's going to be the engine of the offense. Cowboys offense lives and dies with the performance of Elliott, despite their talent on that side of the football. He's their engine. Barkley's going to figure it out soon and all bets will be off.

Patience.

Agree with all your points. He was the right pick. Why it is still being debated is another question.

The money he is spending on the FA market has not been a fruitful endeavor. I am am being nice with that. It's been an a disaster. The LW thing is just another in a pattern really dumb pickups.

My only issue about having your offense around a RB is that he is irreplaceable. One hammy or high ankle sprain and then what?. We know, injuries can happen to anyone, but with a guy with that skillset, you can't duplicate.

I’m in the minority, but I don’t think Barkley is in a tier of talent by himself. He’s in the top band with Elliot and CMC. All three have HOF type skill.

Barkley, like the other two is the type of player you can build an offense around, and that’s special.

The key as always is to get the stars to align on your roster. The numbers say a RB peaks early and depreciates more quickly. Doesn’t make Barkley a bad pick, just a variable to contend with — that shouldn’t hurt feelings in the discussion.

In comment 14930900 JonC said:

Quote:

DG is poised to make a bigger cap mistake in LW, if you want to be concerned about waste. Look at the contract he handed to Solder, the contract of Zeitler, picking Hernandez in the top 40, $15M per to a CB not considered elite. Overpaying is part of the game now, going to have to look past it. If you're doing a good job overall, your face of the franchise tailback can be afforded rather easily in the big financial picture.

This is a good post.

Don't agree teams still in need of restructuring should be overpaying at egregious levels (Solder) but understand general theme that it generally happens.

The NY Giant problem still comes back to the draft and what collateral was used on what positions when. Running backs at overall #2 are a stretch for a team in this bad a shape.

but it's going to happen. Merely pointing out we have numerous examples of bad contracts and players not living up to them that are really egregious. I expect this will not be the case with SB.

I haven't seen anyone lay out a better use of the #2 pick yet. It sounds good on paper speaking in general about positions like QB and Edge being more important, but I don't see any practical examples that were clearly better options in the 2018 draft. Trading down for one of the QBs and a lesser tailback prospect doesn't add up to more than the best player in the draft, imv. You don't draft the "best QB" simply because you need one. You have to believe in that player and his ability to win championships. Rosen wasn't that guy. It's not looking super for Darnold so far.

At some point you have to put your chips down on the actual talent. It's how the bet teams have used the draft and built teams for decades.

Joe Thomas won zero playoff games. Calvin Johnson, zero. Khalil Mack has won zero.

Besides true Franchise QBs, no one player can put a franchise on their backs in today's NFL. The best LT, WR, and Edge/OLB of the past 10 years and they have nothing to show for it on a team level.

And it's a very underrated point. This is one of the exercises that has been on BBI for years. We have the best (fill in blank) WR's, OL, Secondary, etc.

It takes more than one player to get you to the promise land. Just look at all the future HoF QB's still playing. Rodgers, Brees, Marino, Young, etc..1 SB..

I'm not, as a fan. satisfied because we have a possible HoF player. If it does not lead to WINS, what does it matter?

In comment 14930836 arniefez said:

Quote:

Football. Barkley & McCaffrey are 20-44 the past two years with all their big RB stat numbers.

JFC you’re the worst. We can play this stupid fucking game with any position and player. Ready? Try and keep up.... how many Super Bowls has aaron Donald won? How about JJ Watt? Or everyone’s worldly Qb Lamar jackson? He’s on a well oiled team and well coached, no titles yet. How many titles has kali Mack won? What about the all world guard in Indy? None. I guess those aren’t valuable positions either.

Whether you think they are better options is subjective and goes a lot to positional value, life cycles of RBs and a few other factors. But let's not downplay that there were other options with merit.

But with a team in need of deep restructuring all over the place, the debate that more longer term value could have been had from B. Chubb or Q. Nelson or trading out of that spot is warranted. This shouldn't at all be about forcing the QB in debating the options here.

Everybody likes to point to Barkley's stats in his rookie year but these Chubb and Nelson above also were clear cut standouts as well. And it wasn't very difficult to see that they were going to be either pre-draft (like Barkley).

We bet on the talent, I'm good with it. A trade down for a booty is a good option, but the booty has to be there. No indications it was despite how many like to bash the GM (and I'm not remotely his biggest fan). Nelson is special but still an OG, a position truly down the food chain. Chubb had questions about where he would play in the NFL.

I understand the macro argument about picking the RB #2 overall not being optimal positionally. But, if there's no franchise QB available to you at that slot then optimal tends to go out the window unless you can trade down. In that case, it's another wasted exercise unless we know what was on the table.

While i mostly agree with you, the sentiment that he is just a OG, even though for that positon, he would have been a worthy pick.

I only say that bcuz the ORG got bashed for not going up to get Brandon Scherff. Even though he was drafted as a LT and moved to guard, A damn good one at that.

I think, those who don't agree with the RB pick wanted a OL, regardless.

In comment 14930989 djm said:

Quote:

In comment 14930836 arniefez said: Quote: Football. Barkley & McCaffrey are 20-44 the past two years with all their big RB stat numbers. JFC you’re the worst. We can play this stupid fucking game with any position and player. Ready? Try and keep up.... how many Super Bowls has aaron Donald won? How about JJ Watt? Or everyone’s worldly Qb Lamar jackson? He’s on a well oiled team and well coached, no titles yet. How many titles has kali Mack won? What about the all world guard in Indy? None. I guess those aren’t valuable positions either.

Just maybe this has more to do with the teams they play on? Where did this falicy come from your top pick in any draft will magically make you a playoff team? There are 22 players out there. The Giants had the #2 pick for a reason, because their 22 players sucked. Having 1 stud and 21 left improves them, but its a process. You need to improve numerous positions, and Barkley/Jones/Peppers are a great start.

By the way, why not say the same thing about Jones and Engram. We didn't get magically better after their picks either?

Also not sure I agree with Henry being in the top 6. I think the other 5 guys, in some order, are clearly the top.

Only a few guys ever had more than 12 sacks in their rookie year and those names include guys like Reggie White, Dwight Freeney, etc. He is clearly special and I think that is downplayed because he got injured last season.

And Nelson being a Guard should not be downplayed at all. He is an elite offensive lineman, and has been since Day 1. And my guess is he will be blocking at this level well beyond Barkley running at his top level. Fans of the NY Giants should be very cognizant how bad the offense plays when anybody is poor on the OL...whether that is center, tackle or guard.

only saying you cannot downplay the other good options that existed, and which arguably may have been better choices for this team at that time.

in today's NFL. They are NOT the engine of the offense. The OL is. Barkley is a great talent that has has added no value to the Giants team. RB's are mainly needed now for short yardage situations that sustain drives when you are protecting the lead. Problem is Giants never have the lead and Barkley is the worst short yardage RB in NFL. He does not move the chains. He is perfectly wrong for Giants - a RB that mostly goes nowhere until he breaks a long run when Giants are down by 20 points. Get used to losing.

is the worst short yardage back in the NFL??

Where do some of you fucking morons come up with this shit?

Worst short yard RB?? Wow

In comment 14931223 averagejoe said:

Quote:

in today's NFL. They are NOT the engine of the offense. The OL is. Barkley is a great talent that has has added no value to the Giants team. RB's are mainly needed now for short yardage situations that sustain drives when you are protecting the lead. Problem is Giants never have the lead and Barkley is the worst short yardage RB in NFL. He does not move the chains. He is perfectly wrong for Giants - a RB that mostly goes nowhere until he breaks a long run when Giants are down by 20 points. Get used to losing.

You seem to be confusing average RB's with star RB's. The star RB's are absolutely positively focal points of the offense. Gurley (pre injury), Elliott, CMC, Barkley, etc are each team's best offensive player and when they aren't on the field the backups generally don't replicate production/impact, and the team suffers. They are absolutely their offenses "engines".

And if your grand thought on all this is Barkley hasn't added value then its a conversations you should bow out of.

In comment 14931223 averagejoe said:

Quote:

in today's NFL. They are NOT the engine of the offense. The OL is. Barkley is a great talent that has has added no value to the Giants team. RB's are mainly needed now for short yardage situations that sustain drives when you are protecting the lead. Problem is Giants never have the lead and Barkley is the worst short yardage RB in NFL. He does not move the chains. He is perfectly wrong for Giants - a RB that mostly goes nowhere until he breaks a long run when Giants are down by 20 points. Get used to losing.

This sentence is the only part of your post that has merit..."They are NOT the engine of the offense."

But the "RB's are mainly only used now for short yardage situations" is a real doozy." Really wish the Giants would have drafted a guy who can catch the ball and make things happen in the passing game.

subjective as said to which might have been better. I don't hand the same value to an OG as a LT, it's non-logical positionally imv. I think those against SB are going to be pleasantly surprised when his game matures in the NFL. The macro-financial argument is more of an optimizer thing which I totally understand, but it doesn't eat at me. Solder's contract? Absolutely. Bradberry? Not thrilled with it. Case by case basis.

Ezekiel Elliott IS the engine that makes the Cowboys offense go, despite all its overall talent on offense. I don't recall many here bashing the huge extension he signed. Give SB the same opportunity to grow.

totally different impact without Gurley.

is different without the impact version of Gurley, it's plain to see.

in that spot.

go thru one profiled running back as its engine. In fact, the reasons are numerous and fairly obvious.

For an OG yes I'd agree. Positionally at #2 overall in the draft, or even after a trade down to say #5? Not so much, imv.

saying no RB is currently an engine in the NFL is erroneous.

I can see other options provided you got the trade booty you wanted. And, I can see why some wouldn't want to invest in the RB that high, given the health risk factor. But, given the other players available I don't think waging war against SB at #2 is a slam dunk case. More than one way to build a football roster.

In comment 14931281 JonC said:

Quote:

For an OG yes I'd agree. Positionally at #2 overall in the draft, or even after a trade down to say #5? Not so much, imv.

i didn't label him elite, the NFL did when they named in first team All-Pro for his first two years in the league.

Not suggesting Guard is at the top of my value chain list, but its above running back for certain. So is Edge Rusher.

but it may just be the nomenclature.

The engine to me is the QB or the OL as they are inserted to make the Offense work properly on every down, no matter the circumstance. They also don't come off the field at all, sans injury.

In comment 14931286 JonC said:

Quote:

I can see other options provided you got the trade booty you wanted. And, I can see why some wouldn't want to invest in the RB that high, given the health risk factor. But, given the other players available I don't think waging war against SB at #2 is a slam dunk case. More than one way to build a football roster.

Very much aligned with above. My points are to only to suggest SB at #2 also should not be seen as slam dunk.

Average of the top 10 Guard Salaries: $12.7M

Average of the top 10 RB Salaries: $10.5M

Barkley is the 8th highest paid RB in the league getting paid 74.5% of the league average

Nelson is the 25th highest paid G in the league getting paid 47% of the league average

The suggestion that you can work around and win with the salary of any player completely tosses aside the idea of efficient asset management. You don't win by working around contracts in a hard capped league, especially when you used the #2 pick for that privilege. Any discussion of Gurley and the Rams success must include the fact that their roster was loaded with talent and the most expensive position in the league had a high performing player on a rookie deal.

The crazy thing is this insistence on the pick being a good decision when we've seen how deficient we've been at other positions. The asset allocation part doesn't even get into the fact that we had an immobile QB increasingly allergic to hits in the twilight of his career. Nelson v Barkley not only frees up relative cash but fits to cover weaknesses of your team. That is team building and asset allocation 101.

In comment 14931262 JonC said:

Quote:

is different without the impact version of Gurley, it's plain to see.

Agreed.
I don't like the idea of having a team built around any one superstar; however, if its a RB it has the biggest room for collapse as they tend to get hurt a lot and have shorter careers.
You have a top OL you can do anything with an "average" RB, IMHO.
I firmly believe had Barkley not been hurt last year we'd have been picking lower, at least maybe 2 more wins, cause the man can run & catch like no one else in the NFL despite our horrid (very bad..) OL and lack of TE blocking last year.

The thing about asset management that gets tossed aside by most who opposed SB as the #2 pick is the actual football talent available, relative to your needs and roster design. I think too many are getting hung up on allocation and forgetting the actual talent. The positional argument in this instance feels more like hair splitting.

I don't view Nelson as a superior pick to Barkley. If Nelson were a left tackle, there would be more of a debate in my view. The QBs were non-starters, imv. Chubb while a very talented prospect was not a franchise pick, imv. What do the trade down options look like? I don't recall any reaching the public.

In comment 14931275 LBH15 said:

Quote:

go thru one profiled running back as its engine. In fact, the reasons are numerous and fairly obvious.

Well the Cowboys have been trying. They have a QB that wants to be among the top paid and just threw a truckload at Cooper. What will this next them in 2020 or 2021? We will see but to date they go as Elliott goes and that isn't for a lack of trying other things.

The Rams brought in 3 above average WR's (through the draft/FA/Trade) to compliment Gurley but their sub-par and overpaid QB just isn't good enough without him. They need Akers to replace him quickly.

Any Vikings fans excited to see how they play without Cook? I'm guessing no.

You never want 1 strategy or focal point on offense but that's largely what it is unless you have a top tier QB who can make things happen regardless of personnel. When you have a Goff, Cousins, etc - average at best guys they need to lean on the run game. And that's the majority of the NFL.

...football. Barkley & McCaffrey are 20-44 the past two years with all their big RB stat numbers.'

Congrats you are the early front runner for worst post of the summer about actual football.

Bad teams draft in the Top 5 for a reason. They're bad. Usually really bad. Bad enough that it predictably takes a few years to get them on a winning track.

Thanks for the long term insightful analysis. /sarcasm off

So just making the o-line the "engine" of your team as a choice is easier said than done, not to mention it's a unit, not a single player.

was arguably the best offensive line I've ever seen in the modern era, and that was made up of a bunch of late round picks, trades, and free agents. The stars aligned with that mix, and that's what it takes to get a line like that.

Let's face it we aren't going to turn this O-line into a dominant force overnight. I'm still hopeful adding Hernandez and Zeitler were good first steps. Now we have the #1 drafted OT in the fold and a developmental 3rd rounder as well. OC is still a black hole of undetermined status.

That said we don't need it to be dominant right now. We need it to be functional. That's something it hasn't been in many moons. That alone should allow superior offensive talent like Saquon to flourish imo.

Not sure why it was introduced here but nevertheless.

I do however subscribe to the concept that a good solid OL as a base allows Offenses to be much more relevant over a longer period of time, while making the RB, WR and TE guys a bit more interchangeable/transitional vs. focal points.

In comment 14931332 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

was arguably the best offensive line I've ever seen in the modern era, and that was made up of a bunch of late round picks, trades, and free agents. The stars aligned with that mix, and that's what it takes to get a line like that.

And interestingly enough it allowed for a 3-headed running back tandem of Jacobs, Bradshaw and Ward to run like superstars.

Oh yeah, and they were drafted in the 4th, 7th and 7th rounds.

Hmmm.

we tried it for a decade after and it didn’t.

In comment 14931353 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

we tried it for a decade after and it didn’t.

I think the crappy OL contributed a bit here.

relative to the talent of our team and the value of the position we had a much bigger hole on the OL with respect to impact on overall team performance

In comment 14931354 LBH15 said:

Quote:

In comment 14931353 UConn4523 said: Quote: we tried it for a decade after and it didn’t. I think the crappy OL contributed a bit here.

Of course and it still does. It’s not one or the other but many people seem to think it is.

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.

Agreed.

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.

In comment 14931379 LBH15 said:

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).

which blame certain people more than others.

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.

Great post

He's not valuable to anyone if he misses 4 or 5 weeks and then comes back and is not productive in his first 4 games back like last season.

In comment 14931380 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

In comment 14931379 LBH15 said: 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.

In comment 14931390 NoGainDayne said:

Quote:

which blame certain people more than others. 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

In comment 14931390 NoGainDayne said:

Quote:

which blame certain people more than others. 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.

In comment 14931400 LBH15 said:

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.

find it funny when certain "narratives" are dismissed by the creation of other "narratives", that are no more valid, yet presented as such

In comment 14931407 Osi Osi Osi OyOyOy said:

Quote:

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.

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?

In comment 14931409 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

find it funny when certain "narratives" are dismissed by the creation of other "narratives", that are no more valid, yet presented as such

Its unreal. Because I didn't address it means I "forget it". Must be nice being so humble...

In comment 14931408 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

In comment 14931400 LBH15 said: 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.

In comment 14931412 GManinDC said:

Quote:

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)."

My post wasn't directed at you. I was asking a general question to anyone. I've been reading about this "better coaching" for about 2 weeks now.

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.

with a general air of optimism.

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.

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..

Not sure anybody thought Shurmur and his staff were the sole problem but they showed enough to display they weren't going to part of the solution.

In comment 14930856 FatMan in Charlotte said:

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.

...that Barkley is a Giant!


Definately a +1 for Gettleman.

...definitely~

In comment 14931441 Darth Paul said:

Quote:

In comment 14930856 FatMan in Charlotte said: 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 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.

So will Barkley, imo

RB blocking is about desire. You have to want to do it. He said it was that simple.

As long as you know what player to block!

In comment 14931418 JonC said:

Quote:

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.

In comment 14931662 christian said:

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.

In comment 14931983 Osi Osi Osi OyOyOy said:

Quote:

In comment 14931662 christian said: 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.

yeah it sure is nonsense...

In comment 14931983 Osi Osi Osi OyOyOy said:

Quote:

In comment 14931662 christian said: 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.

In comment 14931983 Osi Osi Osi OyOyOy said:

Quote:

In comment 14931662 christian said: 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!

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.

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

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?

Thanks.

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.

More Detail here:

Every mind-blowing all-time record Saquon Barkley set in 2018 - ( New Window )

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).

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.

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.

In comment 14932139 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

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.

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.

In comment 14932145 PatersonPlank said:

Quote:

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.