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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It still depends on how you view and grade the talent
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.
RE: There is a good deal of merit of not wanting your Offense
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.
arniefez: 'Shows you how worthless RBs are in this era of 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
If it was easy to build a superior o-line everybody would have one.
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.
This engine thing is not really that much of an interesting theme.
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.
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.
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
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??
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I think the crappy OL contributed a bit here.
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.
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??