took a lot of heat for some of his trades or allowing a player to leave. Now as time has passed it looks like DG made the right call. Collins got paid but has not produced. OBJ got his money then got traded away. Has not produced close to his pay. Plus had another injury and missed games. Now he doesn't look like the same player he once was.
Things we’ve learned since:
- The Jets actually will trade with the Giants
- The Giants arguably have the best RB in the league
- In that time they’ve been no better than 19th in the league in rushing
- In their opening salvo against the Steelers (who we were reminded quite directly are no 85 Bears), the center over to the right tackle struggled mightily and Barkley rushed for 7 yards on 15 carries
I think we've learned much more important things than those:
- As bad as the team was in 2017, 2018 was more of the same and really a waste of time except for adding a top shelf running back. Although his additional presence on the roster hasn't resulted in any incremental wins.
- Unless Blake Martinez and James Bradberry shine, Free Agency under Gettleman for 3 consecutive years has been a disaster.
- Gettleman may very well have found a franchise QB where many others didn't see it.
- The continued inability of this franchise to stabilize the Offensive Line is a coach and GM killer.
Quote:
has said many times that the choice would've been Darnold or Chubb most likely if it weren't Saquon but the grade of Barkley was too hard to pass on.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. Barkley had such a rare grade, there was effectively no choice.
But if it’s true, and Barkley was the best player not just in that, but decades worth of drafts, I’d expect high demand for a trade.
Point being 1) the option just wasn’t quarterback or Barkley 2) there’s some nuance to the claim picking Barkley was unequivocally the right choice.
Things we’ve learned since:
- The Jets actually will trade with the Giants
- The Giants arguably have the best RB in the league
- In that time they’ve been no better than 19th in the league in rushing
- In their opening salvo against the Steelers (who we were reminded quite directly are no 85 Bears), the center over to the right tackle struggled mightily and Barkley rushed for 7 yards on 15 carries
Wishcasting for a trade offer that there's no evidence existed isn't exactly credible. Per Albert Breer:
I am 100% in agreement with anyone who would have preferred getting the exact offer the Colts received for our higher pick (or similar from another team) and doing that. But just like they were openly trying to get someone to trade with them this year, wanting something and getting another team to want something are 2 different things. There hasn't been another Ricky Williams trade for a reason.
However in absence of that trade even today knowing all we know I take Barkley over Nelson and Chubb (and of course Darnold given how things turned out).
Nelson is the only temptation since he has similarly been an all pro contender from day 1 and the longevity of a guard is typically better than a RB. But using the game this weekend as an example, if I had to choose which player to bring to Chicago to win the game, I'm probably choosing Saquon.
Here's the Jets surprisingly logical reason for not calling Giants about No. 2 draft pick - ( New Window )
You can't just discard every player due to contracts. You can't just walk away from Eli without having a backup. As it is, we were left with a lot of dead money, but that was going to be dead money if he turned over the roster immediately too.
Plus, what if he replaced Eli with Darnold or Rosen?
The idea that he set the team back significantly because of his first year is a myth. He still got his franchise RB and what looks like a great choice at QB.
It's not that he hasn't tried or that he doesn't make moves; they just are not working out.
And I will say it because what the hell; it is looking like the opinions of some commentators that Jones was Tannehill v.2 may be correct. Looks great against stiff teams, looks mediocre at best against good teams. We may be seeing what he is at this point. Obviously, Pittsburgh wasn't worried as by their own admission, they went all out to stop Barkley. It's early yet, I suppose but this "stud" talk is BS at this point.
1) if the league regarded Barkley in the same light, I’m surprised there wasn’t more of a trade market (or maybe there was).
2) the Jets and Giants were able to conduct business in good faith the next year, so that part feels a little silly in retrospect.
All we really do know is 2/5 into his rookie deal, the Giants have had neither a good running game or offense. And one game into the season, the Giants got taken behind the shed in the run game.
1) if the league regarded Barkley in the same light, I’m surprised there wasn’t more of a trade market (or maybe there was).
2) the Jets and Giants were able to conduct business in good faith the next year, so that part feels a little silly in retrospect.
All we really do know is 2/5 into his rookie deal, the Giants have had neither a good running game or offense. And one game into the season, the Giants got taken behind the shed in the run game.
In regards to the jets, there is a difference between making a franchise 1st round quarterback trade (that they wanted) and trading a player that they didn't want.
Gettleman had close ties to Brandon Beane (buffalo bills GM) who also coveted a quarterback. The jets were not going to tip their hand to the giants and risk word getting out.
Or there has been a shift in the way that many football teams (and fans) view roster construction efficiency?
Nah, couldn't possibly be the evolution of discourse.
Dave Gettleman: Giants had one “very reasonable offer” for No. 2 pick - ( New Window )
That's completely fair - without knowing what the offer was I don't know how to say it was or wasn't a mistake to pass though. Let's say it was the Bills who were clearly in the QB market, had a ton 10 pick, and had a good relationship with DG. Sliding down to #7 likely means they are picking from Roquan Smith or McGlinchey. Or Vea/Payne. All solid players I'd be happy with in addition to extra picks but none are Barkley/Nelson.
Quote:
And perpetuate narratives that fit their personal biases?
Or there has been a shift in the way that many football teams (and fans) view roster construction efficiency?
Nah, couldn't possibly be the evolution of discourse.
Well we're talking about Running backs and positional value, correct? Considering there have been 3 RB's taken in the Top 5 in the past 5 years, I would say there isn't any evidence of teams shifting the way they view roster construction.
Fans, on the other hand, as I said....
Mentioned number of running backs taken in first round have seen a precipitous decline over the past years. In fact, this attached article from 2019 goes thru that concept very clearly, and even mentions it has dropped moreso than any other position.
https://qz.com/1602987/nfl-draft-order-2019-first-round-running-backs-are-rare/
Further, from a compensation perspective PFF also listed the average per year salary of the 10 highest-paid players at each position in the NFL. Running back at the bottom of the list only ahead of Tight End.
Position Top-10 Salary APY
QB $31,988,400
ED $18,867,133
WR $18,052,100
DI $17,401,867
OT $16,250,000
CB $14,524,333
LB $13,254,000
IOL $12,827,350
S $12,633,200
RB $10,461,244
TE $8,720,040
Quote:
In comment 14976056 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
And perpetuate narratives that fit their personal biases?
Or there has been a shift in the way that many football teams (and fans) view roster construction efficiency?
Nah, couldn't possibly be the evolution of discourse.
Well we're talking about Running backs and positional value, correct? Considering there have been 3 RB's taken in the Top 5 in the past 5 years, I would say there isn't any evidence of teams shifting the way they view roster construction.
Fans, on the other hand, as I said....
You don't need new events to happen to evolve the discussion about past events, do you? Aren't you a teacher?
Quote:
In comment 14976649 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14976056 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
And perpetuate narratives that fit their personal biases?
Or there has been a shift in the way that many football teams (and fans) view roster construction efficiency?
Nah, couldn't possibly be the evolution of discourse.
Well we're talking about Running backs and positional value, correct? Considering there have been 3 RB's taken in the Top 5 in the past 5 years, I would say there isn't any evidence of teams shifting the way they view roster construction.
Fans, on the other hand, as I said....
You don't need new events to happen to evolve the discussion about past events, do you? Aren't you a teacher?
And wouldn't the LACK OF data points serve to reinforce my point anyway?
Don't worry about responding, we both know the answer.
Nothing for certain, but there were reports back then that the team’s interested in Giants #2 pick could have been Cleveland, Buffalo and/or Denver. Cleveland had plenty of draft collateral to make a deal with the #4 pick and two early second round picks. Not sure what the other two teams had to make it worth DG’s while.
It can’t be said enough a trade down and Barkley would have been a no arguments great move. I think that’s the problem with DG that a lot of people just don’t seem to grasp. How the moves add up is important, it’s everything. Being able to rationalize a thought process that a smart person like DG went through is an easy activity (alarmingly not all the time see LW, Solder, etc) but it’s very different than collecting surplus value relative to your competitors on the aggregation of your moves.
Mentioned number of running backs taken in first round have seen a precipitous decline over the past years. In fact, this attached article from 2019 goes thru that concept very clearly, and even mentions it has dropped moreso than any other position.
https://qz.com/1602987/nfl-draft-order-2019-first-round-running-backs-are-rare/
Further, from a compensation perspective PFF also listed the average per year salary of the 10 highest-paid players at each position in the NFL. Running back at the bottom of the list only ahead of Tight End.
Position Top-10 Salary APY
QB $31,988,400
ED $18,867,133
WR $18,052,100
DI $17,401,867
OT $16,250,000
CB $14,524,333
LB $13,254,000
IOL $12,827,350
S $12,633,200
RB $10,461,244
TE $8,720,040
Add in the recent extensions to CMC, Kamara, Henry, Cook, and Drake and the RB top 10 number is closer to $13m now.
Quote:
In comment 14976659 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
In comment 14976649 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14976056 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
And perpetuate narratives that fit their personal biases?
Or there has been a shift in the way that many football teams (and fans) view roster construction efficiency?
Nah, couldn't possibly be the evolution of discourse.
Well we're talking about Running backs and positional value, correct? Considering there have been 3 RB's taken in the Top 5 in the past 5 years, I would say there isn't any evidence of teams shifting the way they view roster construction.
Fans, on the other hand, as I said....
You don't need new events to happen to evolve the discussion about past events, do you? Aren't you a teacher?
And wouldn't the LACK OF data points serve to reinforce my point anyway?
Don't worry about responding, we both know the answer.
The only data point you need to know is that between 2010 and 2018, there were a total of 8 threads that mentioned the term "positional value". Between the beginning of 2018 and June of this year, there are 32. So 32 in less than three years.
What a coincidence that this "evolution" of discussion occurred around the 2018 draft.
Quote:
same as a RB in that neither is considered a premium position.
the concept is slightly more complicated than that....
Not really - it's pretty easy to look up how each position is valued, quite literally. As it happens, the average salaries of the top 10 players at each position are almost identical:
Top 10 G AAV = 12.6m
Top 10 RB AAV = 12.6m
Both are behind the AAV of QB (#1), DE (#2), WR (#3), CB (#4), OT (#5), DT (#6), and LB (#7).
The positions of less value include just TE & S.
What are their respective franchise tag values? You were a big proponent of using the tag on LW, so I know you know it. Go ahead and let us know the respective franchise tag values for OG and RB.
Quote:
In comment 14976685 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14976659 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
In comment 14976649 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14976056 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
And perpetuate narratives that fit their personal biases?
Or there has been a shift in the way that many football teams (and fans) view roster construction efficiency?
Nah, couldn't possibly be the evolution of discourse.
Well we're talking about Running backs and positional value, correct? Considering there have been 3 RB's taken in the Top 5 in the past 5 years, I would say there isn't any evidence of teams shifting the way they view roster construction.
Fans, on the other hand, as I said....
You don't need new events to happen to evolve the discussion about past events, do you? Aren't you a teacher?
And wouldn't the LACK OF data points serve to reinforce my point anyway?
Don't worry about responding, we both know the answer.
The only data point you need to know is that between 2010 and 2018, there were a total of 8 threads that mentioned the term "positional value". Between the beginning of 2018 and June of this year, there are 32. So 32 in less than three years.
What a coincidence that this "evolution" of discussion occurred around the 2018 draft.
Go check the Google search history for "covid" before 2020.
That doesn't mean it's been a figment of anyone's argument since then. It means that the discussion evolved.
I'll ask again, aren't you a teacher?
Are we sharing resumes? What’s yours?
Or is the part well you tell me you feel sorry for my students because I haven’t elevated myself to your higher level thinking on a football message board?
Are we sharing resumes? What’s yours?
Or is the part well you tell me you feel sorry for my students because I haven’t elevated myself to your higher level thinking on a football message board?
No, it's not about trading resumes, although I'd be perfectly fine with sharing mine with you so you don't think I'm just being a dick for the sake of it.
The point of me asking twice now whether you're a teacher is because I would think that any teacher who embraces the educational process would also recognize that the information which is being taught is constantly evolving, sometimes slowly and other times rapidly, but always evolving. Certainly nothing you've ever taught is completely static, right?
Anyway, let me know where I can send my resume so you can vet my bona fides.
It’s just us.
All of my buddies, fans of multiple teams (none Giants fans), think Saquon is an awesome player they would never trade or let walk.
But you actually don’t need to get that far. Why don’t you draft a center or a guard in the top 5? Why don’t you pay a safety as much as a corner? Why are left tackles paid more than right tackles? Why would you never draft a fullback in the first round? Why are outside linebackers paid more than middle linebackers?
Positional value, even if that’s not what it was called, has guided roster decisions for decades.
But you actually don’t need to get that far. Why don’t you draft a center or a guard in the top 5? Why don’t you pay a safety as much as a corner? Why are left tackles paid more than right tackles? Why would you never draft a fullback in the first round? Why are outside linebackers paid more than middle linebackers?
Positional value, even if that’s not what it was called, has guided roster decisions for decades.
That's all true, but let's be real here. The laser like focus HERE, on this site, on that term, is because a bunch (not all, but the majority) of people going on and on about it going on three years now, even with hindsight showing it as not an over the top egregious move, is simply because they want to bash the GM over it.
The league wide consensus is that Saquon is a very good player and I doubt there are many who think the Giants made a mistake in taking him, outside of a handful of Giants fans (who just happen to be very vocal on this site).
You want to bash DG over Solder? Fine. Williams, okay fine (even though that book hasn't been written).
But the fact that so much time is spent arguing whether he got the Barkley pick wrong is getting old. Jones and Barkley are home runs.
Really?
It's often discussed in the media when analyzing the NFL draft - both before and after the draft takes place. I don't think the term itself was used often until the last few years but the concept has always been discussed.
Quote:
discuss positional value? I’ve never heard that term uttered by another human being outside the confines of this board, or the internet.
Really?
It's often discussed in the media when analyzing the NFL draft - both before and after the draft takes place. I don't think the term itself was used often until the last few years but the concept has always been discussed.
Yes, I acknowledged to christian that it is a real concept, I think we all know that.
But here, for all intents and purposes, that concept has been overblown to an exponential degree.
My point about discussing it with my friends, who have all been die hard fans that watch every draft, and follow all of their teams' moves with the same rigor that we do here, don't speak of that term ad nauseum, or ever really.
That term has been WAY overdone on this site, for specific purpose. That's all I'm saying. It's a real concept, but not to the degree it's beaten over our heads, here.
2) Or does it really mean how hard it is to select and develop an average ( much less a better than average) NFL player at the position who lasts past first contract?
I think its a mix of both but I think its largely number 2 ( witness the flush rate of 1st round QB's versus RB or the number of 1st round OT's who cant get to average at NFL tackle.
To a team, an average QB or better on a rookie contract is a godsend. Ditto LT or RT. IS that about the position or the smaller/rarer talent pool?
Call what like it is? The only agenda someone seems to be pushing here is you.
The thread is about whether DG has made the right calls. The early first rounds picks this team has had over the past 3 years and how they used them are one of, if not the most important thing that occurred with this franchise since hitting rock bottom in 2017.
Posters are discussing if he made the right calls with them. And until the team starts winning, the question is pretty damn valid.
The RB franchise tag was $10.2 but 2 of the 3 highest paid RB's in the NFL signed their deals this offseason, after this year's franchise tags were calculated.
The average of the top 5 for each position right now is:
Top 5 G AAV = $14.216m
Top 5 RB AAV = $14.425m
2) Or does it really mean how hard it is to select and develop an average ( much less a better than average) NFL player at the position who lasts past first contract?
I think its a mix of both but I think its largely number 2 ( witness the flush rate of 1st round QB's versus RB or the number of 1st round OT's who cant get to average at NFL tackle.
To a team, an average QB or better on a rookie contract is a godsend. Ditto LT or RT. IS that about the position or the smaller/rarer talent pool?
I think you're right about the combination of 1 vs. 2, with a greater weight to factor 2.
That said, the Barkley discussion, I think, does include elements of both. For factor 1, even leaving aside valuation of the RB position in and of itself, there is a very obvious observation that a RB cannot be especially productive on his own; he needs at least a competent OL in order to add value to his team. To use a more extreme example, it would be like investing a very high pick in a WR while you have a QB who is physically incapable of throwing the football. There is no way to get your money's worth (or draft pick's worth) from that WR without a QB to throw him the football, just as there is a wastefulness in putting Barkley behind this OL.
To the second element of positional value, it becomes an extension of the first. If you cannot get value from a particular position (in this case, RB) without first establishing a level of competency from another (in this case, OL), and there is historically a generally easier path to finding at least an average player at the dependent position (RB) without expending significant resources to do so, then the use of those resources on even the most talented player of all time at the dependent position (RB) before establishing the independent position (OL) can be viewed as inefficient if not downright frivolous.
Unfortunately, these debates invariably devolve into an argument about whether or not Barkley is a great player (he is) or whether he was worth the #2 pick in the draft (objectively, I would argue that he was worthy of that selection on talent alone). IMO, it's not about whether Barkley is great or if he was worthy of being picked #2. It is about his talent going to waste because he was picked by the team that is probably least able to take advantage of his skills in all of the NFL.
We wasted the first half of his rookie contract and probably at least 20-25% of his prime with the worst OL coach in the NFL, and a collection of mediocrity within the OL group. It's not that Barkley is a bad player, and it's not that he was a bad pick at #2. It's that he has gone to waste on this team because of DG's failure to build the OL into just even being not a massive weakness of the roster.
The RB franchise tag was $10.2 but 2 of the 3 highest paid RB's in the NFL signed their deals this offseason, after this year's franchise tags were calculated.
The average of the top 5 for each position right now is:
Top 5 G AAV = $14.216m
Top 5 RB AAV = $14.425m
I know the tag rules, which is why I asked you for their respective tag numbers.
All good you feel that way. Others don’t, and this seems like yet again a topic you don’t like engaging in, then do, then get upset.
- Barkley is statistically 1/3 of the way through his highly productive years
-Take a look at how many RBs have been top 10 in rushing and scrimmage yards after 1800 career carries this century
- Take a look at the contracts of all the recent running back extensions and see where after year 6, virtually all are designed to cut the RB loose
- The Giants have been 19 and 24th respectively in rushing with Barkley
- Over half his career carries have been 1 or less yards
- 37% of his production has come on 22 carries
Now I want Barkley and the Giants to succeed. I hope he puts up 200 today. He can. I want the next 4 years to be a championship window, where Barkley’s prime and Jones’s emergence intersect. It can. But the Giants need to hurry the other the fuck up.
2) Or does it really mean how hard it is to select and develop an average ( much less a better than average) NFL player at the position who lasts past first contract?
I think its a mix of both but I think its largely number 2 ( witness the flush rate of 1st round QB's versus RB or the number of 1st round OT's who cant get to average at NFL tackle.
To a team, an average QB or better on a rookie contract is a godsend. Ditto LT or RT. IS that about the position or the smaller/rarer talent pool?
jmo but it's both because 1 impacts the other (S&D). It being easier to find and develop players at given position puts more of those players in the talent pool and brings the costs down to acquire those players because there are simply more alternatives available. Both guard and running back fit that category. So as it turns out the higher positional value spots are both harder positions to play due to the necessity of rarer talents are the harder positions to find.
So on the flip side with there being fewer human beings with the raw size and athleticism generally necessary to play LT, CB, DE, and of course all the intangibles required for QB's, there is significantly more demand for those that pass the quality threshold and the elites are only ever available at an extreme premium.
Separately when discussing positional value as it relates to the draft, bust rate is involved, but that's case by case and not entirely positional in nature bc it's also impacted by other factors (large school vs. small school competition level, age, track record, injury history, etc). At least for all the non-QB positions. QB bust rates are so high and the demand on the position is so high it really needs to be a prospect the org is all in on (imo). In the case of Barkley and Nelson, bust rate worked in both prospect's favor relative to every other player in that draft in that those positions are usually a pretty safe projection to be quality players and they were both exceptionally clean prospects. I'd probably put a small edge towards Nelson because of the average career length of a G vs. RB, but a slightly larger edge towards Barkley in that a gamechanging weapon generally holds more value than an interior G. Barkley will get 20+ chances to make a play to win the game for us today and it could happen from anywhere on the field. No offensive G can do the same.
Another example of bust rate not necessarily being positional is Andrew Thomas vs. Wirfs vs. Becton vs. Wills. All 4 were in consideration to be the NYG LT of the future but despite playing the same position the bust rate calculation was very dynamic since they had different attributes and track records, some never or only rarely having even played LT.
2) Or does it really mean how hard it is to select and develop an average ( much less a better than average) NFL player at the position who lasts past first contract?
I think its a mix of both but I think its largely number 2 ( witness the flush rate of 1st round QB's versus RB or the number of 1st round OT's who cant get to average at NFL tackle.
To a team, an average QB or better on a rookie contract is a godsend. Ditto LT or RT. IS that about the position or the smaller/rarer talent pool?
QB is strictly for the money, but I'd imagine having dogshit on the outside lining up for the NYG has skewed your opinion on comparing T to QB. From a money standpoint Edge would be next in value, but there is something to be said about position scarcity. And I was one of those people that thought a lot of these tackles were going too high starting 5+ years ago. But teams need to overdraft from a pure talent standpoint because you can't have your QB vulnerable on his blind side if you want to accomplish anything as a football team.
But the point is to win football games, right? Or is it just to compile gaudy stats?
Even in 2018, a season in which Barkley's aggregate stats suggest that he was highly productive, he still had less than 70 yards rushing in half of his games, totaling 342 yards on 118 carries (2.9 YPC) in those games. Now, we all know that only tells half the story, because SB is such a dynamic receiver as well. But he wasn't drafted to become the next Larry Centers or Darren Sproles; he's a special talent because he is supposed to be a great receiver on top of also being a great runner. And the OL's mediocrity led to SB being fairly inconsistent even in a season that was very productive overall.
Consider this - despite his amazing physical talent, 70% of his carries in 2018 were for two yards or less (TDs removed from the calculation). 39% of his carries were for one yard or less (TDs removed). 23% were for zero or negative yards.
And the most important metric of all: we won five games. Part of that is a result of the game flow being unfavorable for a RB when their team is losing - obviously teams will throw downfield more often when they're behind - but that also contributes to a RB being less valuable on a bad team than he is on a good team, just like a RB is less valuable behind a crappy OL than he is behind even an average OL.
So to answer that question, if Barkley's 2018 season is an example of a productive season in spite of the OL, how many wins is that worth?
So to answer that question, if Barkley's 2018 season is an example of a productive season in spite of the OL, how many wins is that worth?
or Joey Bosa last year because the Chargers stunk?
Barkley was one of the best offensive players in football in 2018 as a rookie, and the Giants offense as a result was actually half way decent (14th in yards per play, 16th in points scored, 10th in y/a rushing).
Pat Shurmur being a terrible as a head coach and the defense being god awful doesn't mean Saquon wasn't valuable.
The Giants started Solder/Hernandez/Pulley/Brown/Wheeler for the last 8 games of 2018 and Barkley had his best stretch on the ground. That was a functional offensive line by all measures.
During that stretch he averaged 98.5 YPG and scored 5 TDs. That not surprisingly corresponded with Manning’s best stretch and a few wins.
The Giants haven’t had an offensive line that functioned that well since. When they do, Barkley will return to form.
or Joey Bosa last year because the Chargers stunk?
Barkley was one of the best offensive players in football in 2018 as a rookie, and the Giants offense as a result was actually half way decent (14th in yards per play, 16th in points scored, 10th in y/a rushing).
Pat Shurmur being a terrible as a head coach and the defense being god awful doesn't mean Saquon wasn't valuable.
It actually does mean exactly that. When your offensive line can't open holes for your RB to sustain drives and keep your own D off the field, and your defense can't get themselves off the field, you have effectively wasted the talent of your RB as a function of the way the rest of the roster is built.
17-0 Bears. Trubisky throwing ducks yet still get completed for first downs all over the field. No offense. Daniel Jones still turning the ball over. And now injuries to best players.
All 6 times Barkley actually had space to run in, he looked like an uncaged animal.
It really is criminal/tragic what is happening to him.
Quote:
1) Does "positional value" mean the position is more valuable?
2) Or does it really mean how hard it is to select and develop an average ( much less a better than average) NFL player at the position who lasts past first contract?
I think its a mix of both but I think its largely number 2 ( witness the flush rate of 1st round QB's versus RB or the number of 1st round OT's who cant get to average at NFL tackle.
To a team, an average QB or better on a rookie contract is a godsend. Ditto LT or RT. IS that about the position or the smaller/rarer talent pool?
I think you're right about the combination of 1 vs. 2, with a greater weight to factor 2.
That said, the Barkley discussion, I think, does include elements of both. For factor 1, even leaving aside valuation of the RB position in and of itself, there is a very obvious observation that a RB cannot be especially productive on his own; he needs at least a competent OL in order to add value to his team. To use a more extreme example, it would be like investing a very high pick in a WR while you have a QB who is physically incapable of throwing the football. There is no way to get your money's worth (or draft pick's worth) from that WR without a QB to throw him the football, just as there is a wastefulness in putting Barkley behind this OL.
To the second element of positional value, it becomes an extension of the first. If you cannot get value from a particular position (in this case, RB) without first establishing a level of competency from another (in this case, OL), and there is historically a generally easier path to finding at least an average player at the dependent position (RB) without expending significant resources to do so, then the use of those resources on even the most talented player of all time at the dependent position (RB) before establishing the independent position (OL) can be viewed as inefficient if not downright frivolous.
Unfortunately, these debates invariably devolve into an argument about whether or not Barkley is a great player (he is) or whether he was worth the #2 pick in the draft (objectively, I would argue that he was worthy of that selection on talent alone). IMO, it's not about whether Barkley is great or if he was worthy of being picked #2. It is about his talent going to waste because he was picked by the team that is probably least able to take advantage of his skills in all of the NFL.
We wasted the first half of his rookie contract and probably at least 20-25% of his prime with the worst OL coach in the NFL, and a collection of mediocrity within the OL group. It's not that Barkley is a bad player, and it's not that he was a bad pick at #2. It's that he has gone to waste on this team because of DG's failure to build the OL into just even being not a massive weakness of the roster.
CORRECTION TO THE ABOVE: WE MAY WELL HAVE NOW WASTED THE ENTIRETY OF SAQUON BARKLEY'S PRIME.
Keep slurping, kiddos.