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.
Quote:
Dude. To be a franchise back, you have to actually prove it. Sanders wasn't "clearly" one of the best backs in the league. Again - he played in all 16 games last season. Started 11 games. And had 800 yards. Why don't we just call Raheem Mostert a franchise back now too? Austin Ekeler. Let's give the nod to Kenyan Drake.
It is odd to lecture about the idea of positional value when it doesn't seem like you know much about the player's actual value.
Wrong again.
You keep throwing out 800 yards rushing yet conveniently omitting the 500 yards receiving. Those 1300 yards put Sanders 16th in total yards from scrimmage last season. Had he been deemed the starter from the outset, he would likely have VERY conservatively added another 200 yards which would have put him in the Top 10. Sanders is one of the top backs in the league.
So, back to the original point of my mentioning Sanders, you don't need to spend a 1st round pick, especially a very high 1st round pick, to acquire a dominant RB. That point can be proven time and time again with many different examples so I won't spend any more time debating you on this subject
Quote:
In comment 14976010 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
Prior to the 2018 draft, but it’s been rampant since, and has become part of the lexicon.
I did a search on threads about “positional value”. The term turned up 8 threads between 2010 and 2018.
From 2018 to now there are 32 threads.
I think that’s funny.
the best is that even 3 years later there's no obvious alternative selection (except the trade down unicorn). the positional value of drafting a guard that high is the same as a RB
is that a fact? lol...
Tend to agree with a facetious Enzo here. Not only is it not a fact, its most likely the reverse.
I don't think ever, although probably a bunch of OTs were and then were converted to Guard.
Not sure Top 5 picks is the only barometer here.
Do you think Quinton Nelson drafted #6 was drafted too high? Its only one spot off of the top 5 and he is you know...great.
Quote:
In comment 14976033 BlueVinnie said:
Quote:
Dude. To be a franchise back, you have to actually prove it. Sanders wasn't "clearly" one of the best backs in the league. Again - he played in all 16 games last season. Started 11 games. And had 800 yards. Why don't we just call Raheem Mostert a franchise back now too? Austin Ekeler. Let's give the nod to Kenyan Drake.
It is odd to lecture about the idea of positional value when it doesn't seem like you know much about the player's actual value.
Wrong again.
You keep throwing out 800 yards rushing yet conveniently omitting the 500 yards receiving. Those 1300 yards put Sanders 16th in total yards from scrimmage last season. Had he been deemed the starter from the outset, he would likely have VERY conservatively added another 200 yards which would have put him in the Top 10. Sanders is one of the top backs in the league.
So, back to the original point of my mentioning Sanders, you don't need to spend a 1st round pick, especially a very high 1st round pick, to acquire a dominant RB. That point can be proven time and time again with many different examples so I won't spend any more time debating you on this subject
Sanders isn't a dominant back. And you know you can say the same about every position on the field. You don't need to spend a high draft pick to find a good WR, a good G, a good LB, the list goes on.
Quote:
In comment 14976063 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
Dude. To be a franchise back, you have to actually prove it. Sanders wasn't "clearly" one of the best backs in the league. Again - he played in all 16 games last season. Started 11 games. And had 800 yards. Why don't we just call Raheem Mostert a franchise back now too? Austin Ekeler. Let's give the nod to Kenyan Drake.
I don’t know what is the exact right label for those guys
I do know that you can win with that level of talent at the RB position.
You could say that about a lot of positions.
“You dont need ‘great’ just a bunch of ‘good’”.
It still helps to have great players.
that is true
I have not looked up RB’s drafted in the top 5 but have to believe it would be significantly more frequent, so I’m curious about your belief that the opposite would be true.
Drafting a OT and moving him to G because he failed at tackle is a different conversation and not related to positional value.
Imv, changes in how the game has evolved has pushed Guard to be more valuable over time - QBs getting rid of the ball quicker than ever, # of Defensive lineman that are both big and fast and now play inside, creative line stunting and blitz packages thought up by DCs, OCs that get their lineman on the move with running schemes.
The cost benefit is also a factor as Guards arguably have a longer life cycle than running backs. As well as the volume of NFL-ready running backs as rookies are far more plentiful than plug-n-play NFL ready Guards.
Fairly comfortable suggesting the number of running backs taken in the first round has probably dropped over past few decades if plotted. That's not because there are less valuable running backs around today versus a decade, its because the other positions have become more valuable. And imv, one of those is Guard.
He isn't to blame for everything, nor can he take credit for everything, but the buck stops at his desk, so he'll be judged a failure or success by the results. Until the results prove to be positive, he's leaning failure.
DG has done what a lot of bad GM's have done- get some right, some wrong, spent money on free agents who are not difference makers and gone nowhere. This team has no identity on offense and a bad defense. We've won 9 games in the last two years and the last time we beat a team that finished .500 or above was the Bears in 2018. At least three of the wins have come against teams with backup qb's starting.
The other night, we got the ball on the 3 and "cashed in" for 3 points, scored 10 points to go up 10-3 and then gave up 23 straight points to a team guided by a 400 year old qb who hadn't played in a year and the backup running back- at home.
This is not progress; this is the 70's all over again. Goodbye Dave and stay well; let's move on.
With that said, and I mentioned this the other day, I would have probably taken Saquon Barkley straight up over Quentin Nelson at #2 as well.
But if given a potential deal to trade back to #4 and pick up some extra draft collateral as well (the rumored Cleveland Brown offer), I make that deal every day of the week and pick Q Nelson at #4.
Quote:
In comment 14976010 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
Prior to the 2018 draft, but it’s been rampant since, and has become part of the lexicon.
I did a search on threads about “positional value”. The term turned up 8 threads between 2010 and 2018.
From 2018 to now there are 32 threads.
I think that’s funny.
the best is that even 3 years later there's no obvious alternative selection (except the trade down unicorn). the positional value of drafting a guard that high is the same as a RB
is that a fact? lol...
same as a RB in that neither is considered a premium position.
Assume a few things were true 1) general management believed the roster was in tatters 2) Barkley was in fact a rare commodity, or as Gettleman claimed, the highest rated player in 2 decades.
If the front office is right on both accounts, the demand for Barkley should be high. He’s not mind you the best player in the draft, he’s the best player in many drafts. And the Giants are both far from contention and in need of many, new good players.
If the Giants rating on Barkley was roughly the consensus, I’d expect the demand would be high. There’s an element of scarcity. If he was so coveted, some attractive trade would be available, no?
The Giants got a great player. Undeniable. The Giants 3 years on are on coach number 2, left tackle number 2, center number 3, middle linebacker number 2, left guard number 3, right tackle number 3.
The argument for opting for many better players over one great one isn’t a sensibility defying argument.
I wanted a tradedown in 2018, and frankly wanted one in 2019 too.
but just because I wanted a tradedown doesn't make the pick bad or that we needed to do something different.
It just means that they did something that I wouldn't have. Some hold that against the team.
Quote:
In comment 14976016 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
In comment 14976010 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
Prior to the 2018 draft, but it’s been rampant since, and has become part of the lexicon.
I did a search on threads about “positional value”. The term turned up 8 threads between 2010 and 2018.
From 2018 to now there are 32 threads.
I think that’s funny.
the best is that even 3 years later there's no obvious alternative selection (except the trade down unicorn). the positional value of drafting a guard that high is the same as a RB
is that a fact? lol...
same as a RB in that neither is considered a premium position.
the concept is slightly more complicated than that....
While it may have been leaked that the Giants liked Darnold amongst the QBs, he didn't seriously enter into the fray at all because the job was already Eli Manning's and DG wasn't rebuilding yet, he was competing and needed an immediate splash in Barkley. The selection of Hernandez in Rd 2 is interesting because it tells you more OL investment is on their mind and in a trade down with Cleveland they may have targeted top lineman like Q Nelson or M McGlinchey.
You see that QB urgency appear the very next year in 2019 as DG grappled with taking the DE Josh Allen at #6 instead of Daniel Jones, but fell to the pressure of now needing a QB because he was in rebuild mode. But by Draft Day he became too concerned that Jones wouldn't last long enough to make it to #17, so he jumps early on Jones at #6 instead. In full deal mode because he still really covets pass rusher Josh Allen and has a lot of draft picks that year to play with, DG immediately tries to move up from #17 to pick but as soon as JAX takes him with the next pick, Gettleman stands down.
Probably still in deal mode with all his extra picks and missing out on Josh Allen to help the defense, DG burns 4th & 5th round picks to move up seven spots to #30 when he sees Deandre Baker still available who is high on his board.
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
He is not heads and shoulders above the other top guys and cases can be made that others are better, at least more effective and instrumental to winning games.
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.
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.