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.
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.