certain posters harp on Barkley not being able to help the team win.
Then usually, in the next breath they talk about having to score points on offense. Barkley has contributed 23 TD's as a Giant.
23 TD's. If that doesn't help a team win, I'd love to hear the fucked-up logic behind such nonsense.
Have you seen the Giants record when Barkley plays and is not injured ? I believe there is room for improvement. Maybe with better OL and WR Giants will start winning again. We shall see.
ACL are Bradley Chubb and Nick Bosa, and ironically, both of these players seem to be universally celebrated on BBI as players they would love to have on the Giants
for as much bs as the Barkley pick gets - if you could choose 1 non-QB
for 1 single game, assuming all were healthy, from the 2018 draft I think I'd still pick him.
Obviously depends on the rest of the roster in discussion but I think he'd pretty clearly be my top choice with Jaire Alexander probably #2. As much talk as there is re: Nelson I don't think guards have near that kind of impact on an individual game and a lot of his value (fairly so) is tied into the general shelf life and reliability of interior OL.
Really hope Barkley comes back healthy and gives them a few more years like his rookie year. He was really special.
So is "so many people?" Maybe the fans do, but NYG would not take a guard. If they view him as a tackle, that's a different story. But he's not going to be the pick if he's a guard in the NFL.
Is the pass blocking and getting to the line of scrimmage quickly to avoid losses. Statistically, SB needs to avoid negative yardage on rushing plays which is exactly what you don’t want from an HB.
I hope he comes back strong and improves his game.
You should. He should not have been hired as our head coach, but he is a skilled offensive coach who had repeatedly been hired by expert NFL coaches. The fact that Shurmur was trying to save his job in 2019 and one if his moves was to de emphasize SB as close games neared their conclusion should be a warning sign.
to support that Barkley was "de-emphasized" in close games?? Looked to me like his carries when the score was within 0-3 points remained the same throughout the quarters.
Where there was a disparity was in the 4th quarter when the team was behind by 7 points, which isn't unexpected.
What metric actually shows that Barkley was used less in close games, or is this yet another abstract point to try and show that Barkley is ineffective to help win games?
RE: for as much bs as the Barkley pick gets - if you could choose 1 non-QB
for 1 single game, assuming all were healthy, from the 2018 draft I think I'd still pick him.
Obviously depends on the rest of the roster in discussion but I think he'd pretty clearly be my top choice with Jaire Alexander probably #2. As much talk as there is re: Nelson I don't think guards have near that kind of impact on an individual game and a lot of his value (fairly so) is tied into the general shelf life and reliability of interior OL.
Really hope Barkley comes back healthy and gives them a few more years like his rookie year. He was really special.
Call me an idiot, etc. but I believe a great player can have a huge impact from any position on the field. The games are won and lost in the trenches - we all know that. Pressure up the middle is the most disruptive to a QB. We know that. Yet great G's aren't worth top 10 picks? But shiny hood ornament skill players are? Just Offensive Tackles are important enough? It's ridiculous.
On the flip side - football is the ultimate team sport. No 1 individual is going to win games by himself. It's why the "what has Barkley gotten us in terms of W's/L's" is equally nauseating. You can't measure individual player acquisition in binary Wins/Losses. You can measure their effort level, attitude, production etc. But W's/L's falls on the organization as a whole.
to support that Barkley was "de-emphasized" in close games?? Looked to me like his carries when the score was within 0-3 points remained the same throughout the quarters.
Where there was a disparity was in the 4th quarter when the team was behind by 7 points, which isn't unexpected.
What metric actually shows that Barkley was used less in close games, or is this yet another abstract point to try and show that Barkley is ineffective to help win games?
We had a lot of close games last season. Maybe even the most in the league. And, after getting a look at him for 2 games, for the rest of the season they didn't use him in the 4th quarter even once.
Yep. The offensive line was so ugly in beginning of year guy is getting tackled by three players behind the line of scrimmage, but it’s Barkley’s fault for not getting north -south.
Our offensive line isn’t good, but they run block well and I’m excited as shit to see what SB looks like. Lot less whining from these clowns about getting north south Id imagine when he’s averaging 6 ypc.
Call me an idiot, etc. but I believe a great player can have a huge impact from any position on the field. The games are won and lost in the trenches - we all know that. Pressure up the middle is the most disruptive to a QB. We know that. Yet great G's aren't worth top 10 picks? But shiny hood ornament skill players are? Just Offensive Tackles are important enough? It's ridiculous.
On the flip side - football is the ultimate team sport. No 1 individual is going to win games by himself. It's why the "what has Barkley gotten us in terms of W's/L's" is equally nauseating. You can't measure individual player acquisition in binary Wins/Losses. You can measure their effort level, attitude, production etc. But W's/L's falls on the organization as a whole.
It the supposed positional importance that paints people into a corner when it comes to 2018. Some that screamed that Barkley was a fireable offense because of poor positional value wanted Nelson - which is a similarly poor positional value.
I agree with you. You build a winning team by amassing as many good players as you can who can mesh. If a fantastic G is available. If a fantastic RB is available, select them. That's where the analytics impacts decisions, and not always for the good. But then again, you also have people complaining about the resources put into the defensive backfield, yet the analytics support that approach.
Is the pass blocking and getting to the line of scrimmage quickly to avoid losses. Statistically, SB needs to avoid negative yardage on rushing plays which is exactly what you don’t want from an HB.
I hope he comes back strong and improves his game.
Thanks for the answer. I appreciate it, but I disagree.
It is not Barkley's job to see that DJ doesn't get sacked, that's on JG. (and all of the many pieces involved).
I also do not think that he need to get to the LOS and quicker.
As an example, look at the 2:15 mark on the video. Barkley's patience in allowing the RG to come off of his double on the 3tech and get to the MIKE turned a "Dirty-tough yard, 2yd gain," into a 15yd touchdown.
Call me an idiot, etc. but I believe a great player can have a huge impact from any position on the field. The games are won and lost in the trenches - we all know that. Pressure up the middle is the most disruptive to a QB. We know that. Yet great G's aren't worth top 10 picks? But shiny hood ornament skill players are? Just Offensive Tackles are important enough? It's ridiculous.
On the flip side - football is the ultimate team sport. No 1 individual is going to win games by himself. It's why the "what has Barkley gotten us in terms of W's/L's" is equally nauseating. You can't measure individual player acquisition in binary Wins/Losses. You can measure their effort level, attitude, production etc. But W's/L's falls on the organization as a whole.
You are certainly spot on with your point about the LOS across all positions. So I have grown to be perfectly fine with investing a high pick in any OL position.
I disagree with your second point. QBs absolutely determine the outcome of games more than any other position. Their ability to read defenses (pre and post) and execute the play (especially delivering a throw) are paramount to an outcome. Yes, it is a team game, but the QB isn't just 1/11th of the offense, another piece.
Posters can keep swimming against the current, but RBs just aren't as valuable as they used to be. You can find players who are 85-90% the player Barkley is but just as impactful to the team. Case in point is Nick Chubb from the '18 NFL draft. A second rounder but he's been just as impactful and cheaper. Browns got him for 4yrs/$7.4M. We have Barkley was 4yrs/$31M. I think that tells the story fairly well...no?
Call me an idiot, etc. but I believe a great player can have a huge impact from any position on the field. The games are won and lost in the trenches - we all know that. Pressure up the middle is the most disruptive to a QB. We know that. Yet great G's aren't worth top 10 picks? But shiny hood ornament skill players are? Just Offensive Tackles are important enough? It's ridiculous.
On the flip side - football is the ultimate team sport. No 1 individual is going to win games by himself. It's why the "what has Barkley gotten us in terms of W's/L's" is equally nauseating. You can't measure individual player acquisition in binary Wins/Losses. You can measure their effort level, attitude, production etc. But W's/L's falls on the organization as a whole.
You are certainly spot on with your point about the LOS across all positions. So I have grown to be perfectly fine with investing a high pick in any OL position.
I disagree with your second point. QBs absolutely determine the outcome of games more than any other position. Their ability to read defenses (pre and post) and execute the play (especially delivering a throw) are paramount to an outcome. Yes, it is a team game, but the QB isn't just 1/11th of the offense, another piece.
Posters can keep swimming against the current, but RBs just aren't as valuable as they used to be. You can find players who are 85-90% the player Barkley is but just as impactful to the team. Case in point is Nick Chubb from the '18 NFL draft. A second rounder but he's been just as impactful and cheaper. Browns got him for 4yrs/$7.4M. We have Barkley was 4yrs/$31M. I think that tells the story fairly well...no?
All of that is true. It was a mistake. You are right. I understand why they did it and it wasn't the end of the world. The thing is, the pick would have been Darnold if it wasn't Barkley. You can say we don't know that but we do. We picked Barkley because they were hoping for some Eli magic. If they didn't believe that, they were going to draft a QB. They would have drafted Darnold. That would have been worse.
You should let it go brother.
It happened, stop letting the past continue to affect you. It is like you have an irrational need for your BBI to admit it was the wrong pick.
It was.
It's over.
He is a Giant.
For better or worse, he beloved one.
Get on the train and root for it to all work out, because my friend, you can't change a thing.
There can be no doubt after watching this clip and being reminded of his immense talent. It can be argued that the Giants should have traded down because they were not "ready" for a player of this caliber, but if no trades of commensurate value were presented, then they had to take Barkley. Suggesting they should have taken Nelson or Bradley Chubb is silly.
And Shurmur completely mismanaged him. He is a playmaker - not a blocker. Taking him out of games because he is a below average blocker is ridiculous. He is a three down playmaking machine. Hopefully he will be fully healthy in 2021 and Judge will weaponize his talent through scheme and sensible supporting personnel.
According to everything we've heard about the team
if not Barkley, it would not have been Darnold; it would have been Chubb. But even so, I'd much rather have Barkley than any of the alternatives.
Even so, whether you agreed or disagreed with the pick, it's in the past and you would be very hard-pressed to say that he's not a good player. You'd be equally hard-pressed to say that the solitary pick doomed the franchise.
At the very worst, it's a pick that you personally did not like and, piqued the frustration you have the the team did not hire you to be its GM.
Barkley ran less in the 2nd halves of games and was incredibly ineffective as a receiver generating just 3.1 yards per pass targeted with a low pass catch ratio in situations where the Giants were trailing late in games (<4 minutes to go). Barkley 2019 splits - ( New Window )
I get it; but, unlike others, I think it's still an interesting debate in general. And that's because the story isn't over yet. Will Barkley recover? If so, will Mara extend despite this evidence that paying a big, second contract to a RB is very risky? Can we trade him for future collateral? Etc.
Far more posts from folks trying to convince themselves
how bad David Mayo was in all of the Panthers highlights?
Just want to make sure we're balanced in what we're seeing. But maybe I'm not qualified to view tape, and DM did at that time deserve a decent sized contract that he wound up not deserving after all.
There's probably some sort of lesson here about introducing evidence, but I dropped out of law school too soon to know for sure.
RE: Far more posts from folks trying to convince themselves
that Giants team picking Barkley at #2 was a good choice.
Three years later and still not at all compelling...
I think it is more that people who are convinced that Barkley was not a good choice, see it as their sworn mission to convince others that Barkley is not a good player.
that Giants team picking Barkley at #2 was a good choice.
Three years later and still not at all compelling...
I think it is more that people who are convinced that Barkley was not a good choice, see it as their sworn mission to convince others that Barkley is not a good player.
So there isn't a sworn mission to convince others - by others - that Barkley wasn't a good pick?
Like this thread for instance...
RE: RE: Far more posts from folks trying to convince themselves
that Giants team picking Barkley at #2 was a good choice.
Three years later and still not at all compelling...
I think it is more that people who are convinced that Barkley was not a good choice, see it as their sworn mission to convince others that Barkley is not a good player.
Bill,
We spent the #2 overall pick on a terrific prospect who plays a position that tends to be prone to injury. And after three years, that prospect has played one full season, one injury-affected season, and one season lost almost entirely to injury.
The naysayers are right, as of now, albeit with a bullet. Barkley has enough ability and enough time to quiet any doubts. But the doubts are winning right now for the same reason they existed in the first place.
I get it; but, unlike others, I think it's still an interesting debate in general. And that's because the story isn't over yet. Will Barkley recover? If so, will Mara extend despite this evidence that paying a big, second contract to a RB is very risky? Can we trade him for future collateral? Etc.
I think we are at the point where we need to see 2021 play out. That's where I am at least. I can't say if SB should be extended or not. I lean no. A bunch of different things could happen in 2021 to change that opinion.
We could trade him for what today? Nothing. If he plays well in 2021 like I expect he will be resigned as much for business reasons as team reasons. Bottom line, this is a business.
I don't see us trading a player that made a triumphant return from injury. The only scenario I see them trading Barkley is that if we are such a shit show in 2021 DG is let go and we move on from Jones in 2022. In that scenario, I could see us trading Barkley for draft capital in an attempt to move up in 2022.
want to screw around with tagging options...whatever. But no need to extend longer term, for what purpose really?
The wait and see crowd will do what they seemingly do best...wait and see.
And then when they see Barkley run for 125 yards in a certain game, they will have everything they need? Or if they don’t see that burst as often as he had, my guess is they will say, let’s wait and see how he looks in 2022 before extending.
some on BBI have been willing to wait post 2019 for DG's version of the team to come together with Jones as QB. Others are not willing to wait and cherry pick stats for rookies or young players as it is currently happening, so they keep saying things like "see i told you, the team sucks!" and when the team becomes good this year, they will say things like "wow, about time."
The difference between some impatient posters and ridiculous posters are that, when the Giants are a good team, the impatient ones will have some humility and say hey you know what, this actually seems like it's working out.
The ridiculous posters will just find something else to bitch about with DG or some other facet of the team, and around and around we go.
The Leonard Williams trade is a perfect example of how some people on this site are just whiny fucking women, and will never be satisfied. Not only did the trade workout, but DG was able to sign him at a reasonable 3 year deal up until the point where we have to pay Jones. So all the bitching and moaning that posters did a) right after the trade happened b) after Williams' first 8 games and c) those few days during FA where Williams wasn't signed and it was "severely effecting our ability to sign free agents" amounted to absolutely nothing, because none of the things that these posters said actually came true, they just spent their days crying like a little girl about it because they have nothing better to do
is another great example. Draft picks are investments. You take someone in the top 5, you hope they are a big piece of the franchise for 10 years.
Barkley just turned 24, he'll basically be playing his third healthy season at the start of this year. Let's see what he brings to the table as a part of this team moving forward before we say things like 'awful pick' or 'horrible move' or whatever the hell you want to say.
I remember 2018 and parts of 2019, we all knew that Barkley was probably the most talented running back in football, one of the game's most dynamic players. But guess what, the rest of the team absolutely sucked.
RE: Some here don’t need to see 2021 to decide on extension. If the Giants
want to screw around with tagging options...whatever. But no need to extend longer term, for what purpose really?
The wait and see crowd will do what they seemingly do best...wait and see.
And then when they see Barkley run for 125 yards in a certain game, they will have everything they need? Or if they don’t see that burst as often as he had, my guess is they will say, let’s wait and see how he looks in 2022 before extending.
Actually what people see or don't see regarding an extension means absolutely nothing. We aren't making that decision, Clownshoes.
If you think you have enough information one way or another now, then you should become a fortune teller. That way, you can still stay part of the Circus.
is another great example. Draft picks are investments. You take someone in the top 5, you hope they are a big piece of the franchise for 10 years.
Barkley just turned 24, he'll basically be playing his third healthy season at the start of this year. Let's see what he brings to the table as a part of this team moving forward before we say things like 'awful pick' or 'horrible move' or whatever the hell you want to say.
I remember 2018 and parts of 2019, we all knew that Barkley was probably the most talented running back in football, one of the game's most dynamic players. But guess what, the rest of the team absolutely sucked.
Ryan, you're guilty of something in this post that is inadvertently dismissive of the reason why some were resistant to this pick in the first place.
When you say that Barkley is "playing his third healthy season" as though he should get a pass for the injuries, that's a fundamental flaw, IMO. One of the reasons why people are reticent to choose RBs so early in the draft is because that's a position that tends to suffer injuries more frequently than others.
If you want to make the case that Barkley is worth it in spite of the injuries, so be it - I think there's a valid case to be made. But if you try to ignore the fact that Barkley does have the sort of injury history already that confirms some of the pre-draft concerns, I think that starts to feel intentionally misleading.
Barkley is entering his fourth season. End. Full stop.
He's good enough that we should still be viewing his play from this point forward, and shouldn't need to pretend that his injuries haven't happened or that they aren't part of what makes RB investments risky.
Then usually, in the next breath they talk about having to score points on offense. Barkley has contributed 23 TD's as a Giant.
23 TD's. If that doesn't help a team win, I'd love to hear the fucked-up logic behind such nonsense.
Then usually, in the next breath they talk about having to score points on offense. Barkley has contributed 23 TD's as a Giant.
23 TD's. If that doesn't help a team win, I'd love to hear the fucked-up logic behind such nonsense.
Then usually, in the next breath they talk about having to score points on offense. Barkley has contributed 23 TD's as a Giant.
23 TD's. If that doesn't help a team win, I'd love to hear the fucked-up logic behind such nonsense.
I think that you're touched...
Obviously depends on the rest of the roster in discussion but I think he'd pretty clearly be my top choice with Jaire Alexander probably #2. As much talk as there is re: Nelson I don't think guards have near that kind of impact on an individual game and a lot of his value (fairly so) is tied into the general shelf life and reliability of interior OL.
Really hope Barkley comes back healthy and gives them a few more years like his rookie year. He was really special.
And the Giants are never going to pick a guard in the top 10. It's not going to happen.
And the Giants are never going to pick a guard in the top 10. It's not going to happen.
The why do so many people want Slater?
The why do so many people want Slater?
So is "so many people?" Maybe the fans do, but NYG would not take a guard. If they view him as a tackle, that's a different story. But he's not going to be the pick if he's a guard in the NFL.
If he is healthy, he will have a good year. his 9 yard run vs the eagles was ridiculous.
I hope he comes back strong and improves his game.
Where there was a disparity was in the 4th quarter when the team was behind by 7 points, which isn't unexpected.
What metric actually shows that Barkley was used less in close games, or is this yet another abstract point to try and show that Barkley is ineffective to help win games?
Obviously depends on the rest of the roster in discussion but I think he'd pretty clearly be my top choice with Jaire Alexander probably #2. As much talk as there is re: Nelson I don't think guards have near that kind of impact on an individual game and a lot of his value (fairly so) is tied into the general shelf life and reliability of interior OL.
Really hope Barkley comes back healthy and gives them a few more years like his rookie year. He was really special.
Why not?
Call me an idiot, etc. but I believe a great player can have a huge impact from any position on the field. The games are won and lost in the trenches - we all know that. Pressure up the middle is the most disruptive to a QB. We know that. Yet great G's aren't worth top 10 picks? But shiny hood ornament skill players are? Just Offensive Tackles are important enough? It's ridiculous.
On the flip side - football is the ultimate team sport. No 1 individual is going to win games by himself. It's why the "what has Barkley gotten us in terms of W's/L's" is equally nauseating. You can't measure individual player acquisition in binary Wins/Losses. You can measure their effort level, attitude, production etc. But W's/L's falls on the organization as a whole.
Where there was a disparity was in the 4th quarter when the team was behind by 7 points, which isn't unexpected.
What metric actually shows that Barkley was used less in close games, or is this yet another abstract point to try and show that Barkley is ineffective to help win games?
We had a lot of close games last season. Maybe even the most in the league. And, after getting a look at him for 2 games, for the rest of the season they didn't use him in the 4th quarter even once.
Yep. The offensive line was so ugly in beginning of year guy is getting tackled by three players behind the line of scrimmage, but it’s Barkley’s fault for not getting north -south.
Our offensive line isn’t good, but they run block well and I’m excited as shit to see what SB looks like. Lot less whining from these clowns about getting north south Id imagine when he’s averaging 6 ypc.
Why not?
Call me an idiot, etc. but I believe a great player can have a huge impact from any position on the field. The games are won and lost in the trenches - we all know that. Pressure up the middle is the most disruptive to a QB. We know that. Yet great G's aren't worth top 10 picks? But shiny hood ornament skill players are? Just Offensive Tackles are important enough? It's ridiculous.
On the flip side - football is the ultimate team sport. No 1 individual is going to win games by himself. It's why the "what has Barkley gotten us in terms of W's/L's" is equally nauseating. You can't measure individual player acquisition in binary Wins/Losses. You can measure their effort level, attitude, production etc. But W's/L's falls on the organization as a whole.
It the supposed positional importance that paints people into a corner when it comes to 2018. Some that screamed that Barkley was a fireable offense because of poor positional value wanted Nelson - which is a similarly poor positional value.
I agree with you. You build a winning team by amassing as many good players as you can who can mesh. If a fantastic G is available. If a fantastic RB is available, select them. That's where the analytics impacts decisions, and not always for the good. But then again, you also have people complaining about the resources put into the defensive backfield, yet the analytics support that approach.
QB, OT, edge, WR, CB, S are the spots you want to draft in the top 12.
I'd much rather have a great player at the above positions vs a great guard
I hope he comes back strong and improves his game.
Thanks for the answer. I appreciate it, but I disagree.
It is not Barkley's job to see that DJ doesn't get sacked, that's on JG. (and all of the many pieces involved).
I also do not think that he need to get to the LOS and quicker.
As an example, look at the 2:15 mark on the video. Barkley's patience in allowing the RG to come off of his double on the 3tech and get to the MIKE turned a "Dirty-tough yard, 2yd gain," into a 15yd touchdown.
It was a player with great production, with great measurables and exceptional character.
Try to deny any of that.
That is not a fireable offense.
It happened because they failed to assess the roster correctly.
It happened.
It hasn't worked do far.
Here we are now though.
I could see it turn out well this year.
Let's watch and root for it together.
Or not...FFS.
Why not?
Call me an idiot, etc. but I believe a great player can have a huge impact from any position on the field. The games are won and lost in the trenches - we all know that. Pressure up the middle is the most disruptive to a QB. We know that. Yet great G's aren't worth top 10 picks? But shiny hood ornament skill players are? Just Offensive Tackles are important enough? It's ridiculous.
On the flip side - football is the ultimate team sport. No 1 individual is going to win games by himself. It's why the "what has Barkley gotten us in terms of W's/L's" is equally nauseating. You can't measure individual player acquisition in binary Wins/Losses. You can measure their effort level, attitude, production etc. But W's/L's falls on the organization as a whole.
You are certainly spot on with your point about the LOS across all positions. So I have grown to be perfectly fine with investing a high pick in any OL position.
I disagree with your second point. QBs absolutely determine the outcome of games more than any other position. Their ability to read defenses (pre and post) and execute the play (especially delivering a throw) are paramount to an outcome. Yes, it is a team game, but the QB isn't just 1/11th of the offense, another piece.
Posters can keep swimming against the current, but RBs just aren't as valuable as they used to be. You can find players who are 85-90% the player Barkley is but just as impactful to the team. Case in point is Nick Chubb from the '18 NFL draft. A second rounder but he's been just as impactful and cheaper. Browns got him for 4yrs/$7.4M. We have Barkley was 4yrs/$31M. I think that tells the story fairly well...no?
Quote:
"you don't pick a G in the top 10" logic.
Why not?
Call me an idiot, etc. but I believe a great player can have a huge impact from any position on the field. The games are won and lost in the trenches - we all know that. Pressure up the middle is the most disruptive to a QB. We know that. Yet great G's aren't worth top 10 picks? But shiny hood ornament skill players are? Just Offensive Tackles are important enough? It's ridiculous.
On the flip side - football is the ultimate team sport. No 1 individual is going to win games by himself. It's why the "what has Barkley gotten us in terms of W's/L's" is equally nauseating. You can't measure individual player acquisition in binary Wins/Losses. You can measure their effort level, attitude, production etc. But W's/L's falls on the organization as a whole.
You are certainly spot on with your point about the LOS across all positions. So I have grown to be perfectly fine with investing a high pick in any OL position.
I disagree with your second point. QBs absolutely determine the outcome of games more than any other position. Their ability to read defenses (pre and post) and execute the play (especially delivering a throw) are paramount to an outcome. Yes, it is a team game, but the QB isn't just 1/11th of the offense, another piece.
Posters can keep swimming against the current, but RBs just aren't as valuable as they used to be. You can find players who are 85-90% the player Barkley is but just as impactful to the team. Case in point is Nick Chubb from the '18 NFL draft. A second rounder but he's been just as impactful and cheaper. Browns got him for 4yrs/$7.4M. We have Barkley was 4yrs/$31M. I think that tells the story fairly well...no?
You should let it go brother.
It happened, stop letting the past continue to affect you. It is like you have an irrational need for your BBI to admit it was the wrong pick.
It was.
It's over.
He is a Giant.
For better or worse, he beloved one.
Get on the train and root for it to all work out, because my friend, you can't change a thing.
And Shurmur completely mismanaged him. He is a playmaker - not a blocker. Taking him out of games because he is a below average blocker is ridiculous. He is a three down playmaking machine. Hopefully he will be fully healthy in 2021 and Judge will weaponize his talent through scheme and sensible supporting personnel.
Even so, whether you agreed or disagreed with the pick, it's in the past and you would be very hard-pressed to say that he's not a good player. You'd be equally hard-pressed to say that the solitary pick doomed the franchise.
At the very worst, it's a pick that you personally did not like and, piqued the frustration you have the the team did not hire you to be its GM.
Barkley ran less in the 2nd halves of games and was incredibly ineffective as a receiver generating just 3.1 yards per pass targeted with a low pass catch ratio in situations where the Giants were trailing late in games (<4 minutes to go).
Barkley 2019 splits - ( New Window )
Barkley's ineffectiveness likely has nothing to do with how quickly he hits a hole.
Causation versus correlation...
Three years later and still not at all compelling...
Just want to make sure we're balanced in what we're seeing. But maybe I'm not qualified to view tape, and DM did at that time deserve a decent sized contract that he wound up not deserving after all.
There's probably some sort of lesson here about introducing evidence, but I dropped out of law school too soon to know for sure.
Three years later and still not at all compelling...
I think it is more that people who are convinced that Barkley was not a good choice, see it as their sworn mission to convince others that Barkley is not a good player.
Injury is the only thing keeping the selection from being a great choice...
...and any player can be a victim of injury.
Quote:
that Giants team picking Barkley at #2 was a good choice.
Three years later and still not at all compelling...
I think it is more that people who are convinced that Barkley was not a good choice, see it as their sworn mission to convince others that Barkley is not a good player.
So there isn't a sworn mission to convince others - by others - that Barkley wasn't a good pick?
Like this thread for instance...
Quote:
that Giants team picking Barkley at #2 was a good choice.
Three years later and still not at all compelling...
I think it is more that people who are convinced that Barkley was not a good choice, see it as their sworn mission to convince others that Barkley is not a good player.
Bill,
We spent the #2 overall pick on a terrific prospect who plays a position that tends to be prone to injury. And after three years, that prospect has played one full season, one injury-affected season, and one season lost almost entirely to injury.
The naysayers are right, as of now, albeit with a bullet. Barkley has enough ability and enough time to quiet any doubts. But the doubts are winning right now for the same reason they existed in the first place.
We could trade him for what today? Nothing. If he plays well in 2021 like I expect he will be resigned as much for business reasons as team reasons. Bottom line, this is a business.
I don't see us trading a player that made a triumphant return from injury. The only scenario I see them trading Barkley is that if we are such a shit show in 2021 DG is let go and we move on from Jones in 2022. In that scenario, I could see us trading Barkley for draft capital in an attempt to move up in 2022.
All of is dependent on the results of 2021.
Time to watch.
Many people on BBI think many of you are rooting for that.
Maybe not, but I have to tell you, it feels that way.
The wait and see crowd will do what they seemingly do best...wait and see.
And then when they see Barkley run for 125 yards in a certain game, they will have everything they need? Or if they don’t see that burst as often as he had, my guess is they will say, let’s wait and see how he looks in 2022 before extending.
The difference between some impatient posters and ridiculous posters are that, when the Giants are a good team, the impatient ones will have some humility and say hey you know what, this actually seems like it's working out.
The ridiculous posters will just find something else to bitch about with DG or some other facet of the team, and around and around we go.
The Leonard Williams trade is a perfect example of how some people on this site are just whiny fucking women, and will never be satisfied. Not only did the trade workout, but DG was able to sign him at a reasonable 3 year deal up until the point where we have to pay Jones. So all the bitching and moaning that posters did a) right after the trade happened b) after Williams' first 8 games and c) those few days during FA where Williams wasn't signed and it was "severely effecting our ability to sign free agents" amounted to absolutely nothing, because none of the things that these posters said actually came true, they just spent their days crying like a little girl about it because they have nothing better to do
Barkley just turned 24, he'll basically be playing his third healthy season at the start of this year. Let's see what he brings to the table as a part of this team moving forward before we say things like 'awful pick' or 'horrible move' or whatever the hell you want to say.
I remember 2018 and parts of 2019, we all knew that Barkley was probably the most talented running back in football, one of the game's most dynamic players. But guess what, the rest of the team absolutely sucked.
The wait and see crowd will do what they seemingly do best...wait and see.
And then when they see Barkley run for 125 yards in a certain game, they will have everything they need? Or if they don’t see that burst as often as he had, my guess is they will say, let’s wait and see how he looks in 2022 before extending.
Actually what people see or don't see regarding an extension means absolutely nothing. We aren't making that decision, Clownshoes.
If you think you have enough information one way or another now, then you should become a fortune teller. That way, you can still stay part of the Circus.
Barkley just turned 24, he'll basically be playing his third healthy season at the start of this year. Let's see what he brings to the table as a part of this team moving forward before we say things like 'awful pick' or 'horrible move' or whatever the hell you want to say.
I remember 2018 and parts of 2019, we all knew that Barkley was probably the most talented running back in football, one of the game's most dynamic players. But guess what, the rest of the team absolutely sucked.
Ryan, you're guilty of something in this post that is inadvertently dismissive of the reason why some were resistant to this pick in the first place.
When you say that Barkley is "playing his third healthy season" as though he should get a pass for the injuries, that's a fundamental flaw, IMO. One of the reasons why people are reticent to choose RBs so early in the draft is because that's a position that tends to suffer injuries more frequently than others.
If you want to make the case that Barkley is worth it in spite of the injuries, so be it - I think there's a valid case to be made. But if you try to ignore the fact that Barkley does have the sort of injury history already that confirms some of the pre-draft concerns, I think that starts to feel intentionally misleading.
Barkley is entering his fourth season. End. Full stop.
He's good enough that we should still be viewing his play from this point forward, and shouldn't need to pretend that his injuries haven't happened or that they aren't part of what makes RB investments risky.