At the risk of opening a can of worms, I just have to ask the question... How do you define "positional value"?
For context, in discussion of this year's draft I've seen it posted as a foregone conclusion that Kyle Pitts won't make it past Atlanta at #4 overall, and this is acceptable. Keep in mind that Atlanta, similar to the New York Giants in 2017, has an ageing Quarterback with a roster full of holes around him that he can no longer elevate. Yet despite this, a lot of people seem to think that picking a TE is the best option for them at number 4 overall, to build around one more go with Matt Ryan.
Why is TE okay for positional value but RB isn't? Let's compare historically: In the past 40 years, no TE has ever been taken in the Top 5 of the draft. ZERO. In that same time span, 28 RB's have been taken in the Top 5. Not just the first round, but Top 5. Now some would say the league is different now, and I agree, however this includes 3 Top 5 RB's in the past five years. So clearly the position is still valued.
So again, why is TE considered good positional value but RB isn't? Well, to that I've heard: "Well Pitts graded out as the best TE ever", or "Pitts is more than just a TE, he's like a TE AND a big WR", or "Pitts is the best non QB player in the draft".... But on the flip side of that, it didn't matter that Barkley graded out as the best player in the draft, nor that he is a true multi threat as a runner and receiver, or that he graded out on the level of Peyton Manning as a talent...
So my question is simple. What is positional value, and when do you apply it?
I don't think Atlanta should draft Pitts over Sewell, makes little sense given their investment in WR already and the fact that Ryan can't be moved this year and likely next year as well.
Positional value on the whole is relative to how you design your schemes. QB, pass rusher, LT, CB, WR still tend to be of greater value in the modern game.
(and at the risk of being snarky): Quenton Nelson > Saquon Barkley
And you apply it most often in Round One and Two and sometimes in Round Three.
But I don't have an opinion on this subject. (:-)
RBs are one of the lowest paid positions so you gain very little cap relief drafting one high instead of acquiring one in FA (Safety and TE are similar).
That's why ER, WR, CB, and OT are more valuable. Good ones a) don't hit FA and b) cost a ton if they do.
You could also argue things like scarcity of the position or injury likelihood, but those are reflected to an extent in the salaries.
(and at the risk of being snarky): Quenton Nelson > Saquon Barkley
And you apply it most often in Round One and Two and sometimes in Round Three.
But I don't have an opinion on this subject. (:-)
Well it's interesting that you should bring that up, because in that same time span, 40 years, only 4 have G's have been drafted Top 5, and ZERO in the past 20 years.
Pitts at Tight End just happens to be one of the biggest non-QB talents in the entire draft so why wouldn't any team (no matter how old their QB is) be interested? The idea is to get the best players and he is universally seen as one of them.
For Barkley, that means fewer handoffs and getting him the ball in the open space more (see Kamara). Shurmur failed miserably in this area.
For Pitts, that's going to mean stretching the field more with him and minimizing his inline blocking. Any TE can catch passes within 5 yards of the LOS (ok, maybe not Engram), but if you can create mismatches and get him down the field like Kelce/Kittle his value increases tremendously. A TE catching 70+ passes and maintaining a yards/tgt >9.0 yds is invaluable.
Also is there a need? If ATL has a great tackle already then passing on Sewell for Pitts may make sense. Giants drafted Engram the same year Jonnu Smith and Gerald Everett were drafted, I would say the Giants lost the positional value case here.
I'll add in DT. Taking someone in rd 1 that plays less than 50% of the defensive snaps, is that good positional value? I'd argue to never take a DT rd 1 unless its a blue chip like Aaron Donald.
Pitts at Tight End just happens to be one of the biggest non-QB talents in the entire draft so why wouldn't any team (no matter how old their QB is) be interested? The idea is to get the best players and he is universally seen as one of them.
That's literally the same argument that was made for Barkley.
Quote:
around an aging Matt Ryan. Yes, they restructured his deal but mostly because they had HUGE cap issues and his was one of the few they could change and get material $ from to get under the cap for 2021. Not ideal, but they also realize Ryan isn't in their longer term plans either.
Pitts at Tight End just happens to be one of the biggest non-QB talents in the entire draft so why wouldn't any team (no matter how old their QB is) be interested? The idea is to get the best players and he is universally seen as one of them.
That's literally the same argument that was made for Barkley.
Yup.
Quote:
around an aging Matt Ryan. Yes, they restructured his deal but mostly because they had HUGE cap issues and his was one of the few they could change and get material $ from to get under the cap for 2021. Not ideal, but they also realize Ryan isn't in their longer term plans either.
Pitts at Tight End just happens to be one of the biggest non-QB talents in the entire draft so why wouldn't any team (no matter how old their QB is) be interested? The idea is to get the best players and he is universally seen as one of them.
That's literally the same argument that was made for Barkley.
Understood but that doesn't make Barkley the right pick for the NYG in 2018, a team facing a huge restructuring. And at a position of short shelf life and injury worries.
Pitts at TE is not great positional value but it is certainly better than RB imv.
The counter would be that TEs take more of a beating than WRs. Even the modern pass catching guys play a significant number of snaps inline and off the top of my head all of these elite receiving TEs have missed significant time due to injury:
Gronk
Graham - really only had 3-4 years of elite level play
Eifert
Kittles
Shockey
Something the NY Giants didn't pursue and execute on in 2018 as we know...
Quote:
(and at the risk of being snarky): Quenton Nelson > Saquon Barkley
And you apply it most often in Round One and Two and sometimes in Round Three.
But I don't have an opinion on this subject. (:-)
Well it's interesting that you should bring that up, because in that same time span, 40 years, only 4 have G's have been drafted Top 5, and ZERO in the past 20 years.
Good point! I wrote that mostly just to be snarky.
Understood but that doesn't make Barkley the right pick for the NYG in 2018, a team facing a huge restructuring. And at a position of short shelf life and injury worries.
Pitts at TE is not great positional value but it is certainly better than RB imv.
I don't disagree re: Barkley, but you're splitting hairs with Pitts. A TE at #4 is also poor positional value. The problem for ATL is the elite non-QBs are OT and WR, neither of which is a glaring need and 3 QBs will be taken before they're on the clock so they might not even like the options left there.
Quote:
around an aging Matt Ryan. Yes, they restructured his deal but mostly because they had HUGE cap issues and his was one of the few they could change and get material $ from to get under the cap for 2021. Not ideal, but they also realize Ryan isn't in their longer term plans either.
Pitts at Tight End just happens to be one of the biggest non-QB talents in the entire draft so why wouldn't any team (no matter how old their QB is) be interested? The idea is to get the best players and he is universally seen as one of them.
That's literally the same argument that was made for Barkley.
Something the NY Giants didn't pursue and execute on in 2018 as we know...
Ah, the backtracking now...
Unless ATL actually trades back, there's no evidence they explored a deal anymore than the Giants did. Rumors are just rumors.
But in the world of Internet Mel Kiper's,it's about hype,agenda's,and numerical format.
Quote:
In comment 15235323 M.S. said:
Quote:
(and at the risk of being snarky): Quenton Nelson > Saquon Barkley
And you apply it most often in Round One and Two and sometimes in Round Three.
But I don't have an opinion on this subject. (:-)
Well it's interesting that you should bring that up, because in that same time span, 40 years, only 4 have G's have been drafted Top 5, and ZERO in the past 20 years.
Good point! I wrote that mostly just to be snarky.
...good posts.
Good OP too.
Right now you have a team that is strapped cap wise with a 35 year old, non mobile QB, a 32 year WR who has been hit with injuries lately and could be looking at a steep decline in the near future, no running game at all, a weak Oline (despite high round picks there), a weak pass rush and needs at all three levels of the defense. How do you draft a TE, who is (albeit a great one) one dimensional and very much reliant on the QB, a varied offense (ie can't just pass every down) and a weaker Oline? How does Pitts help with changing that?
If they stay at 4 you take the QB for next year and beyond and get ready to eat $ for Ryan's contract in the 2022 off season or take a trade back offer and snag an Ol, a Pass rusher and hopefully another high pick next year.
Pitts would not realize his best potential on a team that will become even more one dimensional with the drafting of a receiving TE only at #4.
Quote:
Understood but that doesn't make Barkley the right pick for the NYG in 2018, a team facing a huge restructuring. And at a position of short shelf life and injury worries.
Pitts at TE is not great positional value but it is certainly better than RB imv.
I don't disagree re: Barkley, but you're splitting hairs with Pitts. A TE at #4 is also poor positional value. The problem for ATL is the elite non-QBs are OT and WR, neither of which is a glaring need and 3 QBs will be taken before they're on the clock so they might not even like the options left there.
I am not splitting hairs. TE is better positional value than a RB, especially a TE that has such an impact on passing game.
Besides, I didn't say I would pick Pitts over Sewell or Chase or a trade down. Also, you don't pick a guy at #4 based on need but even if so WR and OL are most certainly needs for ATL.
Right now you have a team that is strapped cap wise with a 35 year old, non mobile QB, a 32 year WR who has been hit with injuries lately and could be looking at a steep decline in the near future, no running game at all, a weak Oline (despite high round picks there), a weak pass rush and needs at all three levels of the defense. How do you draft a TE, who is (albeit a great one) one dimensional and very much reliant on the QB, a varied offense (ie can't just pass every down) and a weaker Oline? How does Pitts help with changing that?
If they stay at 4 you take the QB for next year and beyond and get ready to eat $ for Ryan's contract in the 2022 off season or take a trade back offer and snag an Ol, a Pass rusher and hopefully another high pick next year.
Pitts would not realize his best potential on a team that will become even more one dimensional with the drafting of a receiving TE only at #4.
One more thing, a player like Pitts cannot change a team the way a Pro Bowl T, a QB or a Pro Bowl Pass Rusher can. Those guys can change the face of a team. Pitts would could literally be Julio Jones in a TE and it won't change the wins and losses for the team because he can't change games by himself. If their Oline let's Ryan get kilkled Pitts could be Jerry Rice with DK Metcalfs body and Bob Hayes speed and it wouldn't matter..
Simple answer is to look at which players recieve the biggest contracts and that's a good starting point as to how the NFL values them.
Quote:
to fill more holes for their own rebuilding. So if they get the right price then they would have determined that was better overall value than picking a non-QB in a potentially QB-valued spot in 2021.
Something the NY Giants didn't pursue and execute on in 2018 as we know...
Ah, the backtracking now...
Unless ATL actually trades back, there's no evidence they explored a deal anymore than the Giants did. Rumors are just rumors.
Huh...what are you going with this...backtracking what?
I think the NYG needed to trade down at the time and still do. I think ATL very well might do it as well.
Ha just saw Aces post... I agree
Simple answer is to look at which players recieve the biggest contracts and that's a good starting point as to how the NFL values them.
So some combination of contract numbers and how highly they are drafted, and how often would be a good indication of positional value.
I wonder, broken down by the top 5 picks in the draft, what positions are most drafted there, and does it end up correlating to contract numbers? For instance, I would imagine QB is the position most taken in the Top 5 historically if I had to guess, and the contract numbers line up with that. I've got to think OT and DE are up there as well. Has anybody ever broken this down by position?
Quote:
In comment 15235346 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
Understood but that doesn't make Barkley the right pick for the NYG in 2018, a team facing a huge restructuring. And at a position of short shelf life and injury worries.
Pitts at TE is not great positional value but it is certainly better than RB imv.
I don't disagree re: Barkley, but you're splitting hairs with Pitts. A TE at #4 is also poor positional value. The problem for ATL is the elite non-QBs are OT and WR, neither of which is a glaring need and 3 QBs will be taken before they're on the clock so they might not even like the options left there.
I am not splitting hairs. TE is better positional value than a RB, especially a TE that has such an impact on passing game.
Besides, I didn't say I would pick Pitts over Sewell or Chase or a trade down. Also, you don't pick a guy at #4 based on need but even if so WR and OL are most certainly needs for ATL.
The NFL disagrees. It's literally the only position (sans special teams) with a lower franchise tag value than RB.
Quote:
In comment 15235358 giants#1 said:
Quote:
In comment 15235346 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
Understood but that doesn't make Barkley the right pick for the NYG in 2018, a team facing a huge restructuring. And at a position of short shelf life and injury worries.
Pitts at TE is not great positional value but it is certainly better than RB imv.
I don't disagree re: Barkley, but you're splitting hairs with Pitts. A TE at #4 is also poor positional value. The problem for ATL is the elite non-QBs are OT and WR, neither of which is a glaring need and 3 QBs will be taken before they're on the clock so they might not even like the options left there.
I am not splitting hairs. TE is better positional value than a RB, especially a TE that has such an impact on passing game.
Besides, I didn't say I would pick Pitts over Sewell or Chase or a trade down. Also, you don't pick a guy at #4 based on need but even if so WR and OL are most certainly needs for ATL.
The NFL disagrees. It's literally the only position (sans special teams) with a lower franchise tag value than RB.
But some TEs are really glorified WRs. Pitts needs to be compared to WRs in terms of positional value.
Right now you have a team that is strapped cap wise with a 35 year old, non mobile QB, a 32 year WR who has been hit with injuries lately and could be looking at a steep decline in the near future, no running game at all, a weak Oline (despite high round picks there), a weak pass rush and needs at all three levels of the defense. How do you draft a TE, who is (albeit a great one) one dimensional and very much reliant on the QB, a varied offense (ie can't just pass every down) and a weaker Oline? How does Pitts help with changing that?
If they stay at 4 you take the QB for next year and beyond and get ready to eat $ for Ryan's contract in the 2022 off season or take a trade back offer and snag an Ol, a Pass rusher and hopefully another high pick next year.
Pitts would not realize his best potential on a team that will become even more one dimensional with the drafting of a receiving TE only at #4.
Maybe, maybe not. Why not snag Sewell or Chase though?
Both are clearly blue-chip as well and would add more value right away than a QB, or possibly the 4th best QB in this draft. You seem to want to slam a QB in there no matter what for some reason...
Quote:
Is a good place to start. There's some nuance there probably dependant on scheme and skillset. You also have to take into account position scarcity as well - LT tends to carry more weight in my mind because they're so difficult to find while a decent RB isn't that difficult to find. Players playing the same position with different skillsets need to be judged differently - pass catching TE is more valuable than a blocking TE, interior DLs that can rush the passer hold a lot more value than guys that aren't elite in that area, think Leonard Williams contract being 2x greater than Tomlinsons.
Simple answer is to look at which players recieve the biggest contracts and that's a good starting point as to how the NFL values them.
So some combination of contract numbers and how highly they are drafted, and how often would be a good indication of positional value.
I wonder, broken down by the top 5 picks in the draft, what positions are most drafted there, and does it end up correlating to contract numbers? For instance, I would imagine QB is the position most taken in the Top 5 historically if I had to guess, and the contract numbers line up with that. I've got to think OT and DE are up there as well. Has anybody ever broken this down by position?
The draft position thing is good to look at as well. I always found it weird that CBs and WRs tend to be valued the same in the draft but their contracts are much different with WRs getting bigger deals. The gap is shortening there but there was a stretch where the top corners were getting like 12m/yr and WRs 20m/yr, it signaled more of an inefficiency in my mind where you should be targeting corners in free agency.
Quote:
are on the same page here based on another thread where this came up. I keep hearing this argument about the talent that Pitts is overriding needs and draft position for the Falcons. I find that just very simplistic in thinking.
Right now you have a team that is strapped cap wise with a 35 year old, non mobile QB, a 32 year WR who has been hit with injuries lately and could be looking at a steep decline in the near future, no running game at all, a weak Oline (despite high round picks there), a weak pass rush and needs at all three levels of the defense. How do you draft a TE, who is (albeit a great one) one dimensional and very much reliant on the QB, a varied offense (ie can't just pass every down) and a weaker Oline? How does Pitts help with changing that?
If they stay at 4 you take the QB for next year and beyond and get ready to eat $ for Ryan's contract in the 2022 off season or take a trade back offer and snag an Ol, a Pass rusher and hopefully another high pick next year.
Pitts would not realize his best potential on a team that will become even more one dimensional with the drafting of a receiving TE only at #4.
Maybe, maybe not. Why not snag Sewell or Chase though?
Both are clearly blue-chip as well and would add more value right away than a QB, or possibly the 4th best QB in this draft. You seem to want to slam a QB in there no matter what for some reason...
I did? Didn't I say if not the QB then trade back some and get what you need?
Quote:
are on the same page here based on another thread where this came up. I keep hearing this argument about the talent that Pitts is overriding needs and draft position for the Falcons. I find that just very simplistic in thinking.
Right now you have a team that is strapped cap wise with a 35 year old, non mobile QB, a 32 year WR who has been hit with injuries lately and could be looking at a steep decline in the near future, no running game at all, a weak Oline (despite high round picks there), a weak pass rush and needs at all three levels of the defense. How do you draft a TE, who is (albeit a great one) one dimensional and very much reliant on the QB, a varied offense (ie can't just pass every down) and a weaker Oline? How does Pitts help with changing that?
If they stay at 4 you take the QB for next year and beyond and get ready to eat $ for Ryan's contract in the 2022 off season or take a trade back offer and snag an Ol, a Pass rusher and hopefully another high pick next year.
Pitts would not realize his best potential on a team that will become even more one dimensional with the drafting of a receiving TE only at #4.
Maybe, maybe not. Why not snag Sewell or Chase though?
Both are clearly blue-chip as well and would add more value right away than a QB, or possibly the 4th best QB in this draft. You seem to want to slam a QB in there no matter what for some reason...
I think he's saying that the Falcons are in a tough spot in some ways, and that is probably obvious to other teams as well.
Good chance top 3 QB's gone. That plus Matt Ryan means they probably aren't going QB there. Which also diminishes the value anybody is looking to give in a trade down, so they may not have a lot of options, and may have to take a player there.
BPA is bullshit and you also base BPA on who you believe should be ranked as the best... I suspect if you ask 32 GM's for their top 5 players would get a number of different combinations of players.
I am not splitting hairs. TE is better positional value than a RB, especially a TE that has such an impact on passing game.
Besides, I didn't say I would pick Pitts over Sewell or Chase or a trade down. Also, you don't pick a guy at #4 based on need but even if so WR and OL are most certainly needs for ATL.
The NFL disagrees. It's literally the only position (sans special teams) with a lower franchise tag value than RB.
You can look towards franchise tag $ but like most things its not the only consideration in opinions on positional value. And certainly doesn't apply to every single draft prospect.
Let me know what Running Back is being picked before Pitts this year?
Quote:
In comment 15235365 jvm52106 said:
Quote:
are on the same page here based on another thread where this came up. I keep hearing this argument about the talent that Pitts is overriding needs and draft position for the Falcons. I find that just very simplistic in thinking.
Right now you have a team that is strapped cap wise with a 35 year old, non mobile QB, a 32 year WR who has been hit with injuries lately and could be looking at a steep decline in the near future, no running game at all, a weak Oline (despite high round picks there), a weak pass rush and needs at all three levels of the defense. How do you draft a TE, who is (albeit a great one) one dimensional and very much reliant on the QB, a varied offense (ie can't just pass every down) and a weaker Oline? How does Pitts help with changing that?
If they stay at 4 you take the QB for next year and beyond and get ready to eat $ for Ryan's contract in the 2022 off season or take a trade back offer and snag an Ol, a Pass rusher and hopefully another high pick next year.
Pitts would not realize his best potential on a team that will become even more one dimensional with the drafting of a receiving TE only at #4.
Maybe, maybe not. Why not snag Sewell or Chase though?
Both are clearly blue-chip as well and would add more value right away than a QB, or possibly the 4th best QB in this draft. You seem to want to slam a QB in there no matter what for some reason...
I did? Didn't I say if not the QB then trade back some and get what you need?
You did indeed. I was adding the blue chip guys at #4 too though.
Quote:
In comment 15235365 jvm52106 said:
Quote:
are on the same page here based on another thread where this came up. I keep hearing this argument about the talent that Pitts is overriding needs and draft position for the Falcons. I find that just very simplistic in thinking.
Right now you have a team that is strapped cap wise with a 35 year old, non mobile QB, a 32 year WR who has been hit with injuries lately and could be looking at a steep decline in the near future, no running game at all, a weak Oline (despite high round picks there), a weak pass rush and needs at all three levels of the defense. How do you draft a TE, who is (albeit a great one) one dimensional and very much reliant on the QB, a varied offense (ie can't just pass every down) and a weaker Oline? How does Pitts help with changing that?
If they stay at 4 you take the QB for next year and beyond and get ready to eat $ for Ryan's contract in the 2022 off season or take a trade back offer and snag an Ol, a Pass rusher and hopefully another high pick next year.
Pitts would not realize his best potential on a team that will become even more one dimensional with the drafting of a receiving TE only at #4.
Maybe, maybe not. Why not snag Sewell or Chase though?
Both are clearly blue-chip as well and would add more value right away than a QB, or possibly the 4th best QB in this draft. You seem to want to slam a QB in there no matter what for some reason...
I think he's saying that the Falcons are in a tough spot in some ways, and that is probably obvious to other teams as well.
Good chance top 3 QB's gone. That plus Matt Ryan means they probably aren't going QB there. Which also diminishes the value anybody is looking to give in a trade down, so they may not have a lot of options, and may have to take a player there.
Umm .. that's not how a trade market works. Having Matt Ryan has a negligible effect on the Falcons trade prospects.
It is called supply and demand. Full stop. All the Falcs need is two or more teams to want the guy avail at #4. And from the sounds of it there could be several suitors including, Denver, Chicago, NE, WFT, Carolina... They are in a good position if it is just Fields there. They are in a great position if Lance and Fields fall there.
But some TEs are really glorified WRs. Pitts needs to be compared to WRs in terms of positional value.
Y/Tgt aren't everything, but they're a reasonable measure of efficiency and there were only 7 TEs in the top 50 (none in the top 10) in yds/tgt last season. And only 2 of those TEs had >50 receptions (Kelce, Tonyan).
because a competitor can jump them to four. That's why SF went all the way to three, instead of six, so they could be sure to get the guy they wanted after TL and ZW were off the board. They can't be jumped.
Quote:
In comment 15235393 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
In comment 15235365 jvm52106 said:
Quote:
are on the same page here based on another thread where this came up. I keep hearing this argument about the talent that Pitts is overriding needs and draft position for the Falcons. I find that just very simplistic in thinking.
Right now you have a team that is strapped cap wise with a 35 year old, non mobile QB, a 32 year WR who has been hit with injuries lately and could be looking at a steep decline in the near future, no running game at all, a weak Oline (despite high round picks there), a weak pass rush and needs at all three levels of the defense. How do you draft a TE, who is (albeit a great one) one dimensional and very much reliant on the QB, a varied offense (ie can't just pass every down) and a weaker Oline? How does Pitts help with changing that?
If they stay at 4 you take the QB for next year and beyond and get ready to eat $ for Ryan's contract in the 2022 off season or take a trade back offer and snag an Ol, a Pass rusher and hopefully another high pick next year.
Pitts would not realize his best potential on a team that will become even more one dimensional with the drafting of a receiving TE only at #4.
Maybe, maybe not. Why not snag Sewell or Chase though?
Both are clearly blue-chip as well and would add more value right away than a QB, or possibly the 4th best QB in this draft. You seem to want to slam a QB in there no matter what for some reason...
I did? Didn't I say if not the QB then trade back some and get what you need?
You did indeed. I was adding the blue chip guys at #4 too though.
No, I said draft the QB or trade back. You have no argument and yet still do.
Quote:
I am not splitting hairs. TE is better positional value than a RB, especially a TE that has such an impact on passing game.
Besides, I didn't say I would pick Pitts over Sewell or Chase or a trade down. Also, you don't pick a guy at #4 based on need but even if so WR and OL are most certainly needs for ATL.
The NFL disagrees. It's literally the only position (sans special teams) with a lower franchise tag value than RB.
You can look towards franchise tag $ but like most things its not the only consideration in opinions on positional value. And certainly doesn't apply to every single draft prospect.
Let me know what Running Back is being picked before Pitts this year?
Let me know what TE was even in the consideration over Barkley? Or Elliott? Or Fournette? Or McCaffrey? The lack of a highly rated RB this year, has no bearing on the general positional value of RB vs TE.
I think he's saying that the Falcons are in a tough spot in some ways, and that is probably obvious to other teams as well.
Good chance top 3 QB's gone. That plus Matt Ryan means they probably aren't going QB there. Which also diminishes the value anybody is looking to give in a trade down, so they may not have a lot of options, and may have to take a player there.
I don't think they are going QB because of the Ryan contract/restruct this year. But who knows what their evals say about the 4th or 5th QBs...maybe they are high enough for their new GM.
Nevertheless, ATL is doing their best to show interest in anything and everything. And they seem to be doing a good job because the media sure as hell doesn't know what they are doing.
Not sure about the value comment, yet...
Quote:
In comment 15235371 AcesUp said:
Quote:
Is a good place to start. There's some nuance there probably dependant on scheme and skillset. You also have to take into account position scarcity as well - LT tends to carry more weight in my mind because they're so difficult to find while a decent RB isn't that difficult to find. Players playing the same position with different skillsets need to be judged differently - pass catching TE is more valuable than a blocking TE, interior DLs that can rush the passer hold a lot more value than guys that aren't elite in that area, think Leonard Williams contract being 2x greater than Tomlinsons.
Simple answer is to look at which players recieve the biggest contracts and that's a good starting point as to how the NFL values them.
So some combination of contract numbers and how highly they are drafted, and how often would be a good indication of positional value.
I wonder, broken down by the top 5 picks in the draft, what positions are most drafted there, and does it end up correlating to contract numbers? For instance, I would imagine QB is the position most taken in the Top 5 historically if I had to guess, and the contract numbers line up with that. I've got to think OT and DE are up there as well. Has anybody ever broken this down by position?
The draft position thing is good to look at as well. I always found it weird that CBs and WRs tend to be valued the same in the draft but their contracts are much different with WRs getting bigger deals. The gap is shortening there but there was a stretch where the top corners were getting like 12m/yr and WRs 20m/yr, it signaled more of an inefficiency in my mind where you should be targeting corners in free agency.
I think it has to be some combination. The RB franchise tag is low, but those that do get a second contract usually get a pretty solid one. So I think it has to be some combination of Draft Position/Franchise Tag Value/Second Contract Value when determining overall positional value.
Quote:
In comment 15235385 giants#1 said:
Quote:
I am not splitting hairs. TE is better positional value than a RB, especially a TE that has such an impact on passing game.
Besides, I didn't say I would pick Pitts over Sewell or Chase or a trade down. Also, you don't pick a guy at #4 based on need but even if so WR and OL are most certainly needs for ATL.
The NFL disagrees. It's literally the only position (sans special teams) with a lower franchise tag value than RB.
You can look towards franchise tag $ but like most things its not the only consideration in opinions on positional value. And certainly doesn't apply to every single draft prospect.
Let me know what Running Back is being picked before Pitts this year?
Let me know what TE was even in the consideration over Barkley? Or Elliott? Or Fournette? Or McCaffrey? The lack of a highly rated RB this year, has no bearing on the general positional value of RB vs TE.
oh my goodness. I thought the issue of RB positional value was settled. There are teams that will never draft a RB earlier than the third round.
Honestly, it never fails. You and Britt have an antagonistic/victim bent that can't be solved.
Quote:
!
Honestly, it never fails. You and Britt have an antagonistic/victim bent that can't be solved.
You don't think it's a fair question based on everything I laid out in the OP?
Quote:
I think he's saying that the Falcons are in a tough spot in some ways, and that is probably obvious to other teams as well.
Good chance top 3 QB's gone. That plus Matt Ryan means they probably aren't going QB there. Which also diminishes the value anybody is looking to give in a trade down, so they may not have a lot of options, and may have to take a player there.
I don't think they are going QB because of the Ryan contract/restruct this year. But who knows what their evals say about the 4th or 5th QBs...maybe they are high enough for their new GM.
Nevertheless, ATL is doing their best to show interest in anything and everything. And they seem to be doing a good job because the media sure as hell doesn't know what they are doing.
Not sure about the value comment, yet...
The Falcons do not have to show interest in a QB to make their #4 pick valuable. Other teams have to want it. And it seems there are teams that do want it.
Quote:
In comment 15235345 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
!
Honestly, it never fails. You and Britt have an antagonistic/victim bent that can't be solved.
You don't think it's a fair question based on everything I laid out in the OP?
I think you're one of the posters who rails AGAINST positional value in defending Barkley, then uses it to claim that Pitts won't be drafted in the top five, and THEN wants to trade up to draft Pitts.
I think that it's best for me to stay out of the argument entirely because the logical zig-zag is a bit much for me. But I find the antagonism annoying.
Quote:
In comment 15235385 giants#1 said:
Quote:
I am not splitting hairs. TE is better positional value than a RB, especially a TE that has such an impact on passing game.
Besides, I didn't say I would pick Pitts over Sewell or Chase or a trade down. Also, you don't pick a guy at #4 based on need but even if so WR and OL are most certainly needs for ATL.
The NFL disagrees. It's literally the only position (sans special teams) with a lower franchise tag value than RB.
You can look towards franchise tag $ but like most things its not the only consideration in opinions on positional value. And certainly doesn't apply to every single draft prospect.
Let me know what Running Back is being picked before Pitts this year?
Let me know what TE was even in the consideration over Barkley? Or Elliott? Or Fournette? Or McCaffrey? The lack of a highly rated RB this year, has no bearing on the general positional value of RB vs TE.
I didn't suggest there was a TE worthy of it in those years. That isn't the point.
It's that the TE Pitts is worthy of it this year. And far more worthy than any RB too, imv...
Quote:
In comment 15235426 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15235345 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
!
Honestly, it never fails. You and Britt have an antagonistic/victim bent that can't be solved.
You don't think it's a fair question based on everything I laid out in the OP?
I think you're one of the posters who rails AGAINST positional value in defending Barkley, then uses it to claim that Pitts won't be drafted in the top five, and THEN wants to trade up to draft Pitts.
I think that it's best for me to stay out of the argument entirely because the logical zig-zag is a bit much for me. But I find the antagonism annoying.
Yeah, its clear that there was a bit of an agenda coming out here. Not altogether but somewhat.
But nevertheless, I had some free time this morning before my lunch appt. so its always fun to see how far they want to go with this...
Quote:
In comment 15235426 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15235345 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
!
Honestly, it never fails. You and Britt have an antagonistic/victim bent that can't be solved.
You don't think it's a fair question based on everything I laid out in the OP?
I think you're one of the posters who rails AGAINST positional value in defending Barkley, then uses it to claim that Pitts won't be drafted in the top five, and THEN wants to trade up to draft Pitts.
I think that it's best for me to stay out of the argument entirely because the logical zig-zag is a bit much for me. But I find the antagonism annoying.
Couple of corrections:
1. I defend Barkley's positional value. I don't rail against it. I just hadn't had to frame it that way before 2018.
2. I want to trade up for Pitts IF he were to fall to 7 or 8, and if we could get away with trading Evan Engram and a mid round pick next year. Not at all costs, and certainly not in the Top 5.
If anybody is railing AGAINST taking people because of positional value, it's you.
I don't put nearly the weight in it that you and others do. I'm just trying to understand the hypocrisy.
the second part is that RB are really dependent on the OL. Often when great RB goes down his back up comes in and does great. We have seen this as Giant fans. RB success does really correlate to winning in today's NFL. I know you are going to point out the rushing attacks of winning teams but this happens because they are usually ahead in games.
We are 7-10 without Barkley in the game and 8-23 with him in.
If anybody is railing AGAINST taking people because of positional value, it's you.
I don't put nearly the weight in it that you and others do. I'm just trying to understand the hypocrisy.
You're the one who started a thread on positional value.
Just like you're the one who took a victory lap about RBs getting more than 300 carries.
If anybody is railing AGAINST taking people because of positional value, it's you.
I don't put nearly the weight in it that you and others do. I'm just trying to understand the hypocrisy.
And there it is, the claim of "hypocrisy" finally enters the fray...
Should I be surprised it took this long?
Care to back that up?
Quote:
Just like I was fine picking Barkley at 2.
If anybody is railing AGAINST taking people because of positional value, it's you.
I don't put nearly the weight in it that you and others do. I'm just trying to understand the hypocrisy.
You're the one who started a thread on positional value.
Just like you're the one who took a victory lap about RBs getting more than 300 carries.
And there is no hypocrisy.
Posters acknowledging the likelihood of Atlanta taking Pitts is not the same as posters suggesting that TEs are immune to the same positional value scrutiny as RBs (namely Barkley). It's just an acceptance of a potential outcome.
If I acknowledge that every time I turn left out of my street, I hit a red light at the corner, am I somehow in favor of hitting red lights?
Please tell me your reading comprehension is better than it seems right now.
Quote:
oh my goodness. I thought the issue of RB positional value was settled. There are teams that will never draft a RB earlier than the third round.
Care to back that up?
it comes up all the time if you consume NFL content.
Quote:
Christ, you're filled with hyperbole lately. Yesterday, it was claiming that Allen was looked at as possibly the #1 prospect in the draft. now it is this nugget:
Quote:
oh my goodness. I thought the issue of RB positional value was settled. There are teams that will never draft a RB earlier than the third round.
Care to back that up?
it comes up all the time if you consume NFL content.
Judging by your mock draft trade thread, I think we can safely assume that it was NFL content that you wrote.
Quote:
Christ, you're filled with hyperbole lately. Yesterday, it was claiming that Allen was looked at as possibly the #1 prospect in the draft. now it is this nugget:
Quote:
oh my goodness. I thought the issue of RB positional value was settled. There are teams that will never draft a RB earlier than the third round.
Care to back that up?
it comes up all the time if you consume NFL content.
Are you kidding me?? Just looking at several teams, all of them have picked a RB in the first three rounds in the past 20 years.
What "NFL content" should I consume
Quote:
In comment 15235457 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
Christ, you're filled with hyperbole lately. Yesterday, it was claiming that Allen was looked at as possibly the #1 prospect in the draft. now it is this nugget:
Quote:
oh my goodness. I thought the issue of RB positional value was settled. There are teams that will never draft a RB earlier than the third round.
Care to back that up?
it comes up all the time if you consume NFL content.
Judging by your mock draft trade thread, I think we can safely assume that it was NFL content that you wrote.
Did I hurt your fee-fees at some point? Do you honestly believe most NFL teams favor spending a first round pick on a RB or are you just interested in haranguing me?
Quote:
In comment 15235457 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
Christ, you're filled with hyperbole lately. Yesterday, it was claiming that Allen was looked at as possibly the #1 prospect in the draft. now it is this nugget:
Quote:
oh my goodness. I thought the issue of RB positional value was settled. There are teams that will never draft a RB earlier than the third round.
Care to back that up?
it comes up all the time if you consume NFL content.
Are you kidding me?? Just looking at several teams, all of them have picked a RB in the first three rounds in the past 20 years.
What "NFL content" should I consume
As you are fond of saying, show some initiative and google it.
Should I Google the rest, or should I be confident you are once again full of shit?
Quote:
In comment 15235464 Producer said:
Quote:
In comment 15235457 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
Christ, you're filled with hyperbole lately. Yesterday, it was claiming that Allen was looked at as possibly the #1 prospect in the draft. now it is this nugget:
Quote:
oh my goodness. I thought the issue of RB positional value was settled. There are teams that will never draft a RB earlier than the third round.
Care to back that up?
it comes up all the time if you consume NFL content.
Judging by your mock draft trade thread, I think we can safely assume that it was NFL content that you wrote.
Did I hurt your fee-fees at some point? Do you honestly believe most NFL teams favor spending a first round pick on a RB or are you just interested in haranguing me?
Well, considering there have been 49 RB's selected in the 1st round in the past twenty years, it sure seems to indicate that NFL are willing to spend a 1st round draft pick on RB's.
Should I Google the rest, or should I be confident you are once again full of shit?
yea 20 years ago doesn't count.
Quote:
Google, I looked at 12 teams. All of them have selected a RB in the 1st 3 rounds at some point in the past 20 years.
Should I Google the rest, or should I be confident you are once again full of shit?
yea 20 years ago doesn't count.
How about the past 5? 8 different teams have selected a RB in the 1st round, 3 of them in the Top 5.
I personally wouldn't take RB or TE in first half of the first round.
If Pitts is that once every 20 year prospect and you select him in the top 10, he better be the next Tony G. Can't afford to miss on that pick.
Just as the argument was that you can find good RB production late in the draft, the same applies to TE.
Quote:
In comment 15235507 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
Google, I looked at 12 teams. All of them have selected a RB in the 1st 3 rounds at some point in the past 20 years.
Should I Google the rest, or should I be confident you are once again full of shit?
yea 20 years ago doesn't count.
How about the past 5? 8 different teams have selected a RB in the 1st round, 3 of them in the Top 5.
you want to pretend this conversation hasn't been happening over the past ten years? Go ahead. I don't stick my head in the sand. A lot of ink has been spilled and analytics applied to the subject. First round RBs are a bad idea for most teams. And what I wrote was:
"There are teams that will never draft a RB earlier than the third round."
So 8 teams isn't most teams.. right?
Quote:
Google, I looked at 12 teams. All of them have selected a RB in the 1st 3 rounds at some point in the past 20 years.
Should I Google the rest, or should I be confident you are once again full of shit?
yea 20 years ago doesn't count.
I said in the past 20 years. Are you being purposely dense to hide the fact that you made up shit again about unknown teams never selecting a RB in the first 3 rounds?
I think taking Barkley at 2 was wrong. I stand by that. It also was not a terminable offense. I like the kid and enjoy watching him. I understand the rational behind the pick and those who support it. I just disagree.
An opposing viewpoint does not bother me. Why is everyone offended when people don't agree?
And RBs are only above kickers/punters. TEs are above RBs by $1M per year.
But it is a good question with the TE position in general.
For me, just by the rules of today's game and the way a good TE can impact the middle of the field (pressuring safeties and LBs) or outside the hashes (pulling a LB, safety or corner wide), that is a very valuable skill set. The trick is finding one who has those attributes.
And for a guy like Pitts, he seems to have those attributes in spades. So he would seem to be worth the stretch...
I think taking Barkley at 2 was wrong. I stand by that. It also was not a terminable offense. I like the kid and enjoy watching him. I understand the rational behind the pick and those who support it. I just disagree.
An opposing viewpoint does not bother me. Why is everyone offended when people don't agree?
I don't care that people disagree. I just find it frustrating when logic isn't applied consistently.
Quote:
In comment 15235464 Producer said:
Quote:
In comment 15235457 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
Christ, you're filled with hyperbole lately. Yesterday, it was claiming that Allen was looked at as possibly the #1 prospect in the draft. now it is this nugget:
Quote:
oh my goodness. I thought the issue of RB positional value was settled. There are teams that will never draft a RB earlier than the third round.
Care to back that up?
it comes up all the time if you consume NFL content.
Judging by your mock draft trade thread, I think we can safely assume that it was NFL content that you wrote.
Did I hurt your fee-fees at some point? Do you honestly believe most NFL teams favor spending a first round pick on a RB or are you just interested in haranguing me?
No, I just think your Trey Lance lovefest is suspect, your mock draft thread was absurd since you posted a scenario that you concocted out of pure fiction, and it colors my view on any other posts of yours. I'll leave it at that.
Quote:
In comment 15235507 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
Google, I looked at 12 teams. All of them have selected a RB in the 1st 3 rounds at some point in the past 20 years.
Should I Google the rest, or should I be confident you are once again full of shit?
yea 20 years ago doesn't count.
I said in the past 20 years. Are you being purposely dense to hide the fact that you made up shit again about unknown teams never selecting a RB in the first 3 rounds?
Try to stay in reality. And try to put a cap on your cursing syndrome. I said there are teams that will not draft first round QBs. It is widely reported and discussed. I can send you a thousand links if you like, but I think, in spite of your anger and control issues, you can still do that yourself.
You can't even keep your own arguments straight - yet you are worried about my cursing?? Why not channel some of that attention to facts, Chief.
Name the teams that will "never draft a RB in the first three rounds" and define when "never" begins.
You can't even keep your own arguments straight - yet you are worried about my cursing?? Why not channel some of that attention to facts, Chief.
I said:
"There are teams that will never draft a RB earlier than the third round."
so you are misrepresenting what I said. And it remains a reasonable statement.
In terms of the draft, I think it's about how much difference that player can make vs. what you can put on the field as an alternative. That's why I agreed with Peter King's point the other day - that WRs tend to be over-valued.
So, in terms of Pitts, you look at who would likely be on the field if a team doesn't draft him and think about how much difference he could make if you do. Who comes off the field and what does the change mean for the team as a whole.
I know this is not perfectly articulated, but hopefully it makes sense.
Quote:
It matters little if teams drafted running back in the first three rounds. It only matters if it a wise decision. IE 50 million people could do something mind numbingly dumb, that doesn't make it correct.
I think taking Barkley at 2 was wrong. I stand by that. It also was not a terminable offense. I like the kid and enjoy watching him. I understand the rational behind the pick and those who support it. I just disagree.
An opposing viewpoint does not bother me. Why is everyone offended when people don't agree?
I don't care that people disagree. I just find it frustrating when logic isn't applied consistently.
Where is the logic application failing you?
Is it possible what was more logical 5, 10 and 20 years ago in the NFL is less logical today or 5 or 10 years from now?
Quote:
when did "never picking a RB in the first 3 rounds" become voluminous information about not selecting a RB in round 1??
You can't even keep your own arguments straight - yet you are worried about my cursing?? Why not channel some of that attention to facts, Chief.
I said:
"There are teams that will never draft a RB earlier than the third round."
so you are misrepresenting what I said. And it remains a reasonable statement.
LOL. It's a ridiculous statement and it isn't rooted in history.
OK. Find any team who has said they won't draft a RB earlier than the 3rd round. Use Google. Provide the voluminous information at your fingertips, Ace.
Quote:
In comment 15235556 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
when did "never picking a RB in the first 3 rounds" become voluminous information about not selecting a RB in round 1??
You can't even keep your own arguments straight - yet you are worried about my cursing?? Why not channel some of that attention to facts, Chief.
I said:
"There are teams that will never draft a RB earlier than the third round."
so you are misrepresenting what I said. And it remains a reasonable statement.
LOL. It's a ridiculous statement and it isn't rooted in history.
OK. Find any team who has said they won't draft a RB earlier than the 3rd round. Use Google. Provide the voluminous information at your fingertips, Ace.
Yes I should provide to you public statements of the sort teams never make.
Quote:
It matters little if teams drafted running back in the first three rounds. It only matters if it a wise decision. IE 50 million people could do something mind numbingly dumb, that doesn't make it correct.
I think taking Barkley at 2 was wrong. I stand by that. It also was not a terminable offense. I like the kid and enjoy watching him. I understand the rational behind the pick and those who support it. I just disagree.
An opposing viewpoint does not bother me. Why is everyone offended when people don't agree?
I don't care that people disagree. I just find it frustrating when logic isn't applied consistently.
Is there anyone who you've seen argue against the Barkley pick turn around and be IN FAVOR of Pitts being picked in the top 5? Or are they just acknowledging something that they believe to be fait accompli?
Isn't there a difference?
You were the one that told me to Google this well known-fact. So tell me what to Google.
I'm assuming I should try "Nuggets of info Producer has pulled from his ass"?
If you are going to lecture people on using Google, don't make shit up.
Quote:
In comment 15235538 Thegratefulhead said:
Quote:
It matters little if teams drafted running back in the first three rounds. It only matters if it a wise decision. IE 50 million people could do something mind numbingly dumb, that doesn't make it correct.
I think taking Barkley at 2 was wrong. I stand by that. It also was not a terminable offense. I like the kid and enjoy watching him. I understand the rational behind the pick and those who support it. I just disagree.
An opposing viewpoint does not bother me. Why is everyone offended when people don't agree?
I don't care that people disagree. I just find it frustrating when logic isn't applied consistently.
Is there anyone who you've seen argue against the Barkley pick turn around and be IN FAVOR of Pitts being picked in the top 5? Or are they just acknowledging something that they believe to be fait accompli?
Isn't there a difference?
Look at Jimmy Googs first post on this very thread.
Name a team that will never take a RB before the 3rd round, and provide some supporting evidence. You are the one that said it is voluminous - so posting just one snippet should be easy. From Google, of course.
Jimmy Googs : 10:12 am : link : reply
around an aging Matt Ryan. Yes, they restructured his deal but mostly because they had HUGE cap issues and his was one of the few they could change and get material $ from to get under the cap for 2021. Not ideal, but they also realize Ryan isn't in their longer term plans either.
Pitts at Tight End just happens to be one of the biggest non-QB talents in the entire draft so why wouldn't any team (no matter how old their QB is) be interested? The idea is to get the best players and he is universally seen as one of them.
Now imagine these changes and how you'd read and respond to it:
Britt in VA : 10:12 am : link : reply
around an aging Eli Manning. Yes, they restructured his deal but mostly because they had HUGE cap issues and his was one of the few they could change and get material $ from to get under the cap for 2018. Not ideal, but they also realize Manning isn't in their longer term plans either.
Barkley at Running Back just happens to be one of the biggest non-QB talents in the entire draft so why wouldn't any team (no matter how old their QB is) be interested? The idea is to get the best players and he is universally seen as one of them.
You were the one that told me to Google this well known-fact. So tell me what to Google.
I'm assuming I should try "Nuggets of info Producer has pulled from his ass"?
If you are going to lecture people on using Google, don't make shit up.
still so hostile, huh? You just want to ignore the reporting and analysis about positional value. That is your right.
I'll add something. Just bc it doesn't make sense to spend high draft capital *today* on RB. Doesn't exclude the idea that strategy and thinking will change, and in five years, as the game evolves, there will be a reversion to spend more draft capital on RBs.
Quote:
well of course you should, Boss.
You were the one that told me to Google this well known-fact. So tell me what to Google.
I'm assuming I should try "Nuggets of info Producer has pulled from his ass"?
If you are going to lecture people on using Google, don't make shit up.
still so hostile, huh? You just want to ignore the reporting and analysis about positional value. That is your right.
I'll add something. Just bc it doesn't make sense to spend high draft capital *today* on RB. Doesn't exclude the idea that strategy and thinking will change, and in five years, as the game evolves, there will be a reversion to spend more draft capital on RBs.
But teams ARE doing it. Three teams in the past five years have taken a RB Top 5. And that doesn't even count Christian McCaffrey.
Quote:
In comment 15235545 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
In comment 15235538 Thegratefulhead said:
Quote:
It matters little if teams drafted running back in the first three rounds. It only matters if it a wise decision. IE 50 million people could do something mind numbingly dumb, that doesn't make it correct.
I think taking Barkley at 2 was wrong. I stand by that. It also was not a terminable offense. I like the kid and enjoy watching him. I understand the rational behind the pick and those who support it. I just disagree.
An opposing viewpoint does not bother me. Why is everyone offended when people don't agree?
I don't care that people disagree. I just find it frustrating when logic isn't applied consistently.
Is there anyone who you've seen argue against the Barkley pick turn around and be IN FAVOR of Pitts being picked in the top 5? Or are they just acknowledging something that they believe to be fait accompli?
Isn't there a difference?
Look at Jimmy Googs first post on this very thread.
You're right, Britt. Everyone is just a giant hypocrite, bad people all out to get you and your Giants fandom. Every good RB gets 300 carries without a problem and positional value is a farce. You win.
Now carry on with your annual 10-6 (now 10-7, right?) predictions and random undeserved victory laps. We can all see how much actual thought you put into these debates vs. how much you just attempt to stir up an antagonistic debate.
Can't wait for your next "posted without context" thread.
again - name these teams. Point to any reference that says a team will NEVER draft a RB early. You told me to use Google and I'm coming up empty, Pal.
I'd say the burden is on you, especially since you explicitly said Google will produce the results.
If you stop making shit up, these discussions will cease to exist in the future. The choice is yours, Fella.
Quote:
In comment 15235601 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
well of course you should, Boss.
You were the one that told me to Google this well known-fact. So tell me what to Google.
I'm assuming I should try "Nuggets of info Producer has pulled from his ass"?
If you are going to lecture people on using Google, don't make shit up.
still so hostile, huh? You just want to ignore the reporting and analysis about positional value. That is your right.
I'll add something. Just bc it doesn't make sense to spend high draft capital *today* on RB. Doesn't exclude the idea that strategy and thinking will change, and in five years, as the game evolves, there will be a reversion to spend more draft capital on RBs.
But teams ARE doing it. Three teams in the past five years have taken a RB Top 5. And that doesn't even count Christian McCaffrey.
That doesn't contradict my statement. Look FMiC is just got a bug up his ass because he got embarrassed 14 months ago when we discussed the pandemic. I'll always have that over him and he can't take it. He was so wrong about the pandemic it is quite comical. Sad, but also comical.
You found one post that acknowledged what the Falcons are thinking.
But we're not Falcons fans so it doesn't fucking matter.
Again - you made the claim in this thread. Back it up.
Quote:
If you can't admit the intrinsic bias in what I just illustrated, we can just agree to disagree.
You found one post that acknowledged what the Falcons are thinking.
But we're not Falcons fans so it doesn't fucking matter.
You asked a direct question to give an example of this happening and I gave it to you.
Agree to disagree then.
Quote:
It matters little if teams drafted running back in the first three rounds. It only matters if it a wise decision. IE 50 million people could do something mind numbingly dumb, that doesn't make it correct.
I think taking Barkley at 2 was wrong. I stand by that. It also was not a terminable offense. I like the kid and enjoy watching him. I understand the rational behind the pick and those who support it. I just disagree.
An opposing viewpoint does not bother me. Why is everyone offended when people don't agree?
I don't care that people disagree. I just find it frustrating when logic isn't applied consistently.
To me, it feels like you are still mad at the people that were against the Barkley pick. It appears to be the motivation behind the thread. Is it not?
Again - you made the claim in this thread. Back it up.
I'm going to give you links to analysts and beat reporters and you are going to say "what the fuck do they know". You won't accept anything other than a GM saying it, which is the kind of thing GMs don't say. So I know there is no evidence I can provide that can satisfy your narrow purview. But the conversation is undeniable. And the success of 3rd, 4th and 5th round RBs, even UDFAs like James Robinson, demonstrates that NFL teams are taking the analysis seriously. And my comment is not bombast.. I simply said there are teams that won't draft a RB earlier than the 3rd round. I'll stick with that for now, since that is where the analysis is, for now.
Quote:
In comment 15235538 Thegratefulhead said:
Quote:
It matters little if teams drafted running back in the first three rounds. It only matters if it a wise decision. IE 50 million people could do something mind numbingly dumb, that doesn't make it correct.
I think taking Barkley at 2 was wrong. I stand by that. It also was not a terminable offense. I like the kid and enjoy watching him. I understand the rational behind the pick and those who support it. I just disagree.
An opposing viewpoint does not bother me. Why is everyone offended when people don't agree?
I don't care that people disagree. I just find it frustrating when logic isn't applied consistently.
I don't agree with the "logic" in your OP. I will refrain from appealing to a higher power. Calling Pitts a TE is not accurate enough. He plays the position but that is where it ends. When you put on the tape(watch video on the internet), did it feel like you were watching TE highlights or Julio Jones highlights. It jumps off the screen for me. If you are seeing an old school 2 way TE I get it. I see a man even when completely covered that catches everything anyway and an elite red zone threat.
To me, it feels like you are still mad at the people that were against the Barkley pick. It appears to be the motivation behind the thread. Is it not?
What "logic" in my op do you not agree with? It was a question based on two similar situations, not a testament to positional value.
Since I referenced the Giants and Barkley directly, I'd say it was pretty clear I was comparing the two.
Mad? No.
Curious as to why the same logic isn't being applied to TE? Yes.
This was purely about the term "positional value" between the two and I think I laid it out quite clearly. There is not hidden agenda, I felt I was quite clear.
QBs on average cost the most, so even if you draft a QB early you are paying a fraction of the cost of a vet for the most part. OT and Pass Rusher are also expensive positions so drafting them saves you cap space.
The other factors ae how easy is it to replace that player in FA? Most good OTs do not make it to FA, same can be said for Pass rushers.
WR last draft and this draft has been WR rich with prospects so the idea is that if you miss on the cream of the crop you can get a good value later.
Now TE is a hard position to evaluate this way because teams have different ideas at TE. If you want a 2 way TE I dont think you draft Pitts. I think with Pitts you have to have an offense that can use him properly. Kind f like the Giants drafting Engram, he hasnt really fit the O. Plus he sucks.
I think TE is somewhere closer to the bottom of positional value mainly because they usually do not impact the game as much as other positions but unlike the Guard position its really hard to find one in FA. Skill position players tend to drop off where line players can hang on longer so there are more available in FA.
Quote:
do you really want to revisit the pandemic thread where I said the economic impact would far surpass the human impact? You think there's a clear winner in that take??
Again - you made the claim in this thread. Back it up.
I'm going to give you links to analysts and beat reporters and you are going to say "what the fuck do they know". You won't accept anything other than a GM saying it, which is the kind of thing GMs don't say. So I know there is no evidence I can provide that can satisfy your narrow purview. But the conversation is undeniable. And the success of 3rd, 4th and 5th round RBs, even UDFAs like James Robinson, demonstrates that NFL teams are taking the analysis seriously. And my comment is not bombast.. I simply said there are teams that won't draft a RB earlier than the 3rd round. I'll stick with that for now, since that is where the analysis is, for now.
And again - that view is incorrect. I'm struggling to find a team that didn't daft a RB in the first two rounds in the past 20 years!
When does "never" begin? Hopefully it comes after the hole where the goalpost used to be.
Quote:
Just a note - Drafting Pitts isn't just some crazy scheme to build
Jimmy Googs : 10:12 am : link : reply
around an aging Matt Ryan. Yes, they restructured his deal but mostly because they had HUGE cap issues and his was one of the few they could change and get material $ from to get under the cap for 2021. Not ideal, but they also realize Ryan isn't in their longer term plans either.
Pitts at Tight End just happens to be one of the biggest non-QB talents in the entire draft so why wouldn't any team (no matter how old their QB is) be interested? The idea is to get the best players and he is universally seen as one of them.
Now imagine these changes and how you'd read and respond to it:
Quote:
Just a note - Drafting Barkley isn't just some crazy scheme to build
Britt in VA : 10:12 am : link : reply
around an aging Eli Manning. Yes, they restructured his deal but mostly because they had HUGE cap issues and his was one of the few they could change and get material $ from to get under the cap for 2018. Not ideal, but they also realize Manning isn't in their longer term plans either.
Barkley at Running Back just happens to be one of the biggest non-QB talents in the entire draft so why wouldn't any team (no matter how old their QB is) be interested? The idea is to get the best players and he is universally seen as one of them.
Burn, Britt. Stop making sense.
Nobody speaks in those absolutes, even when discussing positional value.
I think you are confusing the concept. And for some reason, you won't just admit you are full of shit on the statement
If the Falcons take Pitts, it would be based on a similar view to Barkley.
If the Falcons take Pitts, it would be based on a similar view to Barkley.
Positional value be damned. Yes, thank you.
Nobody speaks in those absolutes, even when discussing positional value.
I think you are confusing the concept. And for some reason, you won't just admit you are full of shit on the statement
So you agree it is generally true, but maybe not absolutely true. Glad you are coming around to reason.
What is frustrating is that people constantly use positional value to strengthen their stance that Barkley was a bad pick, but the examples of who SHOULD have been the pick instead of him, Nelson (G), or in this example TE as an acceptable positional value pick at 4... Well, historically, nothing backs up that G or TE are better position values than RB. In fact, it's drastically opposite.
Get good players. The rest is paralysis by analysis.
Name a team that will never take a RB before the 3rd round, and provide some supporting evidence. You are the one that said it is voluminous - so posting just one snippet should be easy. From Google, of course.
Baltimore has not taken a RB in Round 1 since Jamal Lewis in 2000. New England has not taken a RB in the Top 10 ever I want to say. I get that it is not all of Round 1, but since Robert Edwards in the late 90's the only RB's they have taken were Laurence Maroney in the 20's and Sony Michel at 31. Would have to look at other teams.
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/cash/tight-end/
Looking at RB, there are quite a few first round RBs in the top 10 of RB salary.
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/cash/running-back/
From a draft slot perspective, taking a RB at 4 would be the 6th highest salary in the league for RB, taking a TE at 4 would be the 18th highest salary in the league for TE.
So on the one hand, a first round TE provides better value from a cap perspective, on the other, first round TEs don't really seem to pan out from a long term postional value perspective.
What is frustrating is that people constantly use positional value to strengthen their stance that Barkley was a bad pick, but the examples of who SHOULD have been the pick instead of him, Nelson (G), or in this example TE as an acceptable positional value pick at 4... Well, historically, nothing backs up that G or TE are better position values than RB. In fact, it's drastically opposite.
Get good players. The rest is paralysis by analysis.
A RB at #2 was an epic failure by the Giants in 2018. Many knew it at the time. On the beat reporter mock on Draft Network, just prior to the 2018 draft, the Denver beat openly rooted for the Giants to pick Barkley so they could get Chubb or Nelson, and laughed at how bad the idea was at picking a RB at that spot.
Quote:
In comment 15235545 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
In comment 15235538 Thegratefulhead said:
Quote:
It matters little if teams drafted running back in the first three rounds. It only matters if it a wise decision. IE 50 million people could do something mind numbingly dumb, that doesn't make it correct.
I think taking Barkley at 2 was wrong. I stand by that. It also was not a terminable offense. I like the kid and enjoy watching him. I understand the rational behind the pick and those who support it. I just disagree.
An opposing viewpoint does not bother me. Why is everyone offended when people don't agree?
I don't care that people disagree. I just find it frustrating when logic isn't applied consistently.
I don't agree with the "logic" in your OP. I will refrain from appealing to a higher power. Calling Pitts a TE is not accurate enough. He plays the position but that is where it ends. When you put on the tape(watch video on the internet), did it feel like you were watching TE highlights or Julio Jones highlights. It jumps off the screen for me. If you are seeing an old school 2 way TE I get it. I see a man even when completely covered that catches everything anyway and an elite red zone threat.
To me, it feels like you are still mad at the people that were against the Barkley pick. It appears to be the motivation behind the thread. Is it not?
What "logic" in my op do you not agree with? It was a question based on two similar situations, not a testament to positional value.
Since I referenced the Giants and Barkley directly, I'd say it was pretty clear I was comparing the two.
Mad? No.
Curious as to why the same logic isn't being applied to TE? Yes.
This was purely about the term "positional value" between the two and I think I laid it out quite clearly. There is not hidden agenda, I felt I was quite clear.
When you watch highlights of Pitts, what do you see?
That is much more Julio Jones than Mark Bavaro.
C'mon man, if he wasn't such Unicorn he wouldn't be talked about being drafted so high. The most compelling argument to me about not taking RBs so high is that they actually have a half life. You use them up. Because of the way they get used, they get injured. That happened with Barkley, we have hindsight. The Giants played 48 games since they drafted him.
He missed over 1/3 of them.
When Barkley was out 7-10
When Barkley was in 8-23
That debate is over. ROI not good enough for #2 overall, we should done something else.
Pitts Highlights - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 15235624 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
If you can't admit the intrinsic bias in what I just illustrated, we can just agree to disagree.
You found one post that acknowledged what the Falcons are thinking.
But we're not Falcons fans so it doesn't fucking matter.
You asked a direct question to give an example of this happening and I gave it to you.
Agree to disagree then.
Yes, we can agree that what the Falcons do, and how it is received by the media - which, let's be honest, is all that matters to you (in case we need to dig up your relative enjoyment of pregame shows) - is irrelevant to whether the Giants made the right choice.
But you felt it was worth a thread, because you're feeling a bit annoyed that the media isn't criticizing Pitts the way that some BBI posters criticized Barkley. Nevermind that it was two different sets of critics. Nevermind that it was two different teams. Nevermind that it was two different drafts, with two different draft classes. You're upset that you feel like Pitts at #4 is being more widely accepted than Barkley at #2.
Stop being a victim about sports fan shit that doesn't actually involve you. It doesn't matter if Pitts is criticized more, less, or the same as Barkley. All that matters is win/loss record. We'll see if the Falcons are right (assuming they take Pitts), just like we've seen what the Giants have done since they drafted Barkley.
And that last part was because you invited it.
Quote:
again, Producer, there is a simple way to provide support for your point.
Name a team that will never take a RB before the 3rd round, and provide some supporting evidence. You are the one that said it is voluminous - so posting just one snippet should be easy. From Google, of course.
Baltimore has not taken a RB in Round 1 since Jamal Lewis in 2000. New England has not taken a RB in the Top 10 ever I want to say. I get that it is not all of Round 1, but since Robert Edwards in the late 90's the only RB's they have taken were Laurence Maroney in the 20's and Sony Michel at 31. Would have to look at other teams.
Mike, I saw there were a few teams not to take a RB in Round 1. Those few teams have taken RB's in Round 2 though. I don't think a single team in the league has not drafted a RB in the 1st 3 rounds in the past 20 years.
Even though I'm being told by Producer that there are teams that will NEVER draft a RB before round 3. His point is even specious if he kept it to Round 1.
I believe the term/meaning has SOME value but it is WAY overused and distorted, here, and agenda driven.
There are very few TEs who are elite pass catchers. In today's game there are only two - Kelce and Kittle. When viewed as an elite pass catcher his positional value jumps from the bottom to somewhere around CB/WR.
We don't have a pick high enough to be comparing Pitts to Barkley.
People on this board are drooling over Pitts when we have the ELEVENTH pick in the draft. And we won't be close enough to pick him.
You're upset that people on this board are acknowledging that he'll be gone by the time we pick? Or you're upset that people on this board wish we could have him at a significantly lower pick than the one we used on Barkley?
Because if you're only talking about this board, it's not remotely apples to apples. Just another antagonistic thread from you.
I believe the term/meaning has SOME value but it is WAY overused and distorted, here, and agenda driven.
I think you need to realize that knowledge builds over time, and Google search results also diminish over time.
That's bad data.
There are very few TEs who are elite pass catchers. In today's game there are only two - Kelce and Kittle. When viewed as an elite pass catcher his positional value jumps from the bottom to somewhere around CB/WR.
What is Waller considered?
Quote:
not a normal tight end.
There are very few TEs who are elite pass catchers. In today's game there are only two - Kelce and Kittle. When viewed as an elite pass catcher his positional value jumps from the bottom to somewhere around CB/WR.
What is Waller considered?
Waller is actually PFF's comp for Pitts, ironically.
I'm not on the Pitts bandwagon, because I just don't think he fits what the Giants actually want to do offensively, despite DG's statement that he's a "different kind of cat" or whatever. I think they see the move TE as a lower value part, and are fine with Engram in that role for this year and wouldn't be shocked if they go for someone like Noah Gray a bit later in the draft to replace Engram's role, but I don't think this offense intends to use the primary TE as a downfield threat.
Quote:
not a normal tight end.
There are very few TEs who are elite pass catchers. In today's game there are only two - Kelce and Kittle. When viewed as an elite pass catcher his positional value jumps from the bottom to somewhere around CB/WR.
What is Waller considered?
yes - three TEs.. Waller included.
Quote:
In comment 15235696 Producer said:
Quote:
not a normal tight end.
There are very few TEs who are elite pass catchers. In today's game there are only two - Kelce and Kittle. When viewed as an elite pass catcher his positional value jumps from the bottom to somewhere around CB/WR.
What is Waller considered?
Waller is actually PFF's comp for Pitts, ironically.
I'm not on the Pitts bandwagon, because I just don't think he fits what the Giants actually want to do offensively, despite DG's statement that he's a "different kind of cat" or whatever. I think they see the move TE as a lower value part, and are fine with Engram in that role for this year and wouldn't be shocked if they go for someone like Noah Gray a bit later in the draft to replace Engram's role, but I don't think this offense intends to use the primary TE as a downfield threat.
I agree with that. I think Pitts is going to be a weapon, but I'd pass on him and strengthen other areas.
Quote:
In comment 15235696 Producer said:
Quote:
not a normal tight end.
There are very few TEs who are elite pass catchers. In today's game there are only two - Kelce and Kittle. When viewed as an elite pass catcher his positional value jumps from the bottom to somewhere around CB/WR.
What is Waller considered?
Waller is actually PFF's comp for Pitts, ironically.
I'm not on the Pitts bandwagon, because I just don't think he fits what the Giants actually want to do offensively, despite DG's statement that he's a "different kind of cat" or whatever. I think they see the move TE as a lower value part, and are fine with Engram in that role for this year and wouldn't be shocked if they go for someone like Noah Gray a bit later in the draft to replace Engram's role, but I don't think this offense intends to use the primary TE as a downfield threat.
I'm with you that I would not trade valuable resources right now to move up to get him, but he would help any offense. He's a mismatch everywhere on the field. Jones especially could use a guy like that. A guy who can't be covered and has an enormous wing span covers up Jones' accuracy issues. That's why Golladay was a good add.
.. and in the words of Pete Townshend of the Who, from Tommy - "gotta feeling '21 is gonna be a good year".
And when the Giants go to the Super Bowl in Feb of '23 (you heard me), no one's gonna question or give a shit where SB (who'll be tagged or extended) or DJ were picked.
They offered valid reasons to avoid paying Barkley.
“I’m on record saying that second pick [in 2018] should’ve been a quarterback,” said Dan Hatman, a former scout for the Giants, Jets, and Eagles. “So I don’t think you have to put good money after bad. I have no problem with him. It’s just [that] I’ve got to get more value across my team than you have. And running back, unfortunately, is dependent on offensive line. It just is.”
And strong arguments to not dismiss a second contract so easily.
“The running game is not devalued,” said former NFL GM Charley Casserly. “That’s a myth, OK? You talk to coaches, the running game is not devalued. If he’s an elite back for you, then it’s rare you don’t pay him. You could say, ‘Well, just go get another one.’ Well, sometimes you just don’t go get another one. It’s easier said than done. So I don’t have a problem with paying the running backs.”
I also found this telling:
You think Saquon Barkley will play his entire career with Giants? Don’t be so sure - ( New Window )
However the reasoning I've seen behind Pitts being #1 is that "he's basically a WR who can also play TE" rather than a natural TE. That makes sense, when you watch him play he does look like an easier fit to play outside than a true TE like a Hockenson.
But I'm still scared that we're just assuming a college TE can just go into the NFL and dominate as a WR. It's why I have him ranked below Chase and Smith.
2018 Barkley yards/(rushes+targets): 5.3
2018 leaguewide average play yards gained: 5.6
Career Kelce yards/target: 9.2
Throwing the ball to Kelce is a significantly better play than handing off or throwing to Barkley. As a matter of fact, handing off or throwing to Barkley in 2018 was a below average play.
And it's not just Barkley. Look at the recent scrimmage yards leaders:
2017 Gurley yards/(rushes+targets): 5.7
2017 leaguewide average play yards gained: 5.3
2019 McCaffrey yards/(rushes+targets): 5.6
2019 leaguewide average play yards gained: 5.5
2020 Henry yards/(rushes+targets): 5.2
2020 leaguewide average play yards gained: 5.6
For scale, Wayne Gallman's 2020 yards/(rushes+targets) was 4.7.
It is inefficient to build an offense around a running back.
However the reasoning I've seen behind Pitts being #1 is that "he's basically a WR who can also play TE" rather than a natural TE. That makes sense, when you watch him play he does look like an easier fit to play outside than a true TE like a Hockenson.
But I'm still scared that we're just assuming a college TE can just go into the NFL and dominate as a WR. It's why I have him ranked below Chase and Smith.
Pitts seems like he will be a bigger, stronger, faster, Julio Jones.
There are very few TEs who are elite pass catchers. In today's game there are only two - Kelce and Kittle. When viewed as an elite pass catcher his positional value jumps from the bottom to somewhere around CB/WR.
Kelce and Kittle are much better blockers than Pitts. A better comparison is what does Darren Waller add?
Quote:
In comment 15235545 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
In comment 15235538 Thegratefulhead said:
Quote:
It matters little if teams drafted running back in the first three rounds. It only matters if it a wise decision. IE 50 million people could do something mind numbingly dumb, that doesn't make it correct.
I think taking Barkley at 2 was wrong. I stand by that. It also was not a terminable offense. I like the kid and enjoy watching him. I understand the rational behind the pick and those who support it. I just disagree.
An opposing viewpoint does not bother me. Why is everyone offended when people don't agree?
I don't care that people disagree. I just find it frustrating when logic isn't applied consistently.
Is there anyone who you've seen argue against the Barkley pick turn around and be IN FAVOR of Pitts being picked in the top 5? Or are they just acknowledging something that they believe to be fait accompli?
Isn't there a difference?
Look at Jimmy Googs first post on this very thread.
Except you aren't using my post correctly. It doesn't say I would draft Pitts...it says teams should be interested in him.
At #4 with so many QBs of interest this draft I would be looking for "an offer i couldn't refuse" to trade down. Absent getting that offer which I believe would help a team in need of restructuring (like ATL or the NYG in 2018), I probably would pick Sewell or Chase if the grades were all about the same.
And you know why? Wait for it, wait for it...
because they are blue-chip talents at POSITIONS I value moreso than TE and certainly more than RB.
Quote:
not a normal tight end.
There are very few TEs who are elite pass catchers. In today's game there are only two - Kelce and Kittle. When viewed as an elite pass catcher his positional value jumps from the bottom to somewhere around CB/WR.
Kelce and Kittle are much better blockers than Pitts. A better comparison is what does Darren Waller add?
answer - a lot of offense
If the Giants want to start getting value out of Barkley, maybe they should consider making him a slot receiver. As an open field runner his talent is unquestioned. But I don't think he's all that great a running back.
Quote:
In comment 15235599 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15235545 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
In comment 15235538 Thegratefulhead said:
Quote:
It matters little if teams drafted running back in the first three rounds. It only matters if it a wise decision. IE 50 million people could do something mind numbingly dumb, that doesn't make it correct.
I think taking Barkley at 2 was wrong. I stand by that. It also was not a terminable offense. I like the kid and enjoy watching him. I understand the rational behind the pick and those who support it. I just disagree.
An opposing viewpoint does not bother me. Why is everyone offended when people don't agree?
I don't care that people disagree. I just find it frustrating when logic isn't applied consistently.
Is there anyone who you've seen argue against the Barkley pick turn around and be IN FAVOR of Pitts being picked in the top 5? Or are they just acknowledging something that they believe to be fait accompli?
Isn't there a difference?
Look at Jimmy Googs first post on this very thread.
Except you aren't using my post correctly. It doesn't say I would draft Pitts...it says teams should be interested in him.
At #4 with so many QBs of interest this draft I would be looking for "an offer i couldn't refuse" to trade down. Absent getting that offer which I believe would help a team in need of restructuring (like ATL or the NYG in 2018), I probably would pick Sewell or Chase if the grades were all about the same.
And you know why? Wait for it, wait for it...
because they are blue-chip talents at POSITIONS I value moreso than TE and certainly more than RB.
But he needs to be valued with WRs, not TEs.
If the Giants want to start getting value out of Barkley, maybe they should consider making him a slot receiver. As an open field runner his talent is unquestioned. But I don't think he's all that great a running back.
Yes Barkley may be more valuable as a Jack knife.
Quote:
In comment 15235696 Producer said:
Quote:
not a normal tight end.
There are very few TEs who are elite pass catchers. In today's game there are only two - Kelce and Kittle. When viewed as an elite pass catcher his positional value jumps from the bottom to somewhere around CB/WR.
Kelce and Kittle are much better blockers than Pitts. A better comparison is what does Darren Waller add?
answer - a lot of offense
Where has that gotten Oakland/Las Vegas? The problem with Pitts is that even a great TE does not single handedly change a team if he can't be trusted as a blocker. If you look at Gronk, Kelce, and Kittle what makes them so great is that they have to be feared as a run blocker so you can't just assume he is going out to run a route.
Except you aren't using my post correctly. It doesn't say I would draft Pitts...it says teams should be interested in him.
At #4 with so many QBs of interest this draft I would be looking for "an offer i couldn't refuse" to trade down. Absent getting that offer which I believe would help a team in need of restructuring (like ATL or the NYG in 2018), I probably would pick Sewell or Chase if the grades were all about the same.
And you know why? Wait for it, wait for it...
because they are blue-chip talents at POSITIONS I value moreso than TE and certainly more than RB.
But he needs to be valued with WRs, not TEs.
That is completely fair but it does depend on some other factors, schemes, etc. I want my TE to be in-line as well doing some dirty work at times too, so it gets complicated.
In 2018 the Giants were a car with a failing engine, and Gettleman decided to spend capital on new wheels instead.
In 2018 the Giants were a car with a failing engine, and Gettleman decided to spend capital on new wheels instead.
If I had to guess, the Giants thought in 2018 that Herbert was going to declare in 2019 given that Tua was definitely going to be in 2020 Draft. When you draft you do look at what the future is likely to bring because if you have a potentially great crop at a position the following year you might not want to take one high the year before all else being equal especially at a position like QB where only one is on the field at a time. The Giants figured they would get the new top of the line wheels because they would be able to fix the engine in the future and the new engine would already have the new top of the line wheels in place rather than settling for lesser wheels because you spent too much on the engine. When Herbert didn't declare and Eli looked completely shot it screwed up the Giants because they were left with no QB in a weak QB draft and there really wasn't a FA worth going after. Now the question is should they have "tanked for Tua," but that is a hard sell to a supposedly rebuilding team and a coach on the hot seat.
- Yards per touch vs. the league average play
- Injury propensity for position, and subsequently likely availability
- Building into assumed peak career years
- Then average cap hit per year on rookie contract versus cap hit for the top 10 cap hits at the position
Just guessing, but because Pitts had a pretty absurd YPC in college, I'm assuming his value through a model like that would put him higher than a running back.
Quote:
What's more important to making a car run, the engine or the tires? Without either the car isn't going anywhere, but the tires are easier and cheaper to replace. On the other hand if you have an old engine with a misfire you're not going to drop significant money on some P-Zeroes.
In 2018 the Giants were a car with a failing engine, and Gettleman decided to spend capital on new wheels instead.
If I had to guess, the Giants thought in 2018 that Herbert was going to declare in 2019 given that Tua was definitely going to be in 2020 Draft. When you draft you do look at what the future is likely to bring because if you have a potentially great crop at a position the following year you might not want to take one high the year before all else being equal especially at a position like QB where only one is on the field at a time. The Giants figured they would get the new top of the line wheels because they would be able to fix the engine in the future and the new engine would already have the new top of the line wheels in place rather than settling for lesser wheels because you spent too much on the engine. When Herbert didn't declare and Eli looked completely shot it screwed up the Giants because they were left with no QB in a weak QB draft and there really wasn't a FA worth going after. Now the question is should they have "tanked for Tua," but that is a hard sell to a supposedly rebuilding team and a coach on the hot seat.
Sadly, I don't know which poor assessment in that pile of poor assessments that you listed was the worst.
They all equally speak to a clueless GM...
2020 Gallman had 174 rushes+targets. He averaged 4.7 yards/play and scored 6 TDs (3.4% TD rate).
What happens if we extrapolate Gallman's 2020 out to the 382 touches Barkley got in 2018 and then compare them?
2018 Barkley: 2028 total yards, 15 TDs
2020 Gallman: 1795 total yards, 13 TDs
2018 Barkley - #2 pick overall, $5.7M cap hit
2020 Gallman - #140 pick overall (2017 draft), $930K cap hit
You could argue that Gallman alone could not bear the workload that Barkley did in 2018. Perhaps not. But bear in mind two things:
1. Gallman's cost is so low that you could split the workload between 3 Gallmans and still much less than you do on Barkley
2. Barkley himself has been unable to bear the workload in the two subsequent years
You can just about replace 2018 Barkley (which may end up the best year of his career) with a couple Gallmans.
Positional value is real.
Barkley is just as much a threat to run a wheel route from the backfield and catch a 50 yard TD down the field.
Gallman was not.
These are real things that a defense had to account for with Barkley that they did not with Gallman.
Barkley is just as much a threat to run a wheel route from the backfield and catch a 50 yard TD down the field.
Gallman was not.
These are real things that a defense had to account for with Barkley that they did not with Gallman.
How much was that worth in 2018?
Barkley is just as much a threat to run a wheel route from the backfield and catch a 50 yard TD down the field.
Gallman was not.
These are real things that a defense had to account for with Barkley that they did not with Gallman.
It's pretty remarkable that Gallman darn near replicated Barkley's stats even without that explosiveness then, isn't it?
I'm not sure any defense plays an explosive RB any differently than they do a grind-it-out, move-the-chains RB. In either case, they're trying to stop the RB for 3 yards or less. Barkley's receiving ability adds a dimension, but I don't think it changes the defensive response when they read run. Maybe it does though - I guess we'll see this season. With Golladay in tow, I don't think opposing defenses can simply key on Barkley, so he should blow Gallman's prorated stats out of the water, right?
That hasn't been borne out in 3 years with Barkley, has it?
Quote:
RB like Barkley puts pressure on the defense to stay disciplined. A rb like Gallman you don't need to worry about him hurting you on the outside. It seems defenses can cheat against less explosive backs by only playing the inside.
That hasn't been borne out in 3 years with Barkley, has it?
When he is on the field and relatively healthy he has done that enough times that I am guessing the defenses take him seriously.
If defenses were able to cheat against Gallman and he still nearly replicated (on a pro-rated basis) Barkley's best season, doesn't that actually confirm the positional value argument with regard to running backs?
Quote:
RB like Barkley puts pressure on the defense to stay disciplined. A rb like Gallman you don't need to worry about him hurting you on the outside. It seems defenses can cheat against less explosive backs by only playing the inside.
If defenses were able to cheat against Gallman and he still nearly replicated (on a pro-rated basis) Barkley's best season, doesn't that actually confirm the positional value argument with regard to running backs?
Pro-rated is key here. Me, personally I do not see how Gallman is even close to a player like Barkley. Maybe I am missing the point, but again, to me, pro-rated is key. We could also talk about Gallman running behind Probably the best run blocking line the Giants have had in a long time, and the blocking was probably more so "ok" and not terrible.
Quote:
In comment 15236354 crick n NC said:
Quote:
RB like Barkley puts pressure on the defense to stay disciplined. A rb like Gallman you don't need to worry about him hurting you on the outside. It seems defenses can cheat against less explosive backs by only playing the inside.
If defenses were able to cheat against Gallman and he still nearly replicated (on a pro-rated basis) Barkley's best season, doesn't that actually confirm the positional value argument with regard to running backs?
Pro-rated is key here. Me, personally I do not see how Gallman is even close to a player like Barkley. Maybe I am missing the point, but again, to me, pro-rated is key. We could also talk about Gallman running behind Probably the best run blocking line the Giants have had in a long time, and the blocking was probably more so "ok" and not terrible.
The prorated element was already noted by Terps, though. We could afford several Gallmans for the price that we're paying Barkley, so unless Barkley is far exceeding Gallman's production, wouldn't it make more sense to just have a rotation of fresh legs at a cheaper price and use the savings to bolster the OL?
I acknowledge that it's not quite as simple as that, but I do think his example does a great job of illustrating positional value, because it is that incremental, marginal uptick in production vs. cost that should define the priority of each position, IMO.
Quote:
RB like Barkley puts pressure on the defense to stay disciplined. A rb like Gallman you don't need to worry about him hurting you on the outside. It seems defenses can cheat against less explosive backs by only playing the inside.
If defenses were able to cheat against Gallman and he still nearly replicated (on a pro-rated basis) Barkley's best season, doesn't that actually confirm the positional value argument with regard to running backs?
Gallman almost replicated SB’s 2018 season?
Quote:
Gallman is not.
Barkley is just as much a threat to run a wheel route from the backfield and catch a 50 yard TD down the field.
Gallman was not.
These are real things that a defense had to account for with Barkley that they did not with Gallman.
It's pretty remarkable that Gallman darn near replicated Barkley's stats even without that explosiveness then, isn't it?
I'm not sure any defense plays an explosive RB any differently than they do a grind-it-out, move-the-chains RB. In either case, they're trying to stop the RB for 3 yards or less. Barkley's receiving ability adds a dimension, but I don't think it changes the defensive response when they read run. Maybe it does though - I guess we'll see this season. With Golladay in tow, I don't think opposing defenses can simply key on Barkley, so he should blow Gallman's prorated stats out of the water, right?
I made a statistical argument that we wouldn’t miss Plaxico after he shot himself because Hixon’s stats showed that his “production” could be replicated.
Turns out it couldn’t. Not even close. And that’s no disrespect to Hixon, whom I loved as a player.
I was just wrong.
The primary measure of the offensive skill player in virtually every scenario is accrual of the most yards on the fewest plays. There are secondary factors in fringe scenarios (killing the clock, short yardage, short to go) — but overall I think that’s the fairest measure.
I tend to think Barkley is a very good running back, and an average pass target. His rookie year was productive, but I never get too excited about the number of catches. And I never get excited about a guy getting 6 yards per target in the pass game.
If there is something to get excited about with Barkley, it’s in the context of running back. If you believe in running the ball, it is the 1300 yards, 50 first downs, 5 YPC, and 11 TDs on the ground.
But ask yourself, are you ok if two guys did that for less money?
So we're sort of left with a vague and unsubstantiated (the Giants' pass game has been poor despite Barkley's presence) notion that Barkley's mere presence makes throwing the ball easier.
That supports using the #2 pick in the draft on Barkley?
Quote:
In comment 15236369 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15236354 crick n NC said:
Quote:
RB like Barkley puts pressure on the defense to stay disciplined. A rb like Gallman you don't need to worry about him hurting you on the outside. It seems defenses can cheat against less explosive backs by only playing the inside.
If defenses were able to cheat against Gallman and he still nearly replicated (on a pro-rated basis) Barkley's best season, doesn't that actually confirm the positional value argument with regard to running backs?
Pro-rated is key here. Me, personally I do not see how Gallman is even close to a player like Barkley. Maybe I am missing the point, but again, to me, pro-rated is key. We could also talk about Gallman running behind Probably the best run blocking line the Giants have had in a long time, and the blocking was probably more so "ok" and not terrible.
The prorated element was already noted by Terps, though. We could afford several Gallmans for the price that we're paying Barkley, so unless Barkley is far exceeding Gallman's production, wouldn't it make more sense to just have a rotation of fresh legs at a cheaper price and use the savings to bolster the OL?
I acknowledge that it's not quite as simple as that, but I do think his example does a great job of illustrating positional value, because it is that incremental, marginal uptick in production vs. cost that should define the priority of each position, IMO.
Dunk, I hear you, and I respect the view. I think we may be better served in discussing, why it isn't quite as simple as being explained. Perhaps there is something there we are missing.
I think there is something there x's and O's wise that could help explain why it isn't as simple as stated. Are playmakers (Barkley is a playmaker imv) that important to an offense verses steady more reliable players? What playmakers on offense give the defense more trouble and perhaps open more opportunities on offense to attack?
I apologize, I feel like I'm rambling now, perhaps I don't have a good answer for you?
So we're sort of left with a vague and unsubstantiated (the Giants' pass game has been poor despite Barkley's presence) notion that Barkley's mere presence makes throwing the ball easier.
That supports using the #2 pick in the draft on Barkley?
I liked it better when you were more current, belly aching about the 2019 &2020 drafts.
And take a look at the backs on that 2008 team:
Jacobs - 231 rushes+targets
Ward - 235 rushes+targets
Bradshaw - 73 rushes+targets
Total stats: 539 rushes+targets, 2931 total yards (5.4 yards/play), 19 TDs (3.5% TD/play)
Average yards/play leaguewide: 5.3
Cost per player:
Jacobs - 110th pick (2005), $460K
Ward - Signed as UFA, $1.4M
Bradshaw - 250th pick (2007), $425K
This is not that team. We need to make some chicken salad out of some chicken shit, here.
I've got a slew of you guys following me around whining, adding nothing to the board, and putting money in Eric's pockets. He must love it.
At least I think we've put to bed the idea that Barkley had an incredible 2018 season. But I guess his mere presence on the field has allowed us to pass for 5000 yards and 50 TDs each of these past three years...
I know everyone thinks I'm pessimistic, but I'm hopeful we're past the worst of it. Move on from Gettleman and his Jones/Barkley mistakes, then the building through Judge's philosophy and ethos can begin.
We've been sitting next to Gettleman at the blackjack table while he's been splitting 10s and taking the dealer's bust cards for 3 years. Once he and his mistakes get up and leave our fun can finally begin.
You seem so unhappy... but I suppose that pointing it out is not going to help.
I love the Barkley pick. He's fun to root for and he's an exceptional football player.
Injuries be damned but imv, hindsight is not a legitimate reason to beat someone up.
Easy to root for,, he's an exceptional football player.
Sometimes players get hurt And it sucks.
I like the pick.
... I still like the pick.
Too bad for me I couldn't immediately think of all the poor value in their choices (to be nice) that NYG has exhibited lately.
Too bad for me I couldn't immediately think of all the poor value in their choices (to be nice) that NYG has exhibited lately.
Let’s see what happens Thur and Fri...
Quote:
thread topic.
Too bad for me I couldn't immediately think of all the poor value in their choices (to be nice) that NYG has exhibited lately.
Let’s see what happens Thur and Fri...
Can't wait!
Personally I think it's unwise of them to try to re-open that closing window of theirs by taking Pitts. I learned my lesson after supporting taking Barkley despite our terrible state.
Running backs are a different story though. Barkley is obviously a far greater talent than Wayne Gallman...but I just showed above that the difference between his top performance and Gallman's amounted to about 13 total yards/game extrapolated over a 16 game season. Barkley's not a significant improvement over Gallman (or 3 Gallmans, which still cost a lot less than 1 Barkley).
There's no reason to spend anything significant at running back. Not in today's NFL.
However you and I know, regardless of those numbers on paper, teams played us differently without Plaxico.
The numbers don't tell the story.
Teams play you differently.
Plax and Hixon weren't running backs.
As always the main question I'm left with is the "why" supposed fans of the team are exerting that kind of effort to dismiss a player.
Seems to me the NFL's definition and some of your definitions don't line up:
RB's taken in the Top 5 in the past 40 years: 28
TE's taken in the Top 5 in the past 40 years: 0
OG's taken in the Top 5 in the past 40 years: 4
RB's taken in the Top 5 in the past 5 years: 3
TE's taken in the Top 5 in the past 5 years: 0
OG's taken in the Top 5 in the past 5 years: 0
The NFL clearly values the RB position more than you do.
As always the main question I'm left with is the "why" supposed fans of the team are exerting that kind of effort to dismiss a player.
The same people who would knock the Jim Brown, Payton, Sanders, Dickerson et al picks..You cannot argue with inanity, imv
49 RB's have been selected with a 1st round pick in the past 20 years.
I don't know the TE and G numbers, but I'm willing to bet it's a lot less.
Positional versatility...
In the next 5 years we'll see the story shift from grades to 1) presumptive value (prediction) 2) approximate value (evaluation).
Over several hundred snaps, the data normalizes enough to assess whether good or bad things happen when a player is both involved in a play and just even on the field.
To me the most important inputs for a skill player on the presumptive value side are:
1) Presumed Availability - is there anything in the player's history to show concern, and does the position they play projects to have a long or short career
2) Efficiency - does a player accrue yards in an efficient manner
3) Cost - does the player fit in the price band of other players who have similar profiles to the above
Football will never become as predictable as baseball or basketball. But it will become better to judge value.
I suspect a player like Barkley when all is said and done will fall out of the top 10 of overall career value from that draft.
I think 2,000 yards on its own is a little empty. The pass catching part of that was really inefficient. But like I said above, the running part was really good. I suspect Barkley has one maybe two really god running seasons left, and by year 6 in the NFL is nowhere near the player he was in 2018.
Seems to me the NFL's definition and some of your definitions don't line up:
RB's taken in the Top 5 in the past 40 years: 28
TE's taken in the Top 5 in the past 40 years: 0
OG's taken in the Top 5 in the past 40 years: 4
RB's taken in the Top 5 in the past 5 years: 3
TE's taken in the Top 5 in the past 5 years: 0
OG's taken in the Top 5 in the past 5 years: 0
The NFL clearly values the RB position more than you do.
This is where you're just looking for an argument, Britt (kinda like every thread you claim to not care about and then linger on for days):
YOU'RE the one who is banging the table about positional value as it relates to Pitts, and you're ALSO the one who wants the Giants to trade up for Pitts.
It's clear as day that you're just try to position your defensiveness for the outcome that you're hoping for, otherwise this entire premise is mostly moot.
Seems to me the NFL's definition and some of your definitions don't line up:
RB's taken in the Top 5 in the past 40 years: 28
TE's taken in the Top 5 in the past 40 years: 0
OG's taken in the Top 5 in the past 40 years: 4
RB's taken in the Top 5 in the past 5 years: 3
TE's taken in the Top 5 in the past 5 years: 0
OG's taken in the Top 5 in the past 5 years: 0
The NFL clearly values the RB position more than you do.
going back 40 years is pointless. The notion that RBs are poor selections due to positional value is something that has become a truism over the past ten years. To test the proposition you would need to see if there is a drop off in first and second round RB selections over the last ten years as opposed to previous decades.
Quote:
What is positional value?
Seems to me the NFL's definition and some of your definitions don't line up:
RB's taken in the Top 5 in the past 40 years: 28
TE's taken in the Top 5 in the past 40 years: 0
OG's taken in the Top 5 in the past 40 years: 4
RB's taken in the Top 5 in the past 5 years: 3
TE's taken in the Top 5 in the past 5 years: 0
OG's taken in the Top 5 in the past 5 years: 0
The NFL clearly values the RB position more than you do.
This is where you're just looking for an argument, Britt (kinda like every thread you claim to not care about and then linger on for days):
How do I not care about it? I STARTED THE THREAD!
Wrong. I'd draft Pitts at 4. I'd draft him at 2. I'd draft a G at 2, also. Positional value be damned.
What outcome is that? That the term positional value has been distorted from being a real thing to just a hammer to beat us over the head with in regards to the Barkley pick three years ago?
Positional value is fine. I personally don't subscribe to it as stated above. I'd take any player in the top 5 that graded out as being worth being taken there, regardless of the positional value.
My point is, if you're going to go on, and on, and on, and on about positional value, then at least apply it consistently and not just as a means to shit on RB's, which the NFL clearly still values as a position.
Then why have 49 of them been drafted in the 1st round over the past 20 years?
As to the "beating over the head" thing, clearly many here own hammers on both sides of this debate, even the martyrs...
Quote:
You can accept that or not.
Then why have 49 of them been drafted in the 1st round over the past 20 years?
Seems to me that the point is that if there is a real gamechanger available, you take him, regardless of position.
RB was used, specifically because of the belief, real or imagined, that the RB position has become less "important" in the eyes of some. That the TE position is similar.
If that is the OP's position, than that is the argument.
Just like you voluntarily join every thread that you comment on, only to subsequently declare that you don't care about the topic and wish people would stop belaboring it.
It's supposed to be different because you started the thread? Are you joining those other threads against your will?
Seems to me that the point is that if there is a real gamechanger available, you take him, regardless of position.
RB was used, specifically because of the belief, real or imagined, that the RB position has become less "important" in the eyes of some. That the TE position is similar.
If that is the OP's position, than that is the argument.
the implication of poor positional value for RBs is that you pass on even the best backs if you have a top pick (let's say #s 1-10).
I showed above that there wasn't all that much spread between 2018 Barkley and 2020 Gallman. So what's the spread between Kelce and a backup TE?
If Pitts is anything like Kelce, he's worth a high pick.
He will always want to import some level of anecdotal data about how the player makes him feel when he watches him play.
And so the entire concept of positional value, when it comes to Britt, is a red herring.
The more relevant time period is 10 years - 2011 draft forward. That's probably more apples to apples.
He will always want to import some level of anecdotal data about how the player makes him feel when he watches him play.
And so the entire concept of positional value, when it comes to Britt, is a red herring.
It does feel like he's not actually interested in the answer.
christian, AcesUp, and at least one other poster I saw gave a pretty good answer.
christian, AcesUp, and at least one other poster I saw gave a pretty good answer.
Then you're just being obtuse.
christian, AcesUp, and at least one other poster I saw gave a pretty good answer.
Terps gave the best answer. You just didn't like that one.
Clownshoes. Annoying noises, no utility
christian, AcesUp, and at least one other poster I saw gave a pretty good answer.
AcesUp gave a solid answer using the market place and the franchise tag dollars.
And Terps did a nice job showing why the passing game is materially more critical to success than the running game.
Do the equivalent exercise with Travis Kelce. Could Jeremy Sprinkle earn 145 targets and create 1416 yards and 11 TDs?
That's what people think they'll be getting with Pitts... something hard to reproduce with a replacement player. What Barkley gives you is not hard to reproduce...so why spend big on him?
Quote:
Personally Barkley does nothing for me. He's only been a part of bad football. I guess he's a pretty face that sells a lot of jerseys, but beyond that these three years have been as forgettable as three years can be.
All of your fact based posting in this thread was great. this last is unnecessary and why you get so much negative press on BBI. I don't know what you get out of it other than negative attention. I usually see this from toddlers that don't get enough attention from their parents.
That breaks my heart.
Clearly there is positional value when it comes to the draft. I did a little exercise where I looked at the top 5 picks the past ten years and gave them a descending score of 5-4-3-2-1. The result not surprisingly is that QB was the runaway leader with 58 points, followed by DE with 31 and OT (almost all of them LTs) with 20. Stated another way, of the 50 players taken with top 5 picks in the past decade 14 were QBs and 10 were DEs (and the DEs might have been higher but several pasing rushing LBs we grouped with the LBs.)
Of note, fourth on the points list after the first three positions was RB. FTR, LB and WR tied for 5-6, CBs (somewhat surprisingly) were 7th and DTs 8th. OG got 1 point, TEs and Ss got zero.
That said, RB has definitely been devalued on draft day since the 1970s and 80s when literally as many RBs as QBs went top ten. But it clearly has become a passing league in which QBs dominate. What you also see is generally very few RBs being selected in the latter half of the opening round.
The fact is that RBs that can gain you 4.0-4.5 yards per carry are a dime a dozen; cannon fodder almost. However, guys like Saquon who gives you the threat of going 50-60 yards every time he touches the ball are rare and that's what the Giants drafted.
All that said, its not the reason I posted. My point is to try and get guys to think less about positions per se. Nobody is thinking of taking Kyle Pitts, for example, because they want to upgrade at TE. They are thinking about taking him because he's a supremely talented player with big-play, match-up headache potential who just happens to play TE. Same with Saquon. The Giants weren't selecting a RB when they took him, they were selecting a supremely talented player with big-play match-up headache potential.
The other thing I have been thinking going forward (which for the record is the way we should all be going, at least those of us with half a brain) what if say a Penei Sewell were available at #11. The consensus on the BBI is that we race to the table (as if someone is going to beat us to the pick). And maybe we would in the somewhat unlikely scenario that Sewell did end up there at 11. But what's his value. His real value is that he's a quality LT prospect that we are planning to plug in at RT or maybe even OG. At the same time, there are a bunch of teams picking after the Giants - Chargers at #13, Minnesota at #14, Vegas at #17, Miami at #18, Wash at #19 and Chicago at #20 - that all are desperate to get a LT and one one wonders if his greater value to the Giants would be as trade bait. Again just spit balling here but is an interesting concept. Just 28 hours to go!!
And oh yes, two can play at the 'let's make up some weird stats to prove our case game.' I looked it up and it turns out that Quentin Nelson has averaged ZERO yards every tiem he touches the ball!! can't make this stuff up. Have a great weekend everyone.
Maybe this is just conditioning from years of following bad sports teams (especially the Warriors, prior to them becoming good), but I'm able to be entertained by displays of individual excellence even if the team sucks. Like watching Curry and even Monta Ellis before the Warriors ascent, Barkley's first season in particular offered a lot of sheer entertainment spectacle that I appreciated.
Would I trade it all to see the Giants ascend to a spectacular team? Absolutely, but that's dependent upon so many factors that it just strikes me as unlikely, and all I'm left with is the entertainment.
Posting our record since drafting Barkley does absolutely nothing - just insert the names of the other players we drafted too because they are just as much to blame. Or you can envision Barkley playing last year and whether or not he moves the needle and helps us get into the playoffs since it would be his first year playing under a competent coaching staff.
Nice to see people troll and then act like they are just furthering the discussion....
I asked a pretty fair question. I won’t participate in the back and forth anymore, it’s no longer interesting and a big waste of time. But, I am curious about our record and why we aren’t applying that logic to everyone we drafted. Looks to me like if we hit on a larger % of picks, and had better coaching earlier, that Barkley would be part of the solution and not the problem.
Clearly there is positional value when it comes to the draft. I did a little exercise where I looked at the top 5 picks the past ten years and gave them a descending score of 5-4-3-2-1. The result not surprisingly is that QB was the runaway leader with 58 points, followed by DE with 31 and OT (almost all of them LTs) with 20. Stated another way, of the 50 players taken with top 5 picks in the past decade 14 were QBs and 10 were DEs (and the DEs might have been higher but several pasing rushing LBs we grouped with the LBs.)
Of note, fourth on the points list after the first three positions was RB. FTR, LB and WR tied for 5-6, CBs (somewhat surprisingly) were 7th and DTs 8th. OG got 1 point, TEs and Ss got zero.
That said, RB has definitely been devalued on draft day since the 1970s and 80s when literally as many RBs as QBs went top ten. But it clearly has become a passing league in which QBs dominate. What you also see is generally very few RBs being selected in the latter half of the opening round.
The fact is that RBs that can gain you 4.0-4.5 yards per carry are a dime a dozen; cannon fodder almost. However, guys like Saquon who gives you the threat of going 50-60 yards every time he touches the ball are rare and that's what the Giants drafted.
All that said, its not the reason I posted. My point is to try and get guys to think less about positions per se. Nobody is thinking of taking Kyle Pitts, for example, because they want to upgrade at TE. They are thinking about taking him because he's a supremely talented player with big-play, match-up headache potential who just happens to play TE. Same with Saquon. The Giants weren't selecting a RB when they took him, they were selecting a supremely talented player with big-play match-up headache potential.
The other thing I have been thinking going forward (which for the record is the way we should all be going, at least those of us with half a brain) what if say a Penei Sewell were available at #11. The consensus on the BBI is that we race to the table (as if someone is going to beat us to the pick). And maybe we would in the somewhat unlikely scenario that Sewell did end up there at 11. But what's his value. His real value is that he's a quality LT prospect that we are planning to plug in at RT or maybe even OG. At the same time, there are a bunch of teams picking after the Giants - Chargers at #13, Minnesota at #14, Vegas at #17, Miami at #18, Wash at #19 and Chicago at #20 - that all are desperate to get a LT and one one wonders if his greater value to the Giants would be as trade bait. Again just spit balling here but is an interesting concept. Just 28 hours to go!!
And oh yes, two can play at the 'let's make up some weird stats to prove our case game.' I looked it up and it turns out that Quentin Nelson has averaged ZERO yards every tiem he touches the ball!! can't make this stuff up. Have a great weekend everyone.
Good post. Glad to hear you agree with positional value views.
Quote:
of "Running Backs Are People Too Committee" out in full force.
Nice to see people troll and then act like they are just furthering the discussion....
A staple of yours...
I wouldn't point the Giant's record alone but the context of showing the record when he was in and when he was not has some merit. 7-10 without Barkley playing, 8-23 with him. It isn't the end all, but it does provide some context. All of that said, I think he turns it around and has a better 2021 than 2018.
The Barkley pick was not a slam dunk great pick and neither was it a terrible pick. The kid is not a bust. I think it has been discussed and doesn't need more threads. Just my opinion.
You actually have to make a decent argument to change someone's mind. The closest you got was "defenses play Barkley differently", something for which there is no proof.
This thread was an excuse for you to call people hypocrites. Little more.
I’ll enjoy watching him with a better team and coaching staff in 2021
Quote:
of "Running Backs Are People Too Committee" out in full force.
I asked a pretty fair question. I won’t participate in the back and forth anymore, it’s no longer interesting and a big waste of time. But, I am curious about our record and why we aren’t applying that logic to everyone we drafted. Looks to me like if we hit on a larger % of picks, and had better coaching earlier, that Barkley would be part of the solution and not the problem.
I wasn't directing that at you.
Barkley, be the nature of being the #2 pick in the draft and by those who selected him, was expected to have a direct outcome on games. A player who had the ability to make plays independent of ideal circumstances. And thus impact W/Ls.
Without SB in '20, we average 4.4 YPC and 110 yards per game. With him in '18 and 19, we averaged 4.7 YPC and 105 yards per game. So in the run game, and using those general stats, we really were about the same team running the ball...
Quote:
mentioned in this thread. You’re right though, I wasn’t going to change anybody’s mind. But I did think that by pointing out inconsistent application of positional value, there might be some middle ground discovered. Guess not, though.
You actually have to make a decent argument to change someone's mind. The closest you got was "defenses play Barkley differently", something for which there is no proof.
This thread was an excuse for you to call people hypocrites. Little more.
I asked a legit questions. Just because you posted a bunch of stats of one of the best TE’s in the game doesn’t change the context of my question about the acceptance of a team like the Falcons taking a TE at #4 overall.
I'm sure there is a plan. It probably sounds like this: "When Barkley's in the game in passing situations make him pick up the blitz, because he can't block for shit and the QB has a fumbling problem."
I do, but with a guy like Jones, who has been a model of inconsistency, I think most DCs would game plan to stop the run regardless of the RB and force Jones to make plays...
Mediocre QB Defense 101
Quote:
then I’m sorry there’s nothing left to say.
I'm sure there is a plan. It probably sounds like this: "When Barkley's in the game in passing situations make him pick up the blitz, because he can't block for shit and the QB has a fumbling problem."
Sadly, based on the pattern of posts, you likely aren't kidding.
And yet instead of wondering why that is, you revel in it.
Fucking pathetic.
I would definitely prefer more quality than Gallman - 100%.
I'll say this. It's going to be interesting how Garrett employs SB this year. I hope he realizes that SB isn't Zeke and designs runs/passes accordingly.
Quote:
then I’m sorry there’s nothing left to say.
I do, but with a guy like Jones, who has been a model of inconsistency, I think most DCs would game plan to stop the run regardless of the RB and force Jones to make plays...
Mediocre QB Defense 101
And some RB’s are easier to contain than others, until they bust one open for a 50 yard score, or take a screen pass to the house, or in saquon’s case, catching one over the shoulder 40 yards downfield.
Totally forgot about that play. I think we lost that game by a TD, too.
In SB's defense, it was Jamal Adams... ;)
Quote:
In comment 15238038 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
then I’m sorry there’s nothing left to say.
I do, but with a guy like Jones, who has been a model of inconsistency, I think most DCs would game plan to stop the run regardless of the RB and force Jones to make plays...
Mediocre QB Defense 101
And some RB’s are easier to contain than others, until they bust one open for a 50 yard score, or take a screen pass to the house, or in saquon’s case, catching one over the shoulder 40 yards downfield.
See above regarding anecdotal evidence over empirical data.
Not because of your opinions, but because of your desire to take enjoyment away from others.
GFYs
Not because of your opinions, but because of your desire to take enjoyment away from others.
GFYs
Best post on here?
I think the Falcons are preparing to do the same exact thing that we did. They should be looking at QB or trade down. Pitts is at risk of having the same trajectory that Barkley has over 3 years as they try to patchwork a spotty roster and unhealthy cap situation with an aging QB. They should get the same heat that we did in 2018 if they stay put and take Pitts at 4.
Not because of your opinions, but because of your desire to take enjoyment away from others.
GFYs
This literally sounds like a post that came from a 12 year old. People have different opinions on every topic in life. It's not that big of a deal.
Britt - asked this earlier, but exactly where is this inconsistent application?
And did you take any steps forward toward this middle ground with any of the 200+ posts in the thread?
I got answers. I'm not really sure I got any definitive ones, but I got answers.
I got answers. I'm not really sure I got any definitive ones, but I got answers.
TE really isn't acceptable at 4. But WR could be. And really that's what Pitts is. A bigger, stronger, faster Julio Jones. A guy like that can go top-5.
In today's NFL, would you rather have a great TE or a great RB?
In today's NFL, would you rather have a great TE or a great RB?
I truly can't give you an answer on that definitively, because I think both have value, and I think on different days I could flip flop.
This is more about positional value.
That's really what I'm trying to understand.
I got answers. I'm not really sure I got any definitive ones, but I got answers.
Anyone that said drafting Barkley was a fireable offense is stupid or willfully ignorant and you already knew that. The pick was made based on an evaluation of the team that was inaccurate, most importantly the scouting of the QB. It happened.
I think it fair to say in today's NFL drafting a home run hitting running back is the last piece of the puzzle. Most of the people that were against the pick said that the team was so bereft of talent, we would not be competing until his second contract and that will cost. That might still be true. I hope not but...
Can you point a time you ever made a thread like this that anyone changed your mind? Be specific.
Ironically, it's the utility of Pitts as "just a pass catcher" that makes him potentially worthy of a top-5 pick, not his "TRUE TE" capacity.
That’s why the efficiency in gaining yards is probably the better measure. Over X number of touches, how many yards does the player get is a much more intellectually honest measurement.
The other incontrovertible factor is health. The occurrence of injury at RB is highest of all positions, the length of career shortest of all positions, the frequency and severity of being hit is higher than all other positions.
I’m open to the evidence to counter my stance — running backs have shorter less efficient careers than tight ends.
That's really what I'm trying to understand.
No, you have said the Falcons taking Pitts is fine. Put a lid on that.
This is solely about why Barkley was the wrong decision for the Giants in 2018, and you wanting to argue about it.
That's really what I'm trying to understand.
No one is a fan of both teams.
Generally speaking, the most outspoken critics of the Barkley pick have been Giants fans who wanted a different plan to be put in place at that time. Yes, there has been some concern about any RB's positional value (and injury risk, which certainly has come to pass), but it was also about the selection of Barkley being emblematic of a front office that was in denial about the state of the roster at that time.
As it relates to Pitts, I suppose you'd probably find some outspoken Falcons fans who are uncomfortable with taking him at #4 if they're hoping that the team tears the whole thing down and begins to rebuild instead of trying to pry open a competitive window that may have already closed.
Further, these draft picks aren't happening at the same time. Three years ago, there was no suggestion heading into the draft (from the same sources that you're citing regarding Pitts) that Barkley was unworthy of his lofty draft status. There were just Giants fans who wanted to go in a different direction. Generally speaking, most of the public criticism about the Barkley pick has been related to what has transpired since, and how mediocre the Giants have been during Barkley's career to date. Meanwhile, Pitts's career has not yet begun - there can't be similar criticism levied toward him or the team that selects him. Not yet, anyway.
Now you're asking why there's an inconsistency, and the reality is that there isn't an inconsistency. And if you're expecting Giants fans to genuinely give a shit about what the Falcons do except for how it impacts the Giants, you're being naive.
Right, but Pitts isn't valued as highly as he is because of his versatility. It's because of his skills specifically on the receiving side of his positional responsibilities.
That’s why the efficiency in gaining yards is probably the better measure. Over X number of touches, how many yards does the player get is a much more intellectually honest measurement.
The other incontrovertible factor is health. The occurrence of injury at RB is highest of all positions, the length of career shortest of all positions, the frequency and severity of being hit is higher than all other positions.
I’m open to the evidence to counter my stance — running backs have shorter less efficient careers than tight ends.
the career length was definitely the biggest worry about taking him in 2018. Lot's of worry that by the time the Giants were going to have a good team again, SB's career would be over
That last part is obviously the crux of this thread, but you're asking GIANTS FANS to be up in arms about the positional value of another team's potential draft pick in the same way they were about a player that the Giants chose?
You don't see how that's antagonistic?
Not because of your opinions, but because of your desire to take enjoyment away from others.
GFYs
No one is telling you how to enjoy your Giants football; if you're that easily influenced by what you read on a message board that's on you.
The team has sucked for nearly a decade now. It still sucks (+6600 to win the SB) according to objective experts. There are plenty of nostalgia threads and such talking about happy go lucky topics. But if you want to talk about a team that sucks you can't be surprised when people discuss how and why it sucks.
If that's a problem for you, then I suppose you can go fuck yourself.
And you got plenty of reasons for that acceptance as him at #4, although you feel the folks giving those reasons are just being hypocritical.
Quote:
one being that I want the Giants to somehow land Pitts, two because what they do influences the rest of the draft as that is basically where the draft begins, and finally yes, in thinking about all that and trying to decide whether or not the Falcons would pass on Pitts I did notice a lot acceptance as him as a pick at #4 overall which resulted in this thread.
That last part is obviously the crux of this thread, but you're asking GIANTS FANS to be up in arms about the positional value of another team's potential draft pick in the same way they were about a player that the Giants chose?
You don't see how that's antagonistic?
Yes I do. But I also feel like a lot of people including myself have been antagonized over this subject for the past three years on multiple threads as well, and the relentless nature of it. I understand my part in that.
But my interest in Kyle Pitts and what he brings to the table in the passing game is overwhelmingly better than what teams can get in the round 2 from other Tight Ends, and Wide Receivers for that matter.
You've made similar complaints in the past about how Reese and Ross's mismanagement set the organization back years.
Barkley was an awful pick. Awful. It has nothing to do with you or anyone other poster. It has everything to do with being one of a series of decisions that has built was is today a pretty poor football team.
It's not about any posters on either side of the argument, nor is it about wanting to be right.
It just has not worked out.
Britt, I want Pitts much more than Waddle but I don't think it is possible without giving up what it would cost to move up for a QB which I don't think we can afford based on the state of our roster. Can't see Pitts getting past Detroit.
Quote:
In comment 15238269 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
one being that I want the Giants to somehow land Pitts, two because what they do influences the rest of the draft as that is basically where the draft begins, and finally yes, in thinking about all that and trying to decide whether or not the Falcons would pass on Pitts I did notice a lot acceptance as him as a pick at #4 overall which resulted in this thread.
That last part is obviously the crux of this thread, but you're asking GIANTS FANS to be up in arms about the positional value of another team's potential draft pick in the same way they were about a player that the Giants chose?
You don't see how that's antagonistic?
Yes I do. But I also feel like a lot of people including myself have been antagonized over this subject for the past three years on multiple threads as well, and the relentless nature of it. I understand my part in that.
How have you been antagonized? The GIANTS have been criticized. Not you. Maybe part of the issue is you taking it personally when your fellow fans disagree with moves the team makes?
This three year period of terrible football was launched and defined by that pick. It was a massive moment whose repercussions are clearly felt today.
IMO NYYFans does it right with having a dedicated forum, and then individual megathreads, for player performance. Nothing against BBI and Eric, but it filters a lot the NYY equivalent of what we see here to the player specific threads or GDTs.
So because you feel that way, this thread is your path towards getting retribution?
There are some guys that transcend The value of their position based on their unique ability to dramatically change a game as well as the way that an opponent has to prepare for the game.
There are some guys that transcend The value of their position based on their unique ability to dramatically change a game as well as the way that an opponent has to prepare for the game.
If this is accurate, there is no proof that Barkley falls into this category.
I was on the fence with the pick. My view at the time was — pick is not a tragedy, go get a franchise QB the next year.
But you have to treat a running back like a depreciating commodity. The best, most impactful years are right upfront. We’re going into year four and I think Barkley has been on a team with .500 record for 1 week.
Ask yourself this — how many more seasons do you believe Barkley will have like 2018?
Quote:
that it became antagonizing. Even positive threads. You may not realize it, but it did. And I am not alone in feeling that way.
This three year period of terrible football was launched and defined by that pick. It was a massive moment whose repercussions are clearly felt today.
That's complete horseshit. That pick didn't define the period - it was part of an extended period of losing that was neither much improved prior or much improved after.
and again - the alternate choices to Barkley that the team would likely had taken would have not moved the needle much at all from what we've seen.
2018 wasn't some defining time that started a period of bad football.
Quote:
In comment 15238370 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
that it became antagonizing. Even positive threads. You may not realize it, but it did. And I am not alone in feeling that way.
This three year period of terrible football was launched and defined by that pick. It was a massive moment whose repercussions are clearly felt today.
That's complete horseshit. That pick didn't define the period - it was part of an extended period of losing that was neither much improved prior or much improved after.
and again - the alternate choices to Barkley that the team would likely had taken would have not moved the needle much at all from what we've seen.
2018 wasn't some defining time that started a period of bad football.
Liar. Only the lack of Bradley Chubb has kept us from the Lombardi. *Only* that.
But seriously, people's hatred of Gettleman has caused them to re-write history. They act as if things were rolling along well and big bad Dave came in and fucked everything up, and he did it by selecting a RB!!
Run the scenarios on if we picked Darnold or rosen here and try to tell people that it would be as bad of a stretch as it has been - and would have us picking a new QB. And what do they hone in on? That we picked a RB, and doing so completely set the team back.
The worst part is they think there's solid logic there.
Why do I get the feeling your list of “likely had taken” doesn’t include Nelson or Allen.
Quote:
and again - the alternate choices to Barkley that the team would likely had taken would have not moved the needle much at all from what we've seen.
Why do I get the feeling your list of “likely had taken” doesn’t include Nelson or Allen.
because from nearly all accounts, the Giants list didn't include those two players, either.
You don't get to play "who would have been the best pick"
Quote:
In comment 15238476 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
and again - the alternate choices to Barkley that the team would likely had taken would have not moved the needle much at all from what we've seen.
Why do I get the feeling your list of “likely had taken” doesn’t include Nelson or Allen.
because from nearly all accounts, the Giants list didn't include those two players, either.
You don't get to play "who would have been the best pick"
I think it's a massive indictment that the Giants apparently didn't seriously consider either at #2. I'm not one to harp on missing out on every elite player but Nelson is as good at OG as the Giants thought Barkley would be at RB. I can forgive the Allen 'miss' more easily.
Quote:
In comment 15238476 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
and again - the alternate choices to Barkley that the team would likely had taken would have not moved the needle much at all from what we've seen.
Why do I get the feeling your list of “likely had taken” doesn’t include Nelson or Allen.
because from nearly all accounts, the Giants list didn't include those two players, either.
You don't get to play "who would have been the best pick"
Of course we don't...not when our Front Office lacked the capability to figure that themselves. So we are stuck with what the JV team was thinking instead...
Didn’t your buddy trade two firsts, two seconds, and a player for Allen?
I want that guy running the team.
Quote:
I think in general, you are absolutely correct based on what we've seen that TE is a position like RB that isn't considered great value in the 1st.
However the reasoning I've seen behind Pitts being #1 is that "he's basically a WR who can also play TE" rather than a natural TE. That makes sense, when you watch him play he does look like an easier fit to play outside than a true TE like a Hockenson.
But I'm still scared that we're just assuming a college TE can just go into the NFL and dominate as a WR. It's why I have him ranked below Chase and Smith.
Pitts seems like he will be a bigger, stronger, faster, Julio Jones.
Calm down buddy lol. He's bigger and he's stronger, but faster? No chance.
Pitts ran 4.44 at the Florida Pro Day and people were surprised that he did that well because they expected low 4.5s. He also had a 7.12 3-Cone which is about average.
Julio had a 4.34 40 and 6.66 3-Cone at the Combine and his play speed is clearly a tier or two ahead of Pitts.
If Pitts were a "bigger/stronge/faster" Julio Jones, then he wouldn't be considered a TE at all. He's not slow by any means, he definitely has some speed to his game. But he's not that fast by WR standards, and he's certainly not agile by WR standards. He makes his money by having a special Catch Radius and great hands.
Anyway reports said Chubb was next on their list.
So the hypocrisy claim and the antagonizing claim posts were just slips from the computer keypad?
Quote:
in my mind.
So the hypocrisy claim and the antagonizing claim posts were just slips from the computer keypad?
Well, the hypocrisy claim arose from the discussion.
Gatorade Dunk was the first to bring up antagonizing claim, several times, and then I responded.
Didn’t your buddy trade two firsts, two seconds, and a player for Allen?
I want that guy running the team.
And yet, had we hired that guy, he'd have been called Gettleman's coffee boy and derided on here.
I also wonder how well it would go over if we traded two firsts, two seconds and a player and Allen had the type of rookie season he had with the Giants.
Let's not act like all would be good. Hell, we don't even know how good Allen would look with the OL.
That's why you guys live in 2018. And yet, even what we know of players on other teams isn't assured to have happened here.
Didn’t your buddy trade two firsts, two seconds, and a player for Allen?
I want that guy running the team.
Beane is an interesting guy. I'd like to know that power structure in Buffalo. McDermott is a very smart, forward thinking coach and was hired before Beane. So he may have a lot of weight in that war room...
Quote:
In comment 15238399 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
in my mind.
So the hypocrisy claim and the antagonizing claim posts were just slips from the computer keypad?
Well, the hypocrisy claim arose from the discussion.
Gatorade Dunk was the first to bring up antagonizing claim, several times, and then I responded.
Ok, just natural flow of the conversation...got it.
Quote:
In comment 15235744 Osi Osi Osi OyOyOy said:
Quote:
I think in general, you are absolutely correct based on what we've seen that TE is a position like RB that isn't considered great value in the 1st.
However the reasoning I've seen behind Pitts being #1 is that "he's basically a WR who can also play TE" rather than a natural TE. That makes sense, when you watch him play he does look like an easier fit to play outside than a true TE like a Hockenson.
But I'm still scared that we're just assuming a college TE can just go into the NFL and dominate as a WR. It's why I have him ranked below Chase and Smith.
Pitts seems like he will be a bigger, stronger, faster, Julio Jones.
Calm down buddy lol. He's bigger and he's stronger, but faster? No chance.
Pitts ran 4.44 at the Florida Pro Day and people were surprised that he did that well because they expected low 4.5s. He also had a 7.12 3-Cone which is about average.
Julio had a 4.34 40 and 6.66 3-Cone at the Combine and his play speed is clearly a tier or two ahead of Pitts.
If Pitts were a "bigger/stronge/faster" Julio Jones, then he wouldn't be considered a TE at all. He's not slow by any means, he definitely has some speed to his game. But he's not that fast by WR standards, and he's certainly not agile by WR standards. He makes his money by having a special Catch Radius and great hands.
yes you're right. I got over my skis. But his size/speed combo is extraordinary.
"Not every guy I’ve signed the coaches are screaming down the hall, ‘Yay. We just got an All-American player.’ Sometimes they’re going ‘I don’t know if I see the fit.’ But as long as they’re open to it and they’re going to work with them, sometimes those guys will say ‘Hey, you were right’ and sometimes it doesn’t work out. I think that’s how we stay on the same page.