I think the move is to either trade him or let him play out his rookie deal, sign a big deal elsewhere, and help your comp pick formula.
The hard truth is this:
2018 average yards gained by a play to Barkley: 5.3
2020 average yards gained by a play to Gallman: 4.7
League average both years was 5.6.
Running the ball effectively is about blocking and scheme much more than it is the runner. With Stefanski and that offensive line Cleveland would be able to run the ball effectively with most backs.
Let’s all make Terps feel good and think he’s making a valid point by pretending to ignore the fact that we all know Barkley’s stats were compiled running behind a line that allowed him a league worst initial contact number. Statistics lie and…..
It’s shocking in a way. Gallmans 2018, albeit small sample size, running behind the same line was embarrassing. 3.5 YPC and even if he got double the carries I suspect it would be well under 4 YPC, no reason to think otherwise since he can’t break tackles or create big runs. So a full 1.5 yards per carry less.
So was Gallman running 1.5 yards less per carry because it was about blocking but not for Barkley? Or are they really completely different players and the individual does actually matter most of the time?
RE: I wouldn’t be opposed to trying to sign Saquon for a bargain NOW..
I’d be shocked if Saquon wasn’t resigned though, shocked. For all the people saying RB’s are overvalued, teams don’t appear to be operating that way. Aside from the Steelers and Bell, I can’t think of any teams not paying their RB’s.
How many of those teams resigning RBs to huge contracts win Superbowls?
RE: RE: I wouldn’t be opposed to trying to sign Saquon for a bargain NOW..
I’d be shocked if Saquon wasn’t resigned though, shocked. For all the people saying RB’s are overvalued, teams don’t appear to be operating that way. Aside from the Steelers and Bell, I can’t think of any teams not paying their RB’s.
I m not certain people believe RB s are overvalued as to their contributions to an offense. Rather I think the opinion is you can get a good one without spending a real high draft pick on the position; at least that s the argument with Saquon.
Truthfully I kind of agree with that premise Sean, mostly because of the injury factor and shorter career of that position. The injury factor has certainly been true up to now with Barkley.
I almost agree. I think it's more that a huge part of a RBs success is determined on their OL, and because of that, a great, talented RB is going to have similar impact to a decent one. And that's not factoring in the fact that the decent one will cost a lot less.
But you are right in the part where injuries are also a concern at the position, and Barkley in particular has missed more games than he's played - he's already got a ton of wear and tear.
RE: RE: I wouldn’t be opposed to trying to sign Saquon for a bargain NOW..
I’d be shocked if Saquon wasn’t resigned though, shocked. For all the people saying RB’s are overvalued, teams don’t appear to be operating that way. Aside from the Steelers and Bell, I can’t think of any teams not paying their RB’s.
How many of those teams resigning RBs to huge contracts win Superbowls?
How many teams in general win super bowls?
The answer is overwhelmingly the teams with the star QB. Is resigning Aaron Jones the reason why the Packers didn’t make the Super Bowl this season? No, it wasn’t. Is resigning Alvin Kamara the reason why the Saints couldn’t get back? No, an aging Brees was.
RB contracts are becoming a value now, they don’t prohibit you from improving your team like much bigger contracts do from other positions that I’d argue have an equally high bust rate.
I think the move is to either trade him or let him play out his rookie deal, sign a big deal elsewhere, and help your comp pick formula.
The hard truth is this:
2018 average yards gained by a play to Barkley: 5.3
2020 average yards gained by a play to Gallman: 4.7
League average both years was 5.6.
Running the ball effectively is about blocking and scheme much more than it is the runner. With Stefanski and that offensive line Cleveland would be able to run the ball effectively with most backs.
This is apples to oranges, The OL was a shambles in 2018, 2020 the run blocking was good. A better comparison would be Gallman in 2018 vs Barkley in 2018, which would show a big difference (but you know that already).
Gallman can't break tackles the way Barkley does, and he sure as hell can't get the YAC be it as a contact runner or out of the backfield/on routes either. He's ordinary as can be.
RE: RE: I wouldn’t be opposed to trying to sign Saquon for a bargain NOW..
I m not certain people believe RB s are overvalued as to their contributions to an offense. Rather I think the opinion is you can get a good one without spending a real high draft pick on the position; at least that s the argument with Saquon.
That's essentially where I am with RBs. It's one of the more - if not the most - fungible positions in the NFL. It's a position with the the shortest shelf life and constant durability concerns.
My other amendment is that I think you can get a good one without a high pick OR spending a lot of cap space.
Give me more money to spend on OLs, corners, and DLs over a RB all of the time.
Look, as someone who grew up admiring the concept of "smash mouth" football, I wish the running game was more vital to winning games. But it isn't; so you have to adapt or die.
You would hope this Chubb contract should help with
I m not certain people believe RB s are overvalued as to their contributions to an offense. Rather I think the opinion is you can get a good one without spending a real high draft pick on the position; at least that s the argument with Saquon.
That's essentially where I am with RBs. It's one of the more - if not the most - fungible positions in the NFL. It's a position with the the shortest shelf life and constant durability concerns.
My other amendment is that I think you can get a good one without a high pick OR spending a lot of cap space.
Give me more money to spend on OLs, corners, and DLs over a RB all of the time.
Look, as someone who grew up admiring the concept of "smash mouth" football, I wish the running game was more vital to winning games. But it isn't; so you have to adapt or die.
Poor take regarding the running game and its importance. It is still vital for the vast majority of teams. Look at the teams in the playoffs. It significantly helps younger Qb's. TB was I think the worst rushing team in the playoffs last year but they really stepped it up come playoff time.
I understand the SB pick at that time (I believe a mandate existed). If he returns to form you possible give him a contract like Chubb. If he balks or creates a problem with a hold out you trade him imo.
RE: RE: RE: RE: I wouldn’t be opposed to trying to sign Saquon for a bargain NOW..
Poor take regarding the running game and its importance. It is still vital for the vast majority of teams. Look at the teams in the playoffs. It significantly helps younger Qb's. TB was I think the worst rushing team in the playoffs last year but they really stepped it up come playoff time.
I understand the SB pick at that time (I believe a mandate existed). If he returns to form you possible give him a contract like Chubb. If he balks or creates a problem with a hold out you trade him imo.
I did look at the teams in the playoffs and their run rankings were all over the place. The Bucs were like 26th in rushing. The Bills were like 20th. The Steelers were dead last. The Chiefs were like 16th or 17th.
The Browns/Ravens/Titans were top three. But the Ravens are an oddity because of LJax's unique style.
My point being having a top running game doesn't improve the chances of success. It may help, but it is no longer a top variable...
The Tamps D held Green Bay to 26 points at Green Bay. Green Bay averaged 32 ppg all year and 34 ppg at home.
They held New Orleans to 20 points in New Orleans. New Orleans averaged 30 ppg all year and 32 ppg at home (and that's with Brees missing close to a month).
And in the SB, they held the Chiefs to 9ppg. The Chiefs averaged 30 ppg all year.
So I would argue the defense was more vital in the Bucs finding their way to a SB win than any shift in philosophy to run the ball.
Look, I think it's important to run the ball. But that doesn't win games. Scoring points wins games and the best path to score points is to pass.
The Tamps D held Green Bay to 26 points at Green Bay. Green Bay averaged 32 ppg all year and 34 ppg at home.
They held New Orleans to 20 points in New Orleans. New Orleans averaged 30 ppg all year and 32 ppg at home (and that's with Brees missing close to a month).
And in the SB, they held the Chiefs to 9ppg. The Chiefs averaged 30 ppg all year.
So I would argue the defense was more vital in the Bucs finding their way to a SB win than any shift in philosophy to run the ball.
Look, I think it's important to run the ball. But that doesn't win games. Scoring points wins games and the best path to score points is to pass.
When you are playing good D, running the ball goes hand to hand in helping you win games and hold leads due to lower variance. Football is a team sport, you can get lucky and get good stylistic matchups all the way to a SB win, but generally, teams that win are solid in everything. The Bucs certainly fit that bill.
is still predicated very much on the run game for the vast majority of teams in the league. And each position has its own average salary and range of guaranteed money - its pretty low for RBs due to longevity, not importance, IMO. There’s a reason these guys extended, because without them they typically don’t produce the same offense, we see it all the time. RBBC sounds great but it often misses as well.
But this is starting to feel disingenuous like all the other running back threads so I’m not sure what the point is in even arguing.
is still predicated very much on the run game for the vast majority of teams in the league. And each position has its own average salary and range of guaranteed money - its pretty low for RBs due to longevity, not importance, IMO. There’s a reason these guys extended, because without them they typically don’t produce the same offense, we see it all the time. RBBC sounds great but it often misses as well.
But this is starting to feel disingenuous like all the other running back threads so I’m not sure what the point is in even arguing.
What is disingenuous?
My argument is you don't need balance between a passing game and running game to win. If you can somehow get it, great. But the better path to winning is having a upper level passing game.
The real "balance" argument is having a high scoring offense and a defense that bends but doesn't break and is in the upper half of the league in PPG allowed.
You seem to completely dismiss the notion that a top passing offense
in part exists due to the run game. Investing in the run is investing in the passing game. And it’s cheaper - Chubb makes less guaranteed money than Corey Davis, chew on that for a second. Paying Beckham and Landry are huge wastes of money, so if they don’t improve on their 2021 season look that direction because it isn’t due to what they pay Chubb.
RE: You seem to completely dismiss the notion that a top passing offense
in part exists due to the run game. Investing in the run is investing in the passing game. And it’s cheaper - Chubb makes less guaranteed money than Corey Davis, chew on that for a second. Paying Beckham and Landry are huge wastes of money, so if they don’t improve on their 2021 season look that direction because it isn’t due to what they pay Chubb.
Right, both the Browns and Titans do it this way. Shit Corey Davis got paid because of this. Let's see what he does for the Jets this year, imo he ins't much different than the player he was when he came into the league. Just better pieces around him helped him put up some stats.
The Tamps D held Green Bay to 26 points at Green Bay. Green Bay averaged 32 ppg all year and 34 ppg at home.
They held New Orleans to 20 points in New Orleans. New Orleans averaged 30 ppg all year and 32 ppg at home (and that's with Brees missing close to a month).
And in the SB, they held the Chiefs to 9ppg. The Chiefs averaged 30 ppg all year.
So I would argue the defense was more vital in the Bucs finding their way to a SB win than any shift in philosophy to run the ball.
Look, I think it's important to run the ball. But that doesn't win games. Scoring points wins games and the best path to score points is to pass.
Tampa Bay had a good defense last year, no question about it and I have always maintained that defense wins championships. The Giants started looking good as their defense gelled -- so I have no dispute with the value of a good defense
It's ironic that NY played Tampa so well too
RE: You seem to completely dismiss the notion that a top passing offense
in part exists due to the run game. Investing in the run is investing in the passing game. And it’s cheaper - Chubb makes less guaranteed money than Corey Davis, chew on that for a second. Paying Beckham and Landry are huge wastes of money, so if they don’t improve on their 2021 season look that direction because it isn’t due to what they pay Chubb.
To me, investing in the "run" is when you invest in the OL and QB, not paying more/too much money to a RB. A good OL can impact both the passing game and the running game. And good QB speaks for itself.
Currently, we have a highly drafted, highly skilled RB. When the RB is healthy he does cool things like jump over defenders and breaks off huge runs once in a while. But despite all of that flair and fun, our record is always single digit wins and double digit losses with SB as our RB. Why? Because we have huge question marks at QB and the OL.
I like Chubb and think the player and the team got a fair deal with this new contract. But do you know why Cleveland is winning now? A good OL, a maturing/improving QB, a quality D, and what appears to a very good hire in Stefanski.
is still predicated very much on the run game for the vast majority of teams in the league. And each position has its own average salary and range of guaranteed money - its pretty low for RBs due to longevity, not importance, IMO. There’s a reason these guys extended, because without them they typically don’t produce the same offense, we see it all the time. RBBC sounds great but it often misses as well.
But this is starting to feel disingenuous like all the other running back threads so I’m not sure what the point is in even arguing.
What is disingenuous?
My argument is you don't need balance between a passing game and running game to win. If you can somehow get it, great. But the better path to winning is having a upper level passing game.
The real "balance" argument is having a high scoring offense and a defense that bends but doesn't break and is in the upper half of the league in PPG allowed.
bw -- the flaw in this above argument what pointed out by your own comments above.
Green Bay has what may be the best passing game in football -- knocked out of the playoffs with that best passing game for ten years running now
N Orleans Saints with Drew Brees also right up there has failed to make it through the playoff multifaceted for 10 years running now
KC lost it's Super bowl bid 2 out of 3 years running with a high flying passing game
Tampa won it last year because it's defense came together and gelled and because they had a better than average passing game with an all time great QB. Even so they mixed in a running game.
I would argue that if Green bay had a running game -- the out come of their playoffs game might have been different -- Green Bay hasn't had even a decent running back in some time
The Patriots over the past 20 something years also have played a balanced attack that counted on a running game, passing game, defense and special teams
In my opinion you do need to have a championship defense to have the best shot at winning the prize; you also need an above average QB, or at least a QB that plays above average; and I also maintain that a QB in that above average realm, needs a running game to support his efforts along with a decent line.
Do you need a super running back to win? Probably not -- but that does not mean you can't win with a super running back and super running attack. Just because you don't have examples to cite does not mean it is not the case. Having a multi-pronged weapon like Barkley is still an asset you can use to win. The only argument about running backs that I would buy is that a dominant running game on it's own -- is not enough to win. However, it is equally true that a dominant passing game on it's own -- is not enough to win.
You need to be multifacited to win, and I can't think of a SuperBowl team that won without having a damned good Defense. I can, on the other hand, think of Superbowl teams that won it without having an upper level passing game.
RE: RE: RE: The best way to score points (Passing)
is still predicated very much on the run game for the vast majority of teams in the league. And each position has its own average salary and range of guaranteed money - its pretty low for RBs due to longevity, not importance, IMO. There’s a reason these guys extended, because without them they typically don’t produce the same offense, we see it all the time. RBBC sounds great but it often misses as well.
But this is starting to feel disingenuous like all the other running back threads so I’m not sure what the point is in even arguing.
What is disingenuous?
My argument is you don't need balance between a passing game and running game to win. If you can somehow get it, great. But the better path to winning is having a upper level passing game.
The real "balance" argument is having a high scoring offense and a defense that bends but doesn't break and is in the upper half of the league in PPG allowed.
bw -- the flaw in this above argument what pointed out by your own comments above.
Green Bay has what may be the best passing game in football -- knocked out of the playoffs with that best passing game for ten years running now
N Orleans Saints with Drew Brees also right up there has failed to make it through the playoff multifaceted for 10 years running now
KC lost it's Super bowl bid 2 out of 3 years running with a high flying passing game
Tampa won it last year because it's defense came together and gelled and because they had a better than average passing game with an all time great QB. Even so they mixed in a running game.
I would argue that if Green bay had a running game -- the out come of their playoffs game might have been different -- Green Bay hasn't had even a decent running back in some time
The Patriots over the past 20 something years also have played a balanced attack that counted on a running game, passing game, defense and special teams
In my opinion you do need to have a championship defense to have the best shot at winning the prize; you also need an above average QB, or at least a QB that plays above average; and I also maintain that a QB in that above average realm, needs a running game to support his efforts along with a decent line.
Do you need a super running back to win? Probably not -- but that does not mean you can't win with a super running back and super running attack. Just because you don't have examples to cite does not mean it is not the case. Having a multi-pronged weapon like Barkley is still an asset you can use to win. The only argument about running backs that I would buy is that a dominant running game on it's own -- is not enough to win. However, it is equally true that a dominant passing game on it's own -- is not enough to win.
You need to be multifacited to win, and I can't think of a SuperBowl team that won without having a damned good Defense. I can, on the other hand, think of Superbowl teams that won it without having an upper level passing game.
You’re a very sick man, but an excellent poster. Well done, your Honor.
RE: RE: RE: The best way to score points (Passing)
is still predicated very much on the run game for the vast majority of teams in the league. And each position has its own average salary and range of guaranteed money - its pretty low for RBs due to longevity, not importance, IMO. There’s a reason these guys extended, because without them they typically don’t produce the same offense, we see it all the time. RBBC sounds great but it often misses as well.
But this is starting to feel disingenuous like all the other running back threads so I’m not sure what the point is in even arguing.
What is disingenuous?
My argument is you don't need balance between a passing game and running game to win. If you can somehow get it, great. But the better path to winning is having a upper level passing game.
The real "balance" argument is having a high scoring offense and a defense that bends but doesn't break and is in the upper half of the league in PPG allowed.
bw -- the flaw in this above argument what pointed out by your own comments above.
Green Bay has what may be the best passing game in football -- knocked out of the playoffs with that best passing game for ten years running now
N Orleans Saints with Drew Brees also right up there has failed to make it through the playoff multifaceted for 10 years running now
KC lost it's Super bowl bid 2 out of 3 years running with a high flying passing game
Tampa won it last year because it's defense came together and gelled and because they had a better than average passing game with an all time great QB. Even so they mixed in a running game.
I would argue that if Green bay had a running game -- the out come of their playoffs game might have been different -- Green Bay hasn't had even a decent running back in some time
The Patriots over the past 20 something years also have played a balanced attack that counted on a running game, passing game, defense and special teams
In my opinion you do need to have a championship defense to have the best shot at winning the prize; you also need an above average QB, or at least a QB that plays above average; and I also maintain that a QB in that above average realm, needs a running game to support his efforts along with a decent line.
Do you need a super running back to win? Probably not -- but that does not mean you can't win with a super running back and super running attack. Just because you don't have examples to cite does not mean it is not the case. Having a multi-pronged weapon like Barkley is still an asset you can use to win. The only argument about running backs that I would buy is that a dominant running game on it's own -- is not enough to win. However, it is equally true that a dominant passing game on it's own -- is not enough to win.
You need to be multifacited to win, and I can't think of a SuperBowl team that won without having a damned good Defense. I can, on the other hand, think of Superbowl teams that won it without having an upper level passing game.
Good post gidie, however I believe had Bakhtiari not gotten injured, Green Bay goes to the Super Bowl. KC likewise was missing both its starting tackles so it was open season on Mahomes in the SB, as it was against Rodgers in the NFCC game.
Neither GB or KC had Tampa's defense.
But I believe you to be correct that without a respectable running game the chances of winning in the NFL drop considerably.
I'm starting to sense a pattern on this board. Person A or B talks and everyone swarms. I'm almost afraid to chime in, this place is like Shark Week every day.
I'm starting to sense a pattern on this board. Person A or B talks and everyone swarms. I'm almost afraid to chime in, this place is like Shark Week every day.
It gets worse
RE: RE: RE: RE: The best way to score points (Passing)
is still predicated very much on the run game for the vast majority of teams in the league. And each position has its own average salary and range of guaranteed money - its pretty low for RBs due to longevity, not importance, IMO. There’s a reason these guys extended, because without them they typically don’t produce the same offense, we see it all the time. RBBC sounds great but it often misses as well.
But this is starting to feel disingenuous like all the other running back threads so I’m not sure what the point is in even arguing.
What is disingenuous?
My argument is you don't need balance between a passing game and running game to win. If you can somehow get it, great. But the better path to winning is having a upper level passing game.
The real "balance" argument is having a high scoring offense and a defense that bends but doesn't break and is in the upper half of the league in PPG allowed.
bw -- the flaw in this above argument what pointed out by your own comments above.
Green Bay has what may be the best passing game in football -- knocked out of the playoffs with that best passing game for ten years running now
N Orleans Saints with Drew Brees also right up there has failed to make it through the playoff multifaceted for 10 years running now
KC lost it's Super bowl bid 2 out of 3 years running with a high flying passing game
Tampa won it last year because it's defense came together and gelled and because they had a better than average passing game with an all time great QB. Even so they mixed in a running game.
I would argue that if Green bay had a running game -- the out come of their playoffs game might have been different -- Green Bay hasn't had even a decent running back in some time
The Patriots over the past 20 something years also have played a balanced attack that counted on a running game, passing game, defense and special teams
In my opinion you do need to have a championship defense to have the best shot at winning the prize; you also need an above average QB, or at least a QB that plays above average; and I also maintain that a QB in that above average realm, needs a running game to support his efforts along with a decent line.
Do you need a super running back to win? Probably not -- but that does not mean you can't win with a super running back and super running attack. Just because you don't have examples to cite does not mean it is not the case. Having a multi-pronged weapon like Barkley is still an asset you can use to win. The only argument about running backs that I would buy is that a dominant running game on it's own -- is not enough to win. However, it is equally true that a dominant passing game on it's own -- is not enough to win.
You need to be multifacited to win, and I can't think of a SuperBowl team that won without having a damned good Defense. I can, on the other hand, think of Superbowl teams that won it without having an upper level passing game.
Good post gidie, however I believe had Bakhtiari not gotten injured, Green Bay goes to the Super Bowl. KC likewise was missing both its starting tackles so it was open season on Mahomes in the SB, as it was against Rodgers in the NFCC game.
Neither GB or KC had Tampa's defense.
But I believe you to be correct that without a respectable running game the chances of winning in the NFL drop considerably.
gidiefor with a very good post. And Section actually hits the nail on the head with lost tackle and other comments...
I was going to write a snarky comment about you only starting to sense a pattern, but then decided to check your sign up date just to make sure you weren't a noobie. good thing. Of course, you could be a dupe, in which case those who make it their life's mission to sniff out dupes will suss you out soon enough. Being a dupe and sniffing out dupes is another trend that often takes precedence over football.
Yup, this is standard operating procedure: attack the poster, not the post. Swarm. This thread is actually fairly benign.
With the advent of camp, and something to actually talk about, the venom/shark week phenomenon is muted. It'll return in full blown embarrassing strength soon.
I'm starting to sense a pattern on this board. Person A or B talks and everyone swarms. I'm almost afraid to chime in, this place is like Shark Week every day.
You'll be fine. Just stay away from any critiques of DJ, Saquon and Gettleman. Don't ever bring up anything from 2018 or generally anything prior to Joe Judge arriving. But keep a soft spot for posters that promote conspiracy and mandate theories, as they add the real color to threads...
good running game. They actually have been very good at putting together good OL's for like 30 years now.
How much cap is allocated is not a science. Championships have been won lots of ways when it comes to spending money.
2007 Giants. Money was spent on WR, DL and somewhat at OL. Eli was on the old contract system so he was more expensive than current rookie contracts. RB's were cheap on the roster.
2011 Giants: Big money on the OL and QB. RB's were higher at this point. WR was a bargain. Money was big again on DL and safety.
good running game. They actually have been very good at putting together good OL's for like 30 years now.
How much cap is allocated is not a science. Championships have been won lots of ways when it comes to spending money.
2007 Giants. Money was spent on WR, DL and somewhat at OL. Eli was on the old contract system so he was more expensive than current rookie contracts. RB's were cheap on the roster.
2011 Giants: Big money on the OL and QB. RB's were higher at this point. WR was a bargain. Money was big again on DL and safety.
WR and DL (specifically edge rushers) are where I see the biggest overspend taking place in this era of football over any other, often times with a poor return on investment. WR contracts are insane, and the number of busts are starting to pile up. Fingers cross Golladay isn't one of them (although his guarantees are 10th in the league and fairly reasonable). RB contracts are now a bargain Cook, Kamara, Chubb all have great deals and all 3 players are the MVP's of their offense.
No idea what Barkley will command but arguing about it is as irrelevant as it can be right now. He needs to prove he's healthy - if he doesn't I suspect he won't get contract #2 for us. And even if he does, speculating what it will look like is pointless.
I think the move is to either trade him or let him play out his rookie deal, sign a big deal elsewhere, and help your comp pick formula.
Everyone on this board could predict what you think the Browns should have done. You've had the same formula for a while, some sort of fantasy where each player with an expiring contract is replaced by a mid-level draft pick or a UDFA.
I was going to write a snarky comment about you only starting to sense a pattern, but then decided to check your sign up date just to make sure you weren't a noobie. good thing. Of course, you could be a dupe, in which case those who make it their life's mission to sniff out dupes will suss you out soon enough. Being a dupe and sniffing out dupes is another trend that often takes precedence over football.
Yup, this is standard operating procedure: attack the poster, not the post. Swarm. This thread is actually fairly benign.
With the advent of camp, and something to actually talk about, the venom/shark week phenomenon is muted. It'll return in full blown embarrassing strength soon.
I appreciate you not attacking, I was just told about this site a few weeks ago, and I was warned but man it's rough here. I'll be a peanut gallery type, I'm not one for all the arguing, I do that enough with my idiot brother who is somehow a Jets fan.
TB really started to get on a roll when Fournette was a factor. He had an excellent postseason and probably could have been the MVP of the Super Bowl.
That's the thing I don't get about the high praise for the top offenses. It will get you to the playoffs, but the team that wins is most often the team who has their defense strengthen and who has a consistent running game.
That's generally been the formula for at least one team in the SB
is going to be whether the Giants pay him based on his actual production, or on his potential. When fully healthy, you can certainly argue Barkley is a more complete back than Chubb. But to this point, who has been more productive and a more impactful player on their team's success? It's Chubb.
If Barkley wants a contract north of what Chubb got, this is a critical year for him to play 16 games and produce consistently.
Barring another bad injury (God forbid) I don't think there is any chance the Giants do not resign him.
Tampa signed him off the street on September 2, 2020 for $2M. If you're going to point to him as proof of anything it's that spending at the position doesn't make much sense.
Tampa signed him off the street on September 2, 2020 for $2M. If you're going to point to him as proof of anything it's that spending at the position doesn't make much sense.
It is also proof that a running game is needed for a Super Bowl run/win.
Multiple things can be at play although I know that's a tough topic to grasp when you want to make it sound like there is only one viable strategy when it comes to RB's.
I agree - multiple things are at play in creating a successful running game...which begs the question again why you'd overspend at RB when the success of the position is so reliant on outside factors.
I agree - multiple things are at play in creating a successful running game...which begs the question again why you'd overspend at RB when the success of the position is so reliant on outside factors.
and another Go Panic moment -- if you don't do it his way -- he Panics
If you equate spending money on a position that you think can be filled with any scrub, then it isn't really a discussion. I think you know where Fournette was drafted.
Pay a RB fairly and you won't be in a tough shape with the cap.
RE: RE: RE: The best way to score points (Passing)
bw -- the flaw in this above argument what pointed out by your own comments above.
Green Bay has what may be the best passing game in football -- knocked out of the playoffs with that best passing game for ten years running now
N Orleans Saints with Drew Brees also right up there has failed to make it through the playoff multifaceted for 10 years running now
KC lost it's Super bowl bid 2 out of 3 years running with a high flying passing game
Tampa won it last year because it's defense came together and gelled and because they had a better than average passing game with an all time great QB. Even so they mixed in a running game.
I would argue that if Green bay had a running game -- the out come of their playoffs game might have been different -- Green Bay hasn't had even a decent running back in some time
The Patriots over the past 20 something years also have played a balanced attack that counted on a running game, passing game, defense and special teams
In my opinion you do need to have a championship defense to have the best shot at winning the prize; you also need an above average QB, or at least a QB that plays above average; and I also maintain that a QB in that above average realm, needs a running game to support his efforts along with a decent line.
Do you need a super running back to win? Probably not -- but that does not mean you can't win with a super running back and super running attack. Just because you don't have examples to cite does not mean it is not the case. Having a multi-pronged weapon like Barkley is still an asset you can use to win. The only argument about running backs that I would buy is that a dominant running game on it's own -- is not enough to win. However, it is equally true that a dominant passing game on it's own -- is not enough to win.
You need to be multifacited to win, and I can't think of a SuperBowl team that won without having a damned good Defense. I can, on the other hand, think of Superbowl teams that won it without having an upper level passing game.
There is a lot to unpack here.
I agree with your multifaceted POV.
My guess is our differences here are the level of each facet that is needed to consistently compete.
I think the most important elements to consistently win are: (1) having a passing game that drives PPG (having the right QB), (2) having a solid defense that is top 12ish in PPG allowed, (3) and then having a running decent-good running game.
The Pats, FWIW, morphed from a traditional "balanced" team - a team that tried to establish a running game - in the early stages of their dynasty ('01 - '07) to a dominant passing team once they recognized and trusted Brady's elite talent.
So their running game since, with Brady, was really a derivate of their passing attack smothering teams, building a lead, and then they ran to kill clock.
I'm not sure I get the point on the Packers. They have consistently knocked on the door challenging for titles for the last 10-14 years. And in largely because they solved the most important variable with Rodgers. Could they have been a little better here and there at times to possibly have another SB or two? Sure. But at least, again, they have been there knocking on the door.
And let's be honest, in 2015 they had Seattle beat in the NFC championship game until the Brandon Bostick flubbed the onside kick and Seattle pulled off the miracle win. Otherwise, they could have a second SB title.
However, this debate, really, has been about the best way to build a running game. So I haven't said it's not a need to address. But I steadfastly remain in the camp that that is best achieved through investing less in the RB position and more in the OL. If you have a competent scouting department, you should always been able to find RB solutions in the draft, with undrafted players or in free agency.
If you equate spending money on a position that you think can be filled with any scrub, then it isn't really a discussion. I think you know where Fournette was drafted.
Pay a RB fairly and you won't be in a tough shape with the cap.
I do know where Fournette was drafted...and how'd that end up working out for the team that drafted him?
I agree - multiple things are at play in creating a successful running game...which begs the question again why you'd overspend at RB when the success of the position is so reliant on outside factors.
and another Go Panic moment -- if you don't do it his way -- he Panics
I know you're trying to get this to catch on, but it isn't working. You're a shitty poster and a shitty moderator.
It is also proof that a running game is needed for a Super Bowl run/win.
No one has denied that having a running game isn't important. I don't think it's on the same level as developing an elite passing attack, but it's certainly wise to address it.
The question continues to be the best way to solve for it. And I contend, like always, it's best to go on the cheap with RBs - because they are so disposal - and focus more on building the right OL.
Money spent on OLs is such a wiser investment that I don't even think it's a close call...
I do know where Fournette was drafted...and how'd that end up working out for the team that drafted him?
So true. A very dumb move by Jacksonville. As dumb as ours when we drafted SB.
But kudos to the Bucs for timing it perfectly when to buy LF. He could still play but on a much cheaper, team friendly deal. And he's desperate to stay in the league.
doesn't show that going on the cheap for RB's has been a good strategy for the SB participants. The average pay for RB's of those teams is usually middle of the pack with a few cases of RB's highly paid and a couple where the teams are in the lowest quartile.
Fournette was a key part of Jax getting to a Championship game or are memories that short? Or perhaps intentionally oblivious because it goes against a narrative?
Quote:
I think the move is to either trade him or let him play out his rookie deal, sign a big deal elsewhere, and help your comp pick formula.
The hard truth is this:
2018 average yards gained by a play to Barkley: 5.3
2020 average yards gained by a play to Gallman: 4.7
League average both years was 5.6.
Running the ball effectively is about blocking and scheme much more than it is the runner. With Stefanski and that offensive line Cleveland would be able to run the ball effectively with most backs.
Let’s all make Terps feel good and think he’s making a valid point by pretending to ignore the fact that we all know Barkley’s stats were compiled running behind a line that allowed him a league worst initial contact number. Statistics lie and…..
It’s shocking in a way. Gallmans 2018, albeit small sample size, running behind the same line was embarrassing. 3.5 YPC and even if he got double the carries I suspect it would be well under 4 YPC, no reason to think otherwise since he can’t break tackles or create big runs. So a full 1.5 yards per carry less.
So was Gallman running 1.5 yards less per carry because it was about blocking but not for Barkley? Or are they really completely different players and the individual does actually matter most of the time?
How many of those teams resigning RBs to huge contracts win Superbowls?
Quote:
I’d be shocked if Saquon wasn’t resigned though, shocked. For all the people saying RB’s are overvalued, teams don’t appear to be operating that way. Aside from the Steelers and Bell, I can’t think of any teams not paying their RB’s.
I m not certain people believe RB s are overvalued as to their contributions to an offense. Rather I think the opinion is you can get a good one without spending a real high draft pick on the position; at least that s the argument with Saquon.
Truthfully I kind of agree with that premise Sean, mostly because of the injury factor and shorter career of that position. The injury factor has certainly been true up to now with Barkley.
I almost agree. I think it's more that a huge part of a RBs success is determined on their OL, and because of that, a great, talented RB is going to have similar impact to a decent one. And that's not factoring in the fact that the decent one will cost a lot less.
But you are right in the part where injuries are also a concern at the position, and Barkley in particular has missed more games than he's played - he's already got a ton of wear and tear.
Quote:
I’d be shocked if Saquon wasn’t resigned though, shocked. For all the people saying RB’s are overvalued, teams don’t appear to be operating that way. Aside from the Steelers and Bell, I can’t think of any teams not paying their RB’s.
How many of those teams resigning RBs to huge contracts win Superbowls?
How many teams in general win super bowls?
The answer is overwhelmingly the teams with the star QB. Is resigning Aaron Jones the reason why the Packers didn’t make the Super Bowl this season? No, it wasn’t. Is resigning Alvin Kamara the reason why the Saints couldn’t get back? No, an aging Brees was.
RB contracts are becoming a value now, they don’t prohibit you from improving your team like much bigger contracts do from other positions that I’d argue have an equally high bust rate.
The hard truth is this:
2018 average yards gained by a play to Barkley: 5.3
2020 average yards gained by a play to Gallman: 4.7
League average both years was 5.6.
Running the ball effectively is about blocking and scheme much more than it is the runner. With Stefanski and that offensive line Cleveland would be able to run the ball effectively with most backs.
This is apples to oranges, The OL was a shambles in 2018, 2020 the run blocking was good. A better comparison would be Gallman in 2018 vs Barkley in 2018, which would show a big difference (but you know that already).
Gallman can't break tackles the way Barkley does, and he sure as hell can't get the YAC be it as a contact runner or out of the backfield/on routes either. He's ordinary as can be.
I m not certain people believe RB s are overvalued as to their contributions to an offense. Rather I think the opinion is you can get a good one without spending a real high draft pick on the position; at least that s the argument with Saquon.
That's essentially where I am with RBs. It's one of the more - if not the most - fungible positions in the NFL. It's a position with the the shortest shelf life and constant durability concerns.
My other amendment is that I think you can get a good one without a high pick OR spending a lot of cap space.
Give me more money to spend on OLs, corners, and DLs over a RB all of the time.
Look, as someone who grew up admiring the concept of "smash mouth" football, I wish the running game was more vital to winning games. But it isn't; so you have to adapt or die.
Somebody help convince me this will be helpful for the cause...
Quote:
I m not certain people believe RB s are overvalued as to their contributions to an offense. Rather I think the opinion is you can get a good one without spending a real high draft pick on the position; at least that s the argument with Saquon.
That's essentially where I am with RBs. It's one of the more - if not the most - fungible positions in the NFL. It's a position with the the shortest shelf life and constant durability concerns.
My other amendment is that I think you can get a good one without a high pick OR spending a lot of cap space.
Give me more money to spend on OLs, corners, and DLs over a RB all of the time.
Look, as someone who grew up admiring the concept of "smash mouth" football, I wish the running game was more vital to winning games. But it isn't; so you have to adapt or die.
Poor take regarding the running game and its importance. It is still vital for the vast majority of teams. Look at the teams in the playoffs. It significantly helps younger Qb's. TB was I think the worst rushing team in the playoffs last year but they really stepped it up come playoff time.
I understand the SB pick at that time (I believe a mandate existed). If he returns to form you possible give him a contract like Chubb. If he balks or creates a problem with a hold out you trade him imo.
Poor take regarding the running game and its importance. It is still vital for the vast majority of teams. Look at the teams in the playoffs. It significantly helps younger Qb's. TB was I think the worst rushing team in the playoffs last year but they really stepped it up come playoff time.
I understand the SB pick at that time (I believe a mandate existed). If he returns to form you possible give him a contract like Chubb. If he balks or creates a problem with a hold out you trade him imo.
I did look at the teams in the playoffs and their run rankings were all over the place. The Bucs were like 26th in rushing. The Bills were like 20th. The Steelers were dead last. The Chiefs were like 16th or 17th.
The Browns/Ravens/Titans were top three. But the Ravens are an oddity because of LJax's unique style.
My point being having a top running game doesn't improve the chances of success. It may help, but it is no longer a top variable...
Football is about balance for the vast majority of teams. You can pick out a few outliers but the point remains.
Playoff football will expose a weakness and you will be sent home except for some outliers.
I already said TB was not a good regular season run team. They were a very good running team in the playoffs.
Buffalo will continue to get sent home early till they correct the deficiency. It will be harder for them now in the AFC East as well.
Mayfield finally is deemed a quality NFL QB. Look at that teams rush stats. I actually still think he is a flawed QB.
The game still has a very physical element to it despite the rule changes and running the football helps establish that presence.
Look at all the stats, analytics you want but you can't overcome this simple concept.
They held New Orleans to 20 points in New Orleans. New Orleans averaged 30 ppg all year and 32 ppg at home (and that's with Brees missing close to a month).
And in the SB, they held the Chiefs to 9ppg. The Chiefs averaged 30 ppg all year.
So I would argue the defense was more vital in the Bucs finding their way to a SB win than any shift in philosophy to run the ball.
Look, I think it's important to run the ball. But that doesn't win games. Scoring points wins games and the best path to score points is to pass.
They held New Orleans to 20 points in New Orleans. New Orleans averaged 30 ppg all year and 32 ppg at home (and that's with Brees missing close to a month).
And in the SB, they held the Chiefs to 9ppg. The Chiefs averaged 30 ppg all year.
So I would argue the defense was more vital in the Bucs finding their way to a SB win than any shift in philosophy to run the ball.
Look, I think it's important to run the ball. But that doesn't win games. Scoring points wins games and the best path to score points is to pass.
When you are playing good D, running the ball goes hand to hand in helping you win games and hold leads due to lower variance. Football is a team sport, you can get lucky and get good stylistic matchups all the way to a SB win, but generally, teams that win are solid in everything. The Bucs certainly fit that bill.
But this is starting to feel disingenuous like all the other running back threads so I’m not sure what the point is in even arguing.
But this is starting to feel disingenuous like all the other running back threads so I’m not sure what the point is in even arguing.
What is disingenuous?
My argument is you don't need balance between a passing game and running game to win. If you can somehow get it, great. But the better path to winning is having a upper level passing game.
The real "balance" argument is having a high scoring offense and a defense that bends but doesn't break and is in the upper half of the league in PPG allowed.
Right, both the Browns and Titans do it this way. Shit Corey Davis got paid because of this. Let's see what he does for the Jets this year, imo he ins't much different than the player he was when he came into the league. Just better pieces around him helped him put up some stats.
YDS/YPC/TDs/1Ds
1650/4.7/13/71
1685/4.7/11/89
1768/4.4/13/91
I think Barkley is a really good running back, and I hope he’s lights out the next 2-3 years. But at this point, I’d prefer they pay him year to year.
They held New Orleans to 20 points in New Orleans. New Orleans averaged 30 ppg all year and 32 ppg at home (and that's with Brees missing close to a month).
And in the SB, they held the Chiefs to 9ppg. The Chiefs averaged 30 ppg all year.
So I would argue the defense was more vital in the Bucs finding their way to a SB win than any shift in philosophy to run the ball.
Look, I think it's important to run the ball. But that doesn't win games. Scoring points wins games and the best path to score points is to pass.
Tampa Bay had a good defense last year, no question about it and I have always maintained that defense wins championships. The Giants started looking good as their defense gelled -- so I have no dispute with the value of a good defense
It's ironic that NY played Tampa so well too
To me, investing in the "run" is when you invest in the OL and QB, not paying more/too much money to a RB. A good OL can impact both the passing game and the running game. And good QB speaks for itself.
Currently, we have a highly drafted, highly skilled RB. When the RB is healthy he does cool things like jump over defenders and breaks off huge runs once in a while. But despite all of that flair and fun, our record is always single digit wins and double digit losses with SB as our RB. Why? Because we have huge question marks at QB and the OL.
I like Chubb and think the player and the team got a fair deal with this new contract. But do you know why Cleveland is winning now? A good OL, a maturing/improving QB, a quality D, and what appears to a very good hire in Stefanski.
Quote:
is still predicated very much on the run game for the vast majority of teams in the league. And each position has its own average salary and range of guaranteed money - its pretty low for RBs due to longevity, not importance, IMO. There’s a reason these guys extended, because without them they typically don’t produce the same offense, we see it all the time. RBBC sounds great but it often misses as well.
But this is starting to feel disingenuous like all the other running back threads so I’m not sure what the point is in even arguing.
What is disingenuous?
My argument is you don't need balance between a passing game and running game to win. If you can somehow get it, great. But the better path to winning is having a upper level passing game.
The real "balance" argument is having a high scoring offense and a defense that bends but doesn't break and is in the upper half of the league in PPG allowed.
bw -- the flaw in this above argument what pointed out by your own comments above.
Green Bay has what may be the best passing game in football -- knocked out of the playoffs with that best passing game for ten years running now
N Orleans Saints with Drew Brees also right up there has failed to make it through the playoff multifaceted for 10 years running now
KC lost it's Super bowl bid 2 out of 3 years running with a high flying passing game
Tampa won it last year because it's defense came together and gelled and because they had a better than average passing game with an all time great QB. Even so they mixed in a running game.
I would argue that if Green bay had a running game -- the out come of their playoffs game might have been different -- Green Bay hasn't had even a decent running back in some time
The Patriots over the past 20 something years also have played a balanced attack that counted on a running game, passing game, defense and special teams
In my opinion you do need to have a championship defense to have the best shot at winning the prize; you also need an above average QB, or at least a QB that plays above average; and I also maintain that a QB in that above average realm, needs a running game to support his efforts along with a decent line.
Do you need a super running back to win? Probably not -- but that does not mean you can't win with a super running back and super running attack. Just because you don't have examples to cite does not mean it is not the case. Having a multi-pronged weapon like Barkley is still an asset you can use to win. The only argument about running backs that I would buy is that a dominant running game on it's own -- is not enough to win. However, it is equally true that a dominant passing game on it's own -- is not enough to win.
You need to be multifacited to win, and I can't think of a SuperBowl team that won without having a damned good Defense. I can, on the other hand, think of Superbowl teams that won it without having an upper level passing game.
Quote:
In comment 15319144 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
is still predicated very much on the run game for the vast majority of teams in the league. And each position has its own average salary and range of guaranteed money - its pretty low for RBs due to longevity, not importance, IMO. There’s a reason these guys extended, because without them they typically don’t produce the same offense, we see it all the time. RBBC sounds great but it often misses as well.
But this is starting to feel disingenuous like all the other running back threads so I’m not sure what the point is in even arguing.
What is disingenuous?
My argument is you don't need balance between a passing game and running game to win. If you can somehow get it, great. But the better path to winning is having a upper level passing game.
The real "balance" argument is having a high scoring offense and a defense that bends but doesn't break and is in the upper half of the league in PPG allowed.
bw -- the flaw in this above argument what pointed out by your own comments above.
Green Bay has what may be the best passing game in football -- knocked out of the playoffs with that best passing game for ten years running now
N Orleans Saints with Drew Brees also right up there has failed to make it through the playoff multifaceted for 10 years running now
KC lost it's Super bowl bid 2 out of 3 years running with a high flying passing game
Tampa won it last year because it's defense came together and gelled and because they had a better than average passing game with an all time great QB. Even so they mixed in a running game.
I would argue that if Green bay had a running game -- the out come of their playoffs game might have been different -- Green Bay hasn't had even a decent running back in some time
The Patriots over the past 20 something years also have played a balanced attack that counted on a running game, passing game, defense and special teams
In my opinion you do need to have a championship defense to have the best shot at winning the prize; you also need an above average QB, or at least a QB that plays above average; and I also maintain that a QB in that above average realm, needs a running game to support his efforts along with a decent line.
Do you need a super running back to win? Probably not -- but that does not mean you can't win with a super running back and super running attack. Just because you don't have examples to cite does not mean it is not the case. Having a multi-pronged weapon like Barkley is still an asset you can use to win. The only argument about running backs that I would buy is that a dominant running game on it's own -- is not enough to win. However, it is equally true that a dominant passing game on it's own -- is not enough to win.
You need to be multifacited to win, and I can't think of a SuperBowl team that won without having a damned good Defense. I can, on the other hand, think of Superbowl teams that won it without having an upper level passing game.
You’re a very sick man, but an excellent poster. Well done, your Honor.
Quote:
In comment 15319144 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
is still predicated very much on the run game for the vast majority of teams in the league. And each position has its own average salary and range of guaranteed money - its pretty low for RBs due to longevity, not importance, IMO. There’s a reason these guys extended, because without them they typically don’t produce the same offense, we see it all the time. RBBC sounds great but it often misses as well.
But this is starting to feel disingenuous like all the other running back threads so I’m not sure what the point is in even arguing.
What is disingenuous?
My argument is you don't need balance between a passing game and running game to win. If you can somehow get it, great. But the better path to winning is having a upper level passing game.
The real "balance" argument is having a high scoring offense and a defense that bends but doesn't break and is in the upper half of the league in PPG allowed.
bw -- the flaw in this above argument what pointed out by your own comments above.
Green Bay has what may be the best passing game in football -- knocked out of the playoffs with that best passing game for ten years running now
N Orleans Saints with Drew Brees also right up there has failed to make it through the playoff multifaceted for 10 years running now
KC lost it's Super bowl bid 2 out of 3 years running with a high flying passing game
Tampa won it last year because it's defense came together and gelled and because they had a better than average passing game with an all time great QB. Even so they mixed in a running game.
I would argue that if Green bay had a running game -- the out come of their playoffs game might have been different -- Green Bay hasn't had even a decent running back in some time
The Patriots over the past 20 something years also have played a balanced attack that counted on a running game, passing game, defense and special teams
In my opinion you do need to have a championship defense to have the best shot at winning the prize; you also need an above average QB, or at least a QB that plays above average; and I also maintain that a QB in that above average realm, needs a running game to support his efforts along with a decent line.
Do you need a super running back to win? Probably not -- but that does not mean you can't win with a super running back and super running attack. Just because you don't have examples to cite does not mean it is not the case. Having a multi-pronged weapon like Barkley is still an asset you can use to win. The only argument about running backs that I would buy is that a dominant running game on it's own -- is not enough to win. However, it is equally true that a dominant passing game on it's own -- is not enough to win.
You need to be multifacited to win, and I can't think of a SuperBowl team that won without having a damned good Defense. I can, on the other hand, think of Superbowl teams that won it without having an upper level passing game.
Good post gidie, however I believe had Bakhtiari not gotten injured, Green Bay goes to the Super Bowl. KC likewise was missing both its starting tackles so it was open season on Mahomes in the SB, as it was against Rodgers in the NFCC game.
Neither GB or KC had Tampa's defense.
But I believe you to be correct that without a respectable running game the chances of winning in the NFL drop considerably.
It gets worse
Quote:
In comment 15319176 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 15319144 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
is still predicated very much on the run game for the vast majority of teams in the league. And each position has its own average salary and range of guaranteed money - its pretty low for RBs due to longevity, not importance, IMO. There’s a reason these guys extended, because without them they typically don’t produce the same offense, we see it all the time. RBBC sounds great but it often misses as well.
But this is starting to feel disingenuous like all the other running back threads so I’m not sure what the point is in even arguing.
What is disingenuous?
My argument is you don't need balance between a passing game and running game to win. If you can somehow get it, great. But the better path to winning is having a upper level passing game.
The real "balance" argument is having a high scoring offense and a defense that bends but doesn't break and is in the upper half of the league in PPG allowed.
bw -- the flaw in this above argument what pointed out by your own comments above.
Green Bay has what may be the best passing game in football -- knocked out of the playoffs with that best passing game for ten years running now
N Orleans Saints with Drew Brees also right up there has failed to make it through the playoff multifaceted for 10 years running now
KC lost it's Super bowl bid 2 out of 3 years running with a high flying passing game
Tampa won it last year because it's defense came together and gelled and because they had a better than average passing game with an all time great QB. Even so they mixed in a running game.
I would argue that if Green bay had a running game -- the out come of their playoffs game might have been different -- Green Bay hasn't had even a decent running back in some time
The Patriots over the past 20 something years also have played a balanced attack that counted on a running game, passing game, defense and special teams
In my opinion you do need to have a championship defense to have the best shot at winning the prize; you also need an above average QB, or at least a QB that plays above average; and I also maintain that a QB in that above average realm, needs a running game to support his efforts along with a decent line.
Do you need a super running back to win? Probably not -- but that does not mean you can't win with a super running back and super running attack. Just because you don't have examples to cite does not mean it is not the case. Having a multi-pronged weapon like Barkley is still an asset you can use to win. The only argument about running backs that I would buy is that a dominant running game on it's own -- is not enough to win. However, it is equally true that a dominant passing game on it's own -- is not enough to win.
You need to be multifacited to win, and I can't think of a SuperBowl team that won without having a damned good Defense. I can, on the other hand, think of Superbowl teams that won it without having an upper level passing game.
Good post gidie, however I believe had Bakhtiari not gotten injured, Green Bay goes to the Super Bowl. KC likewise was missing both its starting tackles so it was open season on Mahomes in the SB, as it was against Rodgers in the NFCC game.
Neither GB or KC had Tampa's defense.
But I believe you to be correct that without a respectable running game the chances of winning in the NFL drop considerably.
gidiefor with a very good post. And Section actually hits the nail on the head with lost tackle and other comments...
Yup, this is standard operating procedure: attack the poster, not the post. Swarm. This thread is actually fairly benign.
With the advent of camp, and something to actually talk about, the venom/shark week phenomenon is muted. It'll return in full blown embarrassing strength soon.
You'll be fine. Just stay away from any critiques of DJ, Saquon and Gettleman. Don't ever bring up anything from 2018 or generally anything prior to Joe Judge arriving. But keep a soft spot for posters that promote conspiracy and mandate theories, as they add the real color to threads...
How much cap is allocated is not a science. Championships have been won lots of ways when it comes to spending money.
2007 Giants. Money was spent on WR, DL and somewhat at OL. Eli was on the old contract system so he was more expensive than current rookie contracts. RB's were cheap on the roster.
2011 Giants: Big money on the OL and QB. RB's were higher at this point. WR was a bargain. Money was big again on DL and safety.
How much cap is allocated is not a science. Championships have been won lots of ways when it comes to spending money.
2007 Giants. Money was spent on WR, DL and somewhat at OL. Eli was on the old contract system so he was more expensive than current rookie contracts. RB's were cheap on the roster.
2011 Giants: Big money on the OL and QB. RB's were higher at this point. WR was a bargain. Money was big again on DL and safety.
WR and DL (specifically edge rushers) are where I see the biggest overspend taking place in this era of football over any other, often times with a poor return on investment. WR contracts are insane, and the number of busts are starting to pile up. Fingers cross Golladay isn't one of them (although his guarantees are 10th in the league and fairly reasonable). RB contracts are now a bargain Cook, Kamara, Chubb all have great deals and all 3 players are the MVP's of their offense.
No idea what Barkley will command but arguing about it is as irrelevant as it can be right now. He needs to prove he's healthy - if he doesn't I suspect he won't get contract #2 for us. And even if he does, speculating what it will look like is pointless.
Everyone on this board could predict what you think the Browns should have done. You've had the same formula for a while, some sort of fantasy where each player with an expiring contract is replaced by a mid-level draft pick or a UDFA.
Yup, this is standard operating procedure: attack the poster, not the post. Swarm. This thread is actually fairly benign.
With the advent of camp, and something to actually talk about, the venom/shark week phenomenon is muted. It'll return in full blown embarrassing strength soon.
That's the thing I don't get about the high praise for the top offenses. It will get you to the playoffs, but the team that wins is most often the team who has their defense strengthen and who has a consistent running game.
That's generally been the formula for at least one team in the SB
If Barkley wants a contract north of what Chubb got, this is a critical year for him to play 16 games and produce consistently.
Barring another bad injury (God forbid) I don't think there is any chance the Giants do not resign him.
It is also proof that a running game is needed for a Super Bowl run/win.
Multiple things can be at play although I know that's a tough topic to grasp when you want to make it sound like there is only one viable strategy when it comes to RB's.
and another Go Panic moment -- if you don't do it his way -- he Panics
If you equate spending money on a position that you think can be filled with any scrub, then it isn't really a discussion. I think you know where Fournette was drafted.
Pay a RB fairly and you won't be in a tough shape with the cap.
bw -- the flaw in this above argument what pointed out by your own comments above.
Green Bay has what may be the best passing game in football -- knocked out of the playoffs with that best passing game for ten years running now
N Orleans Saints with Drew Brees also right up there has failed to make it through the playoff multifaceted for 10 years running now
KC lost it's Super bowl bid 2 out of 3 years running with a high flying passing game
Tampa won it last year because it's defense came together and gelled and because they had a better than average passing game with an all time great QB. Even so they mixed in a running game.
I would argue that if Green bay had a running game -- the out come of their playoffs game might have been different -- Green Bay hasn't had even a decent running back in some time
The Patriots over the past 20 something years also have played a balanced attack that counted on a running game, passing game, defense and special teams
In my opinion you do need to have a championship defense to have the best shot at winning the prize; you also need an above average QB, or at least a QB that plays above average; and I also maintain that a QB in that above average realm, needs a running game to support his efforts along with a decent line.
Do you need a super running back to win? Probably not -- but that does not mean you can't win with a super running back and super running attack. Just because you don't have examples to cite does not mean it is not the case. Having a multi-pronged weapon like Barkley is still an asset you can use to win. The only argument about running backs that I would buy is that a dominant running game on it's own -- is not enough to win. However, it is equally true that a dominant passing game on it's own -- is not enough to win.
You need to be multifacited to win, and I can't think of a SuperBowl team that won without having a damned good Defense. I can, on the other hand, think of Superbowl teams that won it without having an upper level passing game.
There is a lot to unpack here.
I agree with your multifaceted POV.
My guess is our differences here are the level of each facet that is needed to consistently compete.
I think the most important elements to consistently win are: (1) having a passing game that drives PPG (having the right QB), (2) having a solid defense that is top 12ish in PPG allowed, (3) and then having a running decent-good running game.
The Pats, FWIW, morphed from a traditional "balanced" team - a team that tried to establish a running game - in the early stages of their dynasty ('01 - '07) to a dominant passing team once they recognized and trusted Brady's elite talent.
So their running game since, with Brady, was really a derivate of their passing attack smothering teams, building a lead, and then they ran to kill clock.
I'm not sure I get the point on the Packers. They have consistently knocked on the door challenging for titles for the last 10-14 years. And in largely because they solved the most important variable with Rodgers. Could they have been a little better here and there at times to possibly have another SB or two? Sure. But at least, again, they have been there knocking on the door.
And let's be honest, in 2015 they had Seattle beat in the NFC championship game until the Brandon Bostick flubbed the onside kick and Seattle pulled off the miracle win. Otherwise, they could have a second SB title.
However, this debate, really, has been about the best way to build a running game. So I haven't said it's not a need to address. But I steadfastly remain in the camp that that is best achieved through investing less in the RB position and more in the OL. If you have a competent scouting department, you should always been able to find RB solutions in the draft, with undrafted players or in free agency.
If you equate spending money on a position that you think can be filled with any scrub, then it isn't really a discussion. I think you know where Fournette was drafted.
Pay a RB fairly and you won't be in a tough shape with the cap.
I do know where Fournette was drafted...and how'd that end up working out for the team that drafted him?
Quote:
I agree - multiple things are at play in creating a successful running game...which begs the question again why you'd overspend at RB when the success of the position is so reliant on outside factors.
and another Go Panic moment -- if you don't do it his way -- he Panics
I know you're trying to get this to catch on, but it isn't working. You're a shitty poster and a shitty moderator.
It is also proof that a running game is needed for a Super Bowl run/win.
No one has denied that having a running game isn't important. I don't think it's on the same level as developing an elite passing attack, but it's certainly wise to address it.
The question continues to be the best way to solve for it. And I contend, like always, it's best to go on the cheap with RBs - because they are so disposal - and focus more on building the right OL.
Money spent on OLs is such a wiser investment that I don't even think it's a close call...
I do know where Fournette was drafted...and how'd that end up working out for the team that drafted him?
So true. A very dumb move by Jacksonville. As dumb as ours when we drafted SB.
But kudos to the Bucs for timing it perfectly when to buy LF. He could still play but on a much cheaper, team friendly deal. And he's desperate to stay in the league.
That's a very good way to do.
Fournette was a key part of Jax getting to a Championship game or are memories that short? Or perhaps intentionally oblivious because it goes against a narrative?