...a RB at 2." I had never heard of this supposed rule before the past couple of years on BBI. When was this rule invented?
We all know Saquon's strengths and shortcomings. If, in addition to his existing strengths, Saquon was a bruising between-the-tackles runner and pass-blocked like a left tackle, do you "still not take a RB at 2"?
I also read the same thing about certain other positions - for example, you supposedly can't take a center, or a guard, or a safety, and/or maybe some other position that I'm not naming, too high.
I understand that the difference between elite and other players is larger at some positions than others, but this team needs solid players at many, many positions and I don't think the team should be applying arbitrary rules to rule out certain players at certain points of the draft.
Back to the OP...I don't know if there was a specific time, but it was over a period of years when the bell cow backs disappeared in favor of a 2-headed approach. From there the overall value of a #1 RB began diminishing...Analytics were able to pluck capable backs in later rounds to fill 1 of the 2 roles and the nfl shifted to a use, abuse, and throw away philosophy towards its RB's...
Also, even at 235lbs....he wasn't a between the tackles...so not ideal.
But I also do not agree with the analyicallists.....who set these black and white rules.
Now that we have him....I wouldn't just give up on talent...but mindful of cap
Derrick Henry 45th pick
Jonathon Taylor 41st pick
Austin Ekeler 30th pick
Dalvin Cook 41st pick
Najee Harris pick 24th pick
Yes but you have to weigh in the likelihood of that happening, along with how hard it is to get top players at those positions. Quentin Nelson being an all pro isn't more valuable than if Wentz was.
1. RB by position has the shortest career span at 2.5 years (IOW RB's break)
2. RB contribution has been significant outside the first round more than most positions
3. RB as a position has been diminished with the league becoming "a passing league"
4. Investments in the OL have proven more fruitful to your team success overall than elite RB (IOW an elite RB has less impact on the offense than an elite OL with a less than elite RB)
Because of those reasons (and probably more) RB has been traditionally a bad investment with the #2 overall pick.
A teams situation can make it a good pick, but the state the Giants were in at the time that pick would have been better used on a different player (even if the different player didn't pan out either the strategy would have been more sound)
The thing is, between the possibility of injuries, facing better competition, and just the generally shorter productive careers that running backs typically enjoy, the odds that Barkley was ever going to live up to his "generational talent" expectations was always in question.
Only a few teams have true workhorse RB getting most of the carries. Derrick Henry and Jonathan Taylor were both 2nd round picks. The Giants won two Super Bowls with Bradshaw (7th round) and Jacobs (4th round).
The reality is, you don't need the 2nd coming of Barry Sanders on your roster to win a championships. There was always better potential value to be had with the 2nd overall pick.
Back to the OP...I don't know if there was a specific time, but it was over a period of years when the bell cow backs disappeared in favor of a 2-headed approach. From there the overall value of a #1 RB began diminishing...Analytics were able to pluck capable backs in later rounds to fill 1 of the 2 roles and the nfl shifted to a use, abuse, and throw away philosophy towards its RB's...
And the overwhelming majority on here said Allen was going to be a bust because he wasn't accurate enough.
What RB on his 2nd contract is actually living up to that deal?
Positional value is important, so is impact and greatness which can at times be more important than position.
A good running back is also not going to do much on a team that has such an atrocious offensive line.
And honestly, even those issues might not have been such a big deal if Gettleman hadn't been so condescending toward anybody who dared question his choice.
I do admit I don't like when people say "BBI..." because the people here don't agree on anything so should almost never be personified as they do.
but the majority of people on this site were convinced Mike Evans couldn't get separation enough to survive as an NFL wide receiver. A couple more years like the last 7 and he's a HOFer.
Go to Search and type in "Positional Value" and you can read up on all those healthy debates from past in the archives.
that is if nobody altered or deleted them...
:-)
and Jonathan Taylor went in the second round.
isnt this all the proof we need?
It is easier to find an elite qb, edge rusher, corner back, left tackle, at the top of round 1 than it is at the bottom of round 5 - premium positions. This is not the case with running backs, given the RB by committee approach deployed by most successful NFL franchises today you can have a undrafted fee agent and have a successful running game.
SB was never going to live up to the draft status at 2, because he wasn't going to elevate the quality of the offense without the rest of the team around him improving. He could never have a sustained output justifying the #2 pick, it was easy to see at the time and has proven out.
Look at the quarterbacks and passing attacks playing this weekend, by and large these are elite qbs drafted in round 1:
Burrow: pick 1
Allen: pick 7
Rodgers: first round (can't remember pick #)
Mahomes: pick 10
Stafford: pick 1
Heck even Tannehill was a top 10 pick (not that I believe he is anything more than average), but still supports the point you have a better chance of finding a franchise qb in round 1, especially the top of round 1 as opposed to a running back where you can find anywhere. It dually depicts the impact of a qb on a team's fortunes.
You can win a SB with an average rb, it is near impossible to do now with an average qb. So by using the QB position alone you can see how less valuable the RB position is at the top of round 1.
Time of course tells a different story.
Perhaps, just maybe, objective statistics about when and where to pick a certain kind of football player are not to be ridiculed and will leave your team in a better position of success.
You look around the NFL and you've got Alvin Kamara as a 4th round pick, Aaron Jones 5th round, of the top 10 rushers this year, ONE was a 1st round pick.
I think a lot of people realized that while he wasn’t a bust and was a solid player he certainly wasn’t worth the pick.
So if you draft a solid DE/ER, QB, or LT you would get enough positional value to where it would be worth the pick.
Then the second and also important part of the equation is money. Saquan was a top 5 paid running back in the NFL on his rookie contract, that doesn’t leave a lot of room for under performance. But if you look at other positions, they don’t have this issue.
Right....we could not control the line of scrimmage
Ok just kidding but I can't stand the whole value thing when people are up in arms about "You can't take a C at 7!" but then it's ok take them at 10. Doesn't make sense to me.
2. Production is highly dependent on 5+ other teammates performing
3. Very injury prone position
4. Production of later round/undrafted players equals/exceeds production rates of first round picks
Is a very risky proposition.
IF it was hard to replicate RB production in later rounds like it is with QBs, then there would be a much stronger case to take RBs early.
IF there was no salary cap it would be more palatable to take a first round draft pick RB where the salary didn't matter.
RB is not a foundational piece in today's NFL, it's a nice to have. Just look at the Titans, they lost Henry for a chunk of time and still managed to get the first seed. Are they better with Henry? Absolutely. But the drop off without him isn't as bad as say if they lost Tannehill.
When you add all that up, it doesn't make sense to draft a RB in the top 10, maybe even in the first round.
Ok just kidding but I can't stand the whole value thing when people are up in arms about "You can't take a C at 7!" but then it's ok take them at 10. Doesn't make sense to me.
I agree with that. This was the argument used in the Saquon draft about not taking Quentin Nelson that high. If he's a plug and play guy at RG for a decade plus playing at a pro bowl level, he's not worth the #2 pick?
We basically bought a Ferrari to use as a commuter car. It was very fancy, it was the nicest car on the lot for sure, but we could have bought an Infiniti that would have worked fine for our purpose and then we could have afforded the garage and maintenance to get the most out of it.
Saquon, while I assume a wonderful person and leader as has been reported, his career has been a disappointment. Saquon rushed for less yards per attempt than Devontae Booker. Booker was drafted in the 4th round 136th overall pick.
The only saving grace is Darnold has been a disappointment as a QB, but still hindsight being 20/20 we should have traded back with the #2 pick and rebuilt more of our roster. Dave Gettleman in his arrogrance didn't even listen to offers!!
The critics were absolutely right about Saquon. You don't build a roster taking RB at #2.
But, even if you’re going to ignore conventional wisdom and you’re going to draft a RB at the 2 overall, Saquon was the wrong RB and wasn’t a good enough RB be picked at the 2. There were scouts and reports on Barkley’s boom or bust running, there was talk about the system he played in and the QB getting him the ball outside, pass pro and route running questions. Of course there were the jaw dropping moves, the freakish athleticism and positive attitude and the highlights. But, scouting requires much than looking at the highlights and measurable. It was all there. Gettleman just ignored the evidence and made a bad call.
Also, since we’re on the topics of dumb decisions. It’s often speculated that Getty picked Barkley to extend Eli’s career. What’s always bothered me about this idea is that I don’t see how anyone would have looked at Barkely’s work at PSU and thought that he would help a QB like Eli who was besieged by bad like play. Just so forking dumb.
Finally, lots of people talk about what a great guy Saquon is and how much he helps the franchise. How? Is he some kind of force in the community? (Honestly have no idea). One thing for sure, this team didn’t get any tougher after Saquon was drafted. If anything, I say the team got softer. Does anyone think of Saquon as some kind of culture add?
Anyway… Barkely is the worst pick I can remember the Giants making.
Link below is first round picks at RB and there’s some good players.
1st round RBs since 2000 - ( New Window )
RB is not a foundational piece in today's NFL, it's a nice to have. Just look at the Titans, they lost Henry for a chunk of time and still managed to get the first seed. Are they better with Henry? Absolutely. But the drop off without him isn't as bad as say if they lost Tannehill.
When you add all that up, it doesn't make sense to draft a RB in the top 10, maybe even in the first round.
Your Henry example is actually perfect. He goes down mid-season and the Titans start utilizing Foreman (3rd rounder) and Hilliard (UDFA) for carries/yards, and Tannehill a bit more on the goal line for TDs.
It took several guys but they replaced his production pretty damn well and kept their running game intact...
That was my opinion draft day and when I first saw Barkley running in that first season I initially thought I might have been wrong but...
It's all about positional value. Even winning only 4 games, the Giants are not picking 2nd. The second spot in the draft is a rare asset.
You don't take a RB at the second spot in the draft for a couple of reasons, regardless of how good he is, starting with the fact that RB careers are short. They get injured a lot, it's the nature of the position. Saquon having "non-contact" injuries doesn't change this. So you're using a valuable asset on a player you won't get much use out of.
Second, the difference between an awesome RB and just an average one is not great enough. As we've seen on the Giants, you can get generally the same production from a FA, like Booker. Why waste the second pick in the draft on a player you can get anywhere? Also, their production isn't that important. Saquon was awesome in 2018. How did the offense do?
Lastly, and particular to the Giants, an RB in the first round forget about 2nd, when you've got holes all over the roster. It's a luxury. In the Giants case in 2018, the right move was to trade down, almost regardless of return.
1. RB by position has the shortest career span at 2.5 years (IOW RB's break)
2. RB contribution has been significant outside the first round more than most positions
3. RB as a position has been diminished with the league becoming "a passing league"
4. Investments in the OL have proven more fruitful to your team success overall than elite RB (IOW an elite RB has less impact on the offense than an elite OL with a less than elite RB)
Because of those reasons (and probably more) RB has been traditionally a bad investment with the #2 overall pick.
A teams situation can make it a good pick, but the state the Giants were in at the time that pick would have been better used on a different player (even if the different player didn't pan out either the strategy would have been more sound)
Very good explanation here.
He’s still a boom or bust back. He’s still a liability in pass pro. He’s still injury prone. He’s still not the best route runner.
John Madden used to say that a good RB made his line look better. It goes both ways. Do people think Kamara and Henry are good backs because they play behind good lines? It’s part of it sure. Scheme counts too. Look at Kyle Shanahans backs - or his dads. But even adjusting for all these factors, Barkley’s a bust and a bad pick at positional value.
firedbytheboss : 4/7/2018 4:54 pm : link
In comment 13904128 allstarjim said:
Quote:
In comment 13904095 joeinpa said:
Quote:
Suggesting the Giants should take a quarterback just to take a quarterback
They believe like me that several of these quarterbacks represent the best value at #2
You have not read anything by firedbytheboss?
thanks for the shout out. I don't think firedbytheboss ever said draft a QB just to draft a QB.
1. The Giants need a QB and there are possibly four potential franchise QBs to be had at the top of the first round. It is an exciting class and many around the NFL agree.
2. Given the option to draft a top QB prospect it is insane to waste the 2nd pick on a RB. RB's are a dime a dozen. It is a fungible resource. There are great RB options available later that cost far less in draft capital. Oftentimes, we have seen great rushing teams built around two mediocre running backs that outpace teams with a stud RB. Investing in high-priced rbs is kind of a stupid allocation of resources.
3. Since the Giants have an advanced analytics team who are expert in the areas of math and economics, I am sure they already know that it would be stupid to spend draft capital on a running back at 2, especially since they have a dire need at QB and in other areas.
4. Please consider that the state of the NFL is trending to a more QB heavy league. And you can see the importance of the running back vs the QB in how NFL teams spend their dollars. The Vikings just gave Kirk Cousins, an average NFL QB $84M fully guaranteed. Meanwhile the Steelers won't give a contract to Leveon Bell, the best RB in the NFL. The league is telling you that RBs are a bad investment especially when compared to the value of a QB.
Do you want the Giants to waste their money, cap space, draft capital and pass on the immense opportunity to draft a game-changing QB? If so, I don 't know what to say to you. It is a stupid thing to do. Objectively stupid.
Sorry you don't see the wisdom of grabbing one of these QBs at number 2. I am sure this is what they are going to do. They have analytics eggheads that will assure them that drafting a running back is a dumb idea. And they will listen to the eggheads. Just as Doug Peterson did in his run to win the super bowl. I am sorry the egg heads are now taking over your macho game, but the math and analytics now win out.
Imagine this guy's horror when he heard Barkley's name called...
"The irresponsible not to take a QB narrative - ( New Window )
Derrick Henry 45th pick
Jonathon Taylor 41st pick
Austin Ekeler 30th pick
Dalvin Cook 41st pick
Najee Harris pick 24th pick
Well, that's a bit of an overstatement in my view. The argument is really about value of the pick vs value of the position. It does seem clear that in the current NFL that high of a pick should be used on either a QB or a blue chip left tackle.
I love how everyone screams about Josh Allen. Hindsight is really a beautiful thing lol. Nobody thought that kid would turn out the way he did, it's still a crapshoot.
Back to the OP...I don't know if there was a specific time, but it was over a period of years when the bell cow backs disappeared in favor of a 2-headed approach. From there the overall value of a #1 RB began diminishing...Analytics were able to pluck capable backs in later rounds to fill 1 of the 2 roles and the nfl shifted to a use, abuse, and throw away philosophy towards its RB's...
If the Giants drafted Josh Allen, we would have ruined him. Meanwhile, we’d be looking at Barkley on some team with a line and we would all be like “Gettleman sucks! He drafted this shitty QB Allen talkin bout how the kids arm is touched by God… what a joke! We could’ve had Saquon Barkley!”
It wouldn’t matter who we drafted unless it was a great OL. Nobody can do anything great behind the line we put on the field. And after 4 years of Allen being unable to grow because the coaches have been trash and the afire mentioned line issue you would HATE him for being mediocre. We all see his full potential NOW because the Bills org is run correctly and they built a team around him and coached him up.
I want it documented: Who's quitting on Eli? - ( New Window )
Quote:
Josh Allen....it's almost unforgiveable that they passed up on this kid for Barkley. I don't watch much college ball, but I was 100% behind that kid...huge arm, great demeanor. I'm glad he's still playing in NY, but wish he was ours.
Back to the OP...I don't know if there was a specific time, but it was over a period of years when the bell cow backs disappeared in favor of a 2-headed approach. From there the overall value of a #1 RB began diminishing...Analytics were able to pluck capable backs in later rounds to fill 1 of the 2 roles and the nfl shifted to a use, abuse, and throw away philosophy towards its RB's...
And the overwhelming majority on here said Allen was going to be a bust because he wasn't accurate enough.
I love ppl coming out of the woodwork saying they loved Josh Allen at the time. It's amazing, bc you barely saw any of it here.
But to read this board today, it's like, hey, practically everyone here was a huge Josh Allen fan in March of 2018.
So easy to say now, especially for someone who registered in 2019.
There was a hamdful of us that liked Josh Allen a lot. But even among us, there weren't many that thought given the prospects that were in that draft, that he was a value at #2.
I can dig up my posts where I defended him and his accuracy. I can dig up my posts where I compared him to Elway. But I'll own that my position was if we stayed pat at #2, it should be Barkley or Darnold. I favored Allen after a trade down, which I think most Allen supporters did as well.
And there is nothing wrong with Barkley the player. He's had his share of injuries, the pass blocking thing is a trope, and if he played on a team where the passing game was even a little bit respected, he'd be putting up the numbers he proved he could do in his rookie year.
He's an excellent player on a shitty team. And those that think he's a problem are simply wrong and not as football smart as they think. Put him on the Rams he'd be talked about like Dalvin Cook.
Quote:
Josh Allen....it's almost unforgiveable that they passed up on this kid for Barkley. I don't watch much college ball, but I was 100% behind that kid...huge arm, great demeanor. I'm glad he's still playing in NY, but wish he was ours.
Back to the OP...I don't know if there was a specific time, but it was over a period of years when the bell cow backs disappeared in favor of a 2-headed approach. From there the overall value of a #1 RB began diminishing...Analytics were able to pluck capable backs in later rounds to fill 1 of the 2 roles and the nfl shifted to a use, abuse, and throw away philosophy towards its RB's...
If the Giants drafted Josh Allen, we would have ruined him. Meanwhile, we’d be looking at Barkley on some team with a line and we would all be like “Gettleman sucks! He drafted this shitty QB Allen talkin bout how the kids arm is touched by God… what a joke! We could’ve had Saquon Barkley!”
It wouldn’t matter who we drafted unless it was a great OL. Nobody can do anything great behind the line we put on the field. And after 4 years of Allen being unable to grow because the coaches have been trash and the afire mentioned line issue you would HATE him for being mediocre. We all see his full potential NOW because the Bills org is run correctly and they built a team around him and coached him up.
Exactly. Total 20/20 hindsight. I recall extensive discussions about how inaccurate he was in college and even in the pre-draft workouts. And the Giants totally would have ruined him had they drafted him.
What would have happened if the Giants have drafted Darnold or Mayfield? "HOW DO YOU LET BARKLEY SLIP AWAY!!!!" The hindsight presented as irrefutable fact on BBI is often something to behold.
Arizona drafted Rosen, realized they missed, and had a shot at Murray. They were able to turn around and trade Rosen for a 2nd and 5th the following year, and draft Murray. Now they're a playoff caliber team.
It's OK to miss at QB because if you have the courage to recognize it quickly you can still move them and get something substantial back. The key is being able to honestly and objectively self scout, and be willing to move on from a sunk cost.
Drafting Barkley was an absolutely catastrophic decision...the worst single draft decision I've ever seen this team make.
It’s on the Ryan Leaf level of mid-scouting.
Does anyone think that Todd Gurley was a bad pick? What about Zeke Elliot or Christian McCaffreey? Barkley might be the last RB to go in the top 10 for a long time, but I think the "RB does not matter" mantra is more relevant to decisions on whether to give any RB a second contract b/c there is hard data that most RB regardless of talent break down at certain age (30) or after certain volume of carries (2000) that it makes no sense to spend big dollars on faster depreciating assets.
Arizona drafted Rosen, realized they missed, and had a shot at Murray. They were able to turn around and trade Rosen for a 2nd and 5th the following year, and draft Murray. Now they're a playoff caliber team.
It's OK to miss at QB because if you have the courage to recognize it quickly you can still move them and get something substantial back. The key is being able to honestly and objectively self scout, and be willing to move on from a sunk cost.
Drafting Barkley was an absolutely catastrophic decision...the worst single draft decision I've ever seen this team make.
Incorrect. Rosen sucks. He sucked then. It's better to draft a great player over a QB you don't believe in who also sucks.
I guess DJ at 6 is good, bc you could've just pivoted the following year, right? No. We would've been better off taking Josh Allen Edge.
Barkley wasn't a catastrophic pick. The team is catastrophic, and DJ was a catastrophic pick. Not having a viable QB is catastrophic.
It’s on the Ryan Leaf level of mid-scouting.
Barkley isn't a bad player. You're thinking is off.
Quote:
Barkley is a bad player. A massive scouting miss - and I realize Gettleman wasn’t alone in the error.
It’s on the Ryan Leaf level of mid-scouting.
Barkley isn't a bad player. You're thinking is off.
He absolutely has been years 2-4. Even when not injured, he's been a bad player. Doesn't do anything well at this point. Booker has been far better than Saquon.
It’s on the Ryan Leaf level of mid-scouting.
Jesus, autocorrect is killing me. Should be mal-scouting.
Jim: we will have to agree to disagree.
Does anyone think that Todd Gurley was a bad pick? What about Zeke Elliot or Christian McCaffreey? Barkley might be the last RB to go in the top 10 for a long time, but I think the "RB does not matter" mantra is more relevant to decisions on whether to give any RB a second contract b/c there is hard data that most RB regardless of talent break down at certain age (30) or after certain volume of carries (2000) that it makes no sense to spend big dollars on faster depreciating assets.
I don’t think this makes the point you think it does. How long did Gurley last as lead back with the Rams? Three years? Elliot is sharing carries with Pollard, who’s been at least as effective. Where did they draft him? And McCaffery hasn’t played all year.
RBs sell jerseys. Drafting them high is a misallocation of resources.
Quote:
Does anyone think that Todd Gurley was a bad pick? What about Zeke Elliot or Christian McCaffreey? Barkley might be the last RB to go in the top 10 for a long time, but I think the "RB does not matter" mantra is more relevant to decisions on whether to give any RB a second contract b/c there is hard data that most RB regardless of talent break down at certain age (30) or after certain volume of carries (2000) that it makes no sense to spend big dollars on faster depreciating assets.
I don’t think this makes the point you think it does. How long did Gurley last as lead back with the Rams? Three years? Elliot is sharing carries with Pollard, who’s been at least as effective. Where did they draft him? And McCaffery hasn’t played all year.
RBs sell jerseys. Drafting them high is a misallocation of resources.
I think you missed my point. I am not trying to argue that taking a RB in the top 10 is a good idea, but how many "analysts" criticized those teams for drafting those RBs in the top 10? There is some recency bias in the way the media bashes the Barkley pick and that is the result of analytics community gaining acceptance in NFL circles more than Barkely as a player. If he was drafted in 2015, no one would say he was a wasted pick.
The Cardinals traded Rosen for a second and a fifth. Could we get that for Barkley?
Drafting Rosen worked out better for Arizona than drafting Barkley worked out for us.
Drafting Rosen probably wouldn't have worked out for us though - because we chase lost causes, as evidenced by Jones and Barkley.
Wrong again Terps. Barry Sanders also was really good about avoiding contact.
Barkley is a winning player. But the problem is his QB is a losing player, most of his line for most of his career has been losing players, the receivers playing with him have been losing players, and Evan Engram is hella a losing player.
Go back to the Steelers game beginning of last season. He's the only guy Tomlin respected on our offense. The only one.
The problem isn't Barkley. It's everyone around him, and the fact that he's been hurt a lot, and it's taken awhile to get his legs back.
Saying Barkley stinks is like saying Hakeem Nicks stunk. He didn't stink, he got hurt. Only in Barkley's case he doesn't have any help on offense whatsoever.
It's a DC's dream to only have to focus on stopping one guy. Literally the easiest game planning in the world. And peiple that think Barkley can't pass pro haven't really been watching him at all this season.
Quote:
Rosen over Barkley? You are kidding right?
The Cardinals traded Rosen for a second and a fifth. Could we get that for Barkley?
Drafting Rosen worked out better for Arizona than drafting Barkley worked out for us.
Drafting Rosen probably wouldn't have worked out for us though - because we chase lost causes, as evidenced by Jones and Barkley.
We could've gotten more than that after Barkley's first season, yes.
Barkley's biggest problem on the Giants is who's taking the snap. That's his entire problem. You fix that amd you'll be watching a dynamic threat again.
Derrick Henry 45th pick
Jonathon Taylor 41st pick
Austin Ekeler 30th pick
Dalvin Cook 41st pick
Najee Harris pick 24th pick
How many players would you take over Jonathan Taylor in this draft? Not more than 5 for me.
Maybe they all stink.
I can't wait until whomever is hired tomorrow rebuilds this entire roster. I figure in three years one, maybe two of the 53 that started 2021 will be left.
Barkley's biggest problem on the Giants is who's taking the snap. That's his entire problem. You fix that amd you'll be watching a dynamic threat again.
LOL. Imagine actually believing this.
Quote:
But if your evaluation is that the QBs available to you aren't great and the RB is, you don't take the QB, you have to trust your eval.
Barkley's biggest problem on the Giants is who's taking the snap. That's his entire problem. You fix that amd you'll be watching a dynamic threat again.
LOL. Imagine actually believing this.
Well it's true Dave. Sorry you can't see it. There's a lot of reasons why players underperform in the NFL at times.
For Saquon, it's been a confluence of reasons. It was injury-based, but since Jones has been drafted, it's that defensive coordinators know Jones can't beat them. They just target stopping Saquon.
Saquon will be a phenomenal player again when the Giants have balance or when he's on a team that does.
And a lot of people were saying OBJ sucks and is done with Cleveland.
And I'm not saying he's pre-injury OBJ, but he has 6 scores in his past 8 games. He had zero in the half a season with the Browns and Baker Mayfield throwing him the ball. The talent around you matters, no moreso than who the QB is.
Daniel Jones is the bust. Saquon already showed he can go for 2000 scrimmage yards, but he had Eli Manning, even in his declined form, was still a quick processor and decision-maker, unlike DJ.
Quote:
In comment 15563587 allstarjim said:
Quote:
But if your evaluation is that the QBs available to you aren't great and the RB is, you don't take the QB, you have to trust your eval.
Barkley's biggest problem on the Giants is who's taking the snap. That's his entire problem. You fix that amd you'll be watching a dynamic threat again.
LOL. Imagine actually believing this.
Well it's true Dave. Sorry you can't see it. There's a lot of reasons why players underperform in the NFL at times.
For Saquon, it's been a confluence of reasons. It was injury-based, but since Jones has been drafted, it's that defensive coordinators know Jones can't beat them. They just target stopping Saquon.
Saquon will be a phenomenal player again when the Giants have balance or when he's on a team that does.
And a lot of people were saying OBJ sucks and is done with Cleveland.
And I'm not saying he's pre-injury OBJ, but he has 6 scores in his past 8 games. He had zero in the half a season with the Browns and Baker Mayfield throwing him the ball. The talent around you matters, no moreso than who the QB is.
Daniel Jones is the bust. Saquon already showed he can go for 2000 scrimmage yards, but he had Eli Manning, even in his declined form, was still a quick processor and decision-maker, unlike DJ.
Saquon has had exactly one good year in the NFL; his rookie year. His struggles are mostly his own. Not Daniel Jones'. Barkley's dancing around the line and inability to find the correct lanes and holes to run through are not entirely on the OL. The OL is a much better run-blocking unit than they are a pass-blocking unit.
Barkley was not 'touched by the hand of God.' He's not an elite player. He can't block worth a shit. He's been exposed.
Maybe they all stink.
I can't wait until whomever is hired tomorrow rebuilds this entire roster. I figure in three years one, maybe two of the 53 that started 2021 will be left.
I haven't said DJ is good and held back by the players around him. Others have, but not me. I agree with you on your eval of DJ.
I don't think he'll ever get there. Saquon has already proven his ability at the NFL level, though. The only things that changed is who is starting at QB, the injuries, and the OL. If you want to say that the injuries have rovbed him of his abilities, at least it's a more sensible reason (one with which I don't agree), than just, "he sucks." He doesn't suck, he's had one of the great offensive seasons by a Giant in their history. He'll come around, with us or someone else, unless ge suffers another major injury, which I pray doesn't happen.
He can't block for shit. But you were one of the DG defenders on here for years, so I'm not surprised.
Quote:
Can pass block. You don't know what you're talking about, and are relying on an opinion from 4 seasons ago.
He can't block for shit. But you were one of the DG defenders on here for years, so I'm not surprised.
That's not true in the slightest. I criticized the DJ pick at the time it was made. I criticized the trade up for DeAndre Baker at the time. There's been stuff I defended DG on and stuff I criticized him for. I thought DJ was a 2nd round talent type of QB and said so at the time.
I criticized the Golladay signing, too.
I may not have killed him for some things luke others (I've been kind to him about the Solder signing), but I've never been a DG pollyanna.
And I'm telling you Saquon put on a lot of good blitz pickup tape this year. Some good chips, too. The whole thing about him not neing able to perfo in that aspect is a 3-year old trope that is meaningless today.
Quote:
Rosen over Barkley? You are kidding right?
The Cardinals traded Rosen for a second and a fifth. Could we get that for Barkley?
Drafting Rosen worked out better for Arizona than drafting Barkley worked out for us.
Drafting Rosen probably wouldn't have worked out for us though - because we chase lost causes, as evidenced by Jones and Barkley.
I'll disagree with this just slightly - only because I do think if the Giants drafted Rosen (or even Darnold) they may have pulled the plug on them similar to what the Jets did last year. The problem with Jones is that he's been just good enough to warrant that he be kept given extra chances, and it's been a curse for this team.
But the argument that Rosen/Darnold should have been drafted over Barkley still holds weight if we presume that those guys have the same failures that they they did with their respective teams. Yea, it's still a bad pick (Josh Allen was obviously the correct choice in hindsight), but Giants would have moved on from them by now and selected a new QB in the 2021 draft (just as the Jets did) AND would also have likely already had another blue chip player on the roster from the 1st round pick that they had to use on Jones in 2019.
It also means that the Giants go into 2022 not even thinking about having to address the QB position. A lot of this is speculation and hindsight, but at the end of the day (setting his injuries aside) everything needed to be almost perfect for the Barkley pick to end up being the best value for the Giants, and the Giants simply were nowhere near close to the perfect situation.
7.5 million for that?
Tell me again why we picked up the 5th year option?
Quote:
Barkley's good and is held back by the players around him, Jones is good and is held back by the players around him...
Maybe they all stink.
I can't wait until whomever is hired tomorrow rebuilds this entire roster. I figure in three years one, maybe two of the 53 that started 2021 will be left.
I haven't said DJ is good and held back by the players around him. Others have, but not me. I agree with you on your eval of DJ.
I don't think he'll ever get there. Saquon has already proven his ability at the NFL level, though. The only things that changed is who is starting at QB, the injuries, and the OL. If you want to say that the injuries have rovbed him of his abilities, at least it's a more sensible reason (one with which I don't agree), than just, "he sucks." He doesn't suck, he's had one of the great offensive seasons by a Giant in their history. He'll come around, with us or someone else, unless ge suffers another major injury, which I pray doesn't happen.
Don't forget scheme and coaching. The whole offense took a nosedive under Judge and staff. I think it's mostly on OL, but clearly the scheme sucked, because we saw the same/worse players have success under even the goofy Shurmur.
7.5 million for that?
Tell me again why we picked up the 5th year option?
Really? How do you think Saquon looks under someone who actually knows how to use him, like say Sean Payton? It's pretty clear he was overdrafted, but to say when healthy he's not a ridiculous talent is just silly. Who knows what he'd be worth on an actual team with the right scheme.
Quote:
He is a soft runner. Afraid to block.
7.5 million for that?
Tell me again why we picked up the 5th year option?
Really? How do you think Saquon looks under someone who actually knows how to use him, like say Sean Payton? It's pretty clear he was overdrafted, but to say when healthy he's not a ridiculous talent is just silly. Who knows what he'd be worth on an actual team with the right scheme.
Barkley is a ridiculous talent?
You're half right...
Quote:
In comment 15563722 kelly said:
Quote:
He is a soft runner. Afraid to block.
7.5 million for that?
Tell me again why we picked up the 5th year option?
Really? How do you think Saquon looks under someone who actually knows how to use him, like say Sean Payton? It's pretty clear he was overdrafted, but to say when healthy he's not a ridiculous talent is just silly. Who knows what he'd be worth on an actual team with the right scheme.
Barkley is a ridiculous talent?
You're half right...
When he was drafted, he was a ridiculous talent. Are you disputing that?
Ah. Maybe, but it was a league consensus that he was a generational talent. I do agree it's absolutely valid to question him being drafted at #2. It was a bad draft choice for us, especially in hindsight. I still love the player though. He (and everyone else on this team) landed in a complete shit situation that's for sure.
Hopefully we've entered a new era where we don't have to rationalize these picks anymore.
Quote:
He is a soft runner. Afraid to block.
7.5 million for that?
Tell me again why we picked up the 5th year option?
Really? How do you think Saquon looks under someone who actually knows how to use him, like say Sean Payton?
probably a couple notches below Kamara, to be honest
Hopefully we've entered a new era where we don't have to rationalize these picks anymore.
I think first we have to stop pretending that the Barkley pick was only ridiculous in "hindsight" when MANY people were pissed off about it even before the draft when the last GM made it painfully obvious he had no intention of doing anything else.
Quote:
In comment 15563722 kelly said:
Quote:
He is a soft runner. Afraid to block.
7.5 million for that?
Tell me again why we picked up the 5th year option?
Really? How do you think Saquon looks under someone who actually knows how to use him, like say Sean Payton?
probably a couple notches below Kamara, to be honest
Hmm, maybe... but I don't think so. N.O. took Reggie Bush at #2 not all that long ago and I think Saquon is better by a lot. I'm pretty sure SB would be a pretty ridiculous weapon for that NO offense. And obviously different than Kamara.
Quote:
in that 2018 draft and comparable to many of the top running backs that are available almost each year.
Ah. Maybe, but it was a league consensus that he was a generational talent. I do agree it's absolutely valid to question him being drafted at #2. It was a bad draft choice for us, especially in hindsight. I still love the player though. He (and everyone else on this team) landed in a complete shit situation that's for sure.
Yeah, I never bought into the generational nonsense. There were RBs picked in the years before him, in his draft year and afterwards that were just as good, if not better.
Always said he was a good player but that was a bad pick. Especially for a team requiring such a deep rebuilding at the time like the Giants. If they couldn't wrap their arms around any of those QBs, they needed to get out of that #2 spot for better value than a RB.
But unfortunately we will be rebuilding again now...
There were many saying don't do it in 2018. It's what loser teams do. And look where we are.
Those old threads make me miss arcarsenal.
Quote:
Can pass block. You don't know what you're talking about, and are relying on an opinion from 4 seasons ago.
He can't block for shit. But you were one of the DG defenders on here for years, so I'm not surprised.
Oh shit, I'm beginning to believe that allstarjim was the guy who constantly told Will Hernandez critics that they don't know anything about football. That latest comment of his about Barkley's pass blocking definitely has that ring to it.
Arizona drafted Rosen, realized they missed, and had a shot at Murray. They were able to turn around and trade Rosen for a 2nd and 5th the following year, and draft Murray. Now they're a playoff caliber team.
It's OK to miss at QB because if you have the courage to recognize it quickly you can still move them and get something substantial back. The key is being able to honestly and objectively self scout, and be willing to move on from a sunk cost.
Drafting Barkley was an absolutely catastrophic decision...the worst single draft decision I've ever seen this team make.
In hindsight, Barkley was not a good pick. But catastrophic? I’d say he was at least a better pick than the likes of Cedric Jones, Thomas Lewis, Eli Apple or Ereck Flowers. And if we didnt go Barkley, we would have picked someone like Darnold, Rosen or Mayfield - all of whom would have all made BBI heads explode. In hindsight, we were just screwed.
Quote:
In comment 15563616 allstarjim said:
Quote:
Can pass block. You don't know what you're talking about, and are relying on an opinion from 4 seasons ago.
He can't block for shit. But you were one of the DG defenders on here for years, so I'm not surprised.
Oh shit, I'm beginning to believe that allstarjim was the guy who constantly told Will Hernandez critics that they don't know anything about football. That latest comment of his about Barkley's pass blocking definitely has that ring to it.
oh yeah, that's right...
Quote:
The 1160-ish page range of the forum archives is full of reads on this subject. Speaking of, I wish it were easier to search for stuff. I want it documented: Who's quitting on Eli? - ( New Window )
Those old threads make me miss arcarsenal.
I had completely forgotten about him. That guy was like a reverse compass for determining how things would actually play out.
Quote:
You just have to be smart enough to spot that you missed and be willing to move on quickly if the opportunity is there.
Arizona drafted Rosen, realized they missed, and had a shot at Murray. They were able to turn around and trade Rosen for a 2nd and 5th the following year, and draft Murray. Now they're a playoff caliber team.
It's OK to miss at QB because if you have the courage to recognize it quickly you can still move them and get something substantial back. The key is being able to honestly and objectively self scout, and be willing to move on from a sunk cost.
Drafting Barkley was an absolutely catastrophic decision...the worst single draft decision I've ever seen this team make.
In hindsight, Barkley was not a good pick. But catastrophic? I’d say he was at least a better pick than the likes of Cedric Jones, Thomas Lewis, Eli Apple or Ereck Flowers. And if we didnt go Barkley, we would have picked someone like Darnold, Rosen or Mayfield - all of whom would have all made BBI heads explode. In hindsight, we were just screwed.
I don't know how you define thresholds on this point, but i think you can make the argument that truly catastrophic picks are easier to discharge. Barkley is good enough to keep around, and tie up cap, and be disappointed in. If we took Rosen though? Maybe Herbert is our QB now.
Here is one of the most important links, it describes a stat called running success rate. A successful run on 1st down gains 40% or more of the yards needed for a first down, on 2nd down success is getting 50% of the yards necessary for a first down, on 3rd or 4th down it is getting the first down. It turns out this statistic has a far better correlation to winning than total yards, or yards per carry.
https://www.stampedeblue.com/2017/11/28/16700670/yards-per-carry-and-other-stats-i-hate-rushing-correlation-success-rate
using that statistic Barkley was at or near the bottom of the league in both his rookie and sophomore seasons. Football outsider has this statistic, but last time I looked it is put behind a paywall... However, I have posted this statistic before it went behind the paywall.
Consistently having successful running plays helps win games. Boom or bust does the opposite. A low rushing success rate but with a number of long plays correlates to losing football.
Barkley's style may produce wonderful highlights, but it is bad if you want to win.
I will readily admit that Barkley combined speed with insane athletic and especially cutting ability. However, he lacked vision even at PSU. Even when he has a hole to squeeze through, he is often looking to cut back for a bigger play. In other words, he never liked taking the yards in front of him. Once DCs saw him in action, they started playing for penetration and disciplined gap control to stop the cutback. Barkley cannot handle penetration, it flusters him. He has been the king of stuffed runs his whole career. He is poor at pass blocking, and he is a poor route runner.
In other words he lacks just about everything you want from a RB that helps you win games. He is not a good RB, never was.
Everybody talks about his 2000 yard rookie season, but much of that yardage came in garbage time. I remember reading somewhere that by their definition over 40% of his yards came in garbage time. So in reality, he rarely showed up when the game was still a contest.
Those who laud his rookie season are remembering the few highlight reel plays. And yes they were spectacular. But there is more to good RB play than being spectacular on 3% of your touches.
when you go to the site, uncheck quarters 4 and 5 leaving only 1, 2 and 3 (that cuts out most of garbage time), and sort by success rate. The Giants are ranked 31st. The teams at the top of this stat are all strong playoff teams.
Rushing success 2021
here is the same stat for 2018, the Giants were 30th with Barkley.
Rushing success 2018
It’s absolutely amazing that the Chargers aren’t in the playoffs.
The rushing success rates of the avg team (49%) and the Giants (44%) aren’t that far apart. It will take a big effort for the team to close that gap but, for the spectator, it means that you need to be really careful about your subjective reactions. That stat basically means that an avg team calls a successful run 10 out of 20 times, and an awful one like the Giants calls it 9 out of 20. That’s hard to calibrate and understand based on viewing. The power of statistics!
2 of the teams the Giants beat - the Saints (hi Sean Peyton, how is life without Drew?) and Panthers - are bottom of the barrel teams offensively. The Saints win looked like a break through to me because they had a winning record but in fact their wins were inflated and the team reverted to their trend afterwards and didn’t make the playoffs.
I linked to the defensive success rates below. Buffalo is #1 v the pass. They are playing KC, which had the #1 overall offensive success rate. This is going to be a classic game this weekend. Really looking forward to it. I like the Bills. They are bringing their high octane offense to play a suspect defense.
Just some thoughts.
2021 Defensive success - ( New Window )
It’s absolutely amazing that the Chargers aren’t in the playoffs.
The rushing success rates of the avg team (49%) and the Giants (44%) aren’t that far apart. It will take a big effort for the team to close that gap but, for the spectator, it means that you need to be really careful about your subjective reactions. That stat basically means that an avg team calls a successful run 10 out of 20 times, and an awful one like the Giants calls it 9 out of 20. That’s hard to calibrate and understand based on viewing. The power of statistics!
2 of the teams the Giants beat - the Saints (hi Sean Peyton, how is life without Drew?) and Panthers - are bottom of the barrel teams offensively. The Saints win looked like a break through to me because they had a winning record but in fact their wins were inflated and the team reverted to their trend afterwards and didn’t make the playoffs.
I linked to the defensive success rates below. Buffalo is #1 v the pass. They are playing KC, which had the #1 overall offensive success rate. This is going to be a classic game this weekend. Really looking forward to it. I like the Bills. They are bringing their high octane offense to play a suspect defense.
Just some thoughts.
2021 Defensive success - ( New Window )
I suggested that it would be better to look at only quarter 1, 2, and 3. By removing quarters 4 and 5 you remove some noise. There are 2 things that happen in the 4th quarter. Losing teams are mostly passing, and defenses are giving up the run. So losing teams running success will go up slightly. Winning teams are trying to run out the clock, and the defense is playing the run. The winning team doesn't care as much about successful runs. So there is noise in anything beyond the 3rd quarter.
If you look at the stat in only the first 3 quarters, the average success rate in 2018 was still 49%, but the Giant's success was 42%. In 2021 the average was 51%, the Giants were at 44%. In both cases 7% below average. In a game of inches, 7% is significant.
Regarding running behind a shit OL... In 2020 the numbers were league average 51%, Giants 48% with largely Gallman running the ball. So yeah, the line matters, but so does the RB...
Quote:
In comment 15563027 Go Terps said:
Quote:
The 1160-ish page range of the forum archives is full of reads on this subject. Speaking of, I wish it were easier to search for stuff. I want it documented: Who's quitting on Eli? - ( New Window )
Those old threads make me miss arcarsenal.
I had completely forgotten about him. That guy was like a reverse compass for determining how things would actually play out.
I do remember him being aligned with you about Lamar Jackson during that draft though.
Explosive Rushing plays... I think most here will be surprised that the Giants ranked 28th in explosive running plays in 2018.
Explusive Rushing Plays 2018
So not only did Barkley bust at a higher rate, he boomed at a lower rate. Again, it's just that his booms were spectacular.