Not defending Saquon's selection in '18, but "you don't take

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...

is insanity. If I told you that I'd give you Quentin Nelson over Carson Wentz or Ed Reed over Baker Mayfield, most people would make those moves all day if you knew you were adding a cornerstone to your organization for the next 10-12 years and a potential HOF player. IMO you always go best player when roster building, regardless of needs, because they will find their way to the top of the roster and elevate the team versus filling a need or over-drafting perceived positional value. See Giants drafting Carl Banks at 4 when we already had LT, Carson, etc. Or Kiwi and tuck when we had Osi and Strahan.

my guess is that the mindset shifted as the league became less run heavy.

I felt Giants had too many holes.

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

In comment 15562795 BLUATHRT said:

Quote:

is insanity. If I told you that I'd give you Quentin Nelson over Carson Wentz or Ed Reed over Baker Mayfield, most people would make those moves all day if you knew you were adding a cornerstone to your organization for the next 10-12 years and a potential HOF player. IMO you always go best player when roster building, regardless of needs, because they will find their way to the top of the roster and elevate the team versus filling a need or over-drafting perceived positional value. See Giants drafting Carl Banks at 4 when we already had LT, Carson, etc. Or Kiwi and tuck when we had Osi and Strahan.

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.

has shown:

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)

You would want someone who can pass block and doesn't have to come off the field on 3rd down. That would be nice to see.

Picking that a high, a RB shouldn’t be your top priority

nobody would be questioning the decision to take him at #2.

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.

Are not as valuable relative to other positions in the modern game. The last time a RB was a league MVP was 2006 (Tomlinson) or 1997 for a super bowl MVP (Davis). RBS have relatively shorter careers given the beating they take.

made him top 5 (or something like that) paid at his position without ever playing a down was a resonating point for me.

In comment 15562794 NorthCountryGiantsFan said:

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.

RBs are one of the lowest position groups there are. When you draft a RB high you are almost paying him like a top 5 back before he steps on the field. Combine that with the fact that the game is now more of a passing league and a RB that high is not ideal. WR, Edge, OT are some of the highest paid positions, drafting one at the top saves you money if they pan out. Length of service is also a key factor, RBs are generally only effective for about 6 years where OL and WRs tend to last longer.

What RB on his 2nd contract is actually living up to that deal?

is nothing new. It's been a *thing* for quite some time.

You would need 6-8 years of peak Tiki to justify that pick. And it's not just the yards - Tiki was outstanding in pass protection as well.

The short of it is that the opportunity cost of hitting a ceiling on a RB does not justify the opportunity cost you are sacrificing by not trying to hit the ceiling on more valuable positions (ie. QB). Injury risk, cap considerations on the rookie contract (he's making the same as a QB or Edge on the rookie deal), cap considerations on the second contract (2nd contract RBs bust at an almost 100% clip), the ease in finding a starter or rotation level player, etc. Absolutely nothing supports it, you're clinging to outliers with the fastest diminishing returns of any position on the field.

If Barkley were ripping off seasons like his rookie year repeatedly, then the draft picks would be living up to billing.

Positional value is important, so is impact and greatness which can at times be more important than position.

Even if Barkley maintained his rookie clip, it would be a debatable pick. He was already paid as a Top 5 talent at the position at the time of his rookie deal and his agent would have pushed for a very expensive and risky second contract in Year 3. There was little to no upside, even if you were to connect at the very top end of his range of outcomes.

is that running backs take a lot of punishment and are more injury prone than other positions. We've seen that with Saquon over the past three years.

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.

for prospect evaluation.

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.

Unless clearly the BPA. Too many other needs.

as well as 6th the next year, and then 4th after that. And it wasn't because there were a lack of running backs to choose from in either the draft or free agency.

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...

:-)

IIRC, the consensus among the so-called draft experts was that of the QB prospects -- Darnold, Mayfield, Rosen, Allen, and Jackson -- Darnold was head of the class and the BBI consensus was that Gettleman should have been tarred and feathered for drafting Barkley ahead of Darnold. Barkley's rookie season seemed to justify the pick but in retrospect and with the benefit of perfect hindsight, Giants should have traded down if they weren't going to draft one of the QB prospects. And to show how much I don't know, my favorite of the five was Josh Rosen.

was picked top 10


and Jonathan Taylor went in the second round.

isnt this all the proof we need?

As the league shifted to a passing attack oriented offense, with rules favoring teams with elite downfield attacks. Running backs have a shorter career span and are so much more dependent on the positions around them than almost any other position on the field.

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.

and the rise of detailed stats and analytics, everyone is now an expert on what is and is not to be done. If you go against the consensus from all available information that's considered a gamble. everything is now graded and assembled so that armchair pundits can immediately recognize a reach. Both barkley and jones were slammed for being taken ahead of where they 'should' have been... of course if you're a GM with conviction like we had, you laugh in the face of such criticism. hence Gettleman's touching reenactment of him typing on an invisible keyboard.

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.

runner and blocked like an OT (if he did, I'd move him to OT!), he still wouldn't be worth the #2 pick. In today's offenses, RB's are devalued because of the lessened value of a running game, and they have a short shelf life.

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’d say post Reggie Bush.

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.

In comment 15562844 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

as well as 6th the next year, and then 4th after that. And it wasn't because there were a lack of running backs to choose from in either the draft or free agency.

Right....we could not control the line of scrimmage

Can't take anything but a QB in the first 15 selections or else you're screwing it up.

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.

1. Taking a player at a position that makes him top 5 highest paid at his position before taking any snaps

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.

In comment 15562896 JaxGiant said:

Quote:

Can't take anything but a QB in the first 15 selections or else you're screwing it up. 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?

is that the 5th best RB in the draft is probably 90% as good as the number 1 back. But he's available in round 2 and much cheaper. It's also one of the most direct transfer of skills NFL to Pro, so it's not a position that takes years to master. You can get rid of a RB and get a new one pretty quick.

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.

They simply chose SB over Darnold. I don’t think Allen @ 2 really registered with DG. Who knows to be certain but that’s what I heard all along.

To be fair Saquon was viewed by some scouts as a generational talent and I too believed the hype. And not to be smart ass but if Saquon could block like a starting caliber offensive tackle he would be playing tackle for our Oline!

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.

Forget about positional value, he hasn’t produced enough to be considered a good first round pick. Don’t get me wrong, it was a dumb pick - a pick that ignored overwhelming anecdotal consensus and objective data - it was a monumentally stupid and breathtakingly arrogant pick. And btw, many of us who just do this as a hobby knew and said this was a dumb pick. And to the OPs question about when this all became a rule - by which I think they mean conventional wisdom - it’s been a rule for probably two decades. So that just adds to the buffoonery of the pick.

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 )

In comment 15562904 BH28 said:

Quote:

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...

The rules protect QB's , you can basically hammer running backs.

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...

but the biggest issue is that Barkley isn't the dominant force he would need to be to justify taking a RB that high.

anyone who's read any of the new analysis being done would know the arguments.

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.

In comment 15562808 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

has shown: 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.

Saquon Barkley actually had an adequately talented Oline in front of him? Not saying that Saquon was the right choice at number two, but there was a lot of different factors that lead to his subpar performance. What if Josh Allen was drafted. Could he operate with this horrible Oline? Too many different factors to say Saquon was a totally botched pick. I honestly believe that the Giants failure is weighed more towards not building an Oline.

In comment 15562966 DonnieD89 said:

Quote:

Saquon Barkley actually had an adequately talented Oline in front of him? Not saying that Saquon was the right choice at number two, but there was a lot of different factors that lead to his subpar performance. What if Josh Allen was drafted. Could he operate with this horrible Oline? Too many different factors to say Saquon was a totally botched pick. I honestly believe that the Giants failure is weighed more towards not building an Oline.

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.

Quote:

RE: RE: There is not one person on this board 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 )

Based on what he showed during his rookie season he looked worthy of the number 2 pick it was just that the giants had much bigger needs at that point in time. I mean their were games in which he was taken or not used in the second half of games that season. The big problem is defenses stack the box and it neutralized him and then the injury ended what made him special and now here we are with a damaged RB that has lost his confidence and is trying to do too much to be that guy again that everybody talked about.

In comment 15562801 leatherneck570 said:

Quote:

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.

In comment 15562794 NorthCountryGiantsFan said:

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.

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 )

In comment 15562825 k2tampa said:

Quote:

In comment 15562794 NorthCountryGiantsFan said: 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.