1,000-word retrospective on Saquon Barkley from Draft Day to where he stands today with the Giants new regime. Here is a summary:
(1) All the evidence suggests the Giants were going to take a QB in 2018 but then soured on the entire class;
(2) That left the Giants with three choices -- Sam Darnold, Bradley Chubb or Saquon Barkley. GBN argues that nobody on draft day was going to pick either Quentin Nelson or Josh Allen in the 2-hole. And nobody was offering very much for the Giants to trade down;
(3) Clearly, in his rookie year, Saquon justified his #2 overall selection. The stats recited by GBN are quite impressive.
(4) GBN has argued in the past that the real threat of Saquon Barkley was that it forced teams to load the box, which made the defense quite vulnerable to the passing game, especially on 1st and 2nd downs;
(5) But two coaching regimes forced Barkley to run against 8-man fronts, which then led the Giants into 3rd and long with a young QB at the helm, not to mention a below-grade O-line and wide receiver group;
(6) The new Giants regime should at minimum have an offense that plays to Saquon Barkley's strengths.
My wild guess about our running back whose career started off with such promise: He will have a "nice" year and will be playing for another team in 2023. And the same will be true even if his nice year turns into a great year.
Link - (
New Window )
Quote:
The only thing Barkley did his rookie year is impress those fans who continue to be clueless about position value and think football can still be played like it's the '70s and '80s.
Oh, ok and you wonder why people think you are a full of crap..over 2000 yards from scrimmage and that is 70s/80s..
Any team will take that kind of production from any player from any position.
And for those 2K scrimmage yards we had 5 wins. Five.
Now, I'm not suggesting Barkley didn't put up impressive totals - he did - but the production just didn't translate to wins. And that's clearly because it's more important to have your QB, OL, and WRs do well and thrive over a RB.
Sure, you hope the RB does well, but it's just not a critical variable in the determining which team wins.
I doubt Barkley is a Giant in 23, but he should have opportunities this year (as will Jones), that haven't been there for the last 2 .
Quote:
In comment 15761325 bw in dc said:
Quote:
The only thing Barkley did his rookie year is impress those fans who continue to be clueless about position value and think football can still be played like it's the '70s and '80s.
Oh, ok and you wonder why people think you are a full of crap..over 2000 yards from scrimmage and that is 70s/80s..
Any team will take that kind of production from any player from any position.
And for those 2K scrimmage yards we had 5 wins. Five.
Now, I'm not suggesting Barkley didn't put up impressive totals - he did - but the production just didn't translate to wins. And that's clearly because it's more important to have your QB, OL, and WRs do well and thrive over a RB.
Sure, you hope the RB does well, but it's just not a critical variable in the determining which team wins.
I am with you here. If SB had a better QB to compliment his yards - your talking about an offense that will be near 30 PPG. I certainly don’t blame SB for 2018 cause I believe he did his part.
But even look at a guy like Derrick Henry. As awesome as he is - he can’t carry a team to be a title contender.
Barkley is easily out-performed by your standard every day back is how I read this. A couple of questions: Why was not out-performed in year 1 and 2, why was he out-performed in year 3? Barkley did not have a good year coming off a serious injury; he has much to prove this year.
Quote:
The Giants would have all the leverage even if SB is exceptional this year. They could just Franchise Tag him for 9.5 million. You could do this twice if needed and then let him go. IMO spending 9.5 million on an RB in one season is not bad if the RB is performing at an exceptional level. A high money long-term deal is the real problem.
good lord...
Don't understand your point if there is one. If Barkley has a great season and is critical to the offense. Why would you not keep him for 9.5 million hit for one year? Because it would only leave us with 70 million in cap space? I never thought he was worth the #2 pick. I would have traded back. That said, I don't understand the lynch mob that is Jonesing to get rid of him (See what I did there?)
Quote:
In comment 15761227 Reale01 said:
Quote:
The Giants would have all the leverage even if SB is exceptional this year. They could just Franchise Tag him for 9.5 million. You could do this twice if needed and then let him go. IMO spending 9.5 million on an RB in one season is not bad if the RB is performing at an exceptional level. A high money long-term deal is the real problem.
good lord...
Don't understand your point if there is one. If Barkley has a great season and is critical to the offense. Why would you not keep him for 9.5 million hit for one year? Because it would only leave us with 70 million in cap space? I never thought he was worth the #2 pick. I would have traded back. That said, I don't understand the lynch mob that is Jonesing to get rid of him (See what I did there?)
Running backs at the end of their rookie contracts or in their second contracts don’t have strong ROIs going forward. If they happen to have great seasons at this point, paying them more if basically a waste a money since it won’t likely be repeated. They will decline, get more dinged up or be less productive due to time and wear n’ tear. Very few outliers that buck this trend.
$9.5M for Barkley for one year going forward is simply a waste of money versus the production that can be expected or the replacement cost of a middle round draft pick RB.
Let me know if this isn’t intuitive...
Quote:
And nobody was offering very much for the Giants to trade down
This per Gettleman, a proven liar?
Numerous reports have come out that Cleveland offered their #4 overall plus at least one of their top two 2nd Rounders.
In the worst case scenario, the Giants could have had #4 overall from Cleveland, #34 overall (NYG 2nd Rounder) and #35 overall (also from Cleveland).
The irony is that the Browns drafted Nick Chubb on the 2nd round in 2018 and Chubb, to date, is a better running back than Barkley. He reads the LOS, hits the hole, and runs for daylight.
Quote:
DG had him rated as the best player coming out since Peyton Manning. The same guy who in year 3 and 4 was being outperformed by Gallman and Booker. I don’t care what Barkley’s injuries are, that doesn’t happen to very good players. This is a historic level scouting mistake.
Barkley is easily out-performed by your standard every day back is how I read this. A couple of questions: Why was not out-performed in year 1 and 2, why was he out-performed in year 3? Barkley did not have a good year coming off a serious injury; he has much to prove this year.
Because some college players become better Pros over time and some don’t or regress.
Should we wait and see this year?
Quote:
In comment 15761237 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
In comment 15761227 Reale01 said:
Quote:
The Giants would have all the leverage even if SB is exceptional this year. They could just Franchise Tag him for 9.5 million. You could do this twice if needed and then let him go. IMO spending 9.5 million on an RB in one season is not bad if the RB is performing at an exceptional level. A high money long-term deal is the real problem.
good lord...
Don't understand your point if there is one. If Barkley has a great season and is critical to the offense. Why would you not keep him for 9.5 million hit for one year? Because it would only leave us with 70 million in cap space? I never thought he was worth the #2 pick. I would have traded back. That said, I don't understand the lynch mob that is Jonesing to get rid of him (See what I did there?)
Running backs at the end of their rookie contracts or in their second contracts don’t have strong ROIs going forward. If they happen to have great seasons at this point, paying them more if basically a waste a money since it won’t likely be repeated. They will decline, get more dinged up or be less productive due to time and wear n’ tear. Very few outliers that buck this trend.
$9.5M for Barkley for one year going forward is simply a waste of money versus the production that can be expected or the replacement cost of a middle round draft pick RB.
Let me know if this isn’t intuitive...
Its not intuitive - or out of line with what I said. First, I did not say to resign him to a long term deal.
Second, what I said was predicated on him being a critical piece of the offense.
Third, not every middle round back is Delvin Cook. Most are second or third round picks and there are a lot that don't work out. There is no potential replacement on the Giants roster. There are not usually any good FA running backs available.
Forth, a top 10 RB season is worth 9.5 million if the RB is a threat in the passing game. Also, a good move if we pick an RB next year.
Finally, I know you want to replace Jones next year. Are we going to have a rookie QB and a rookie RB? If we use round 1 on QB and round 3 on RB it limits your draft. Also, that likely means the earliest the Giants would be a contender is 2025.
Again, I agree you do not take an RB with the 2nd pick in draft. You do not sign an RB to a large second contract. The best case scenario is that either Jones, Barkley, or both play well enough to deserve to be Giants in 2023.
That means you don’t sign him to an extension nor Franchise Tag him as there is no short term or longer term value that aligns to our timeline of needs.
The best case scenario for the Giants is if some RB-desperate team comes calling at the trade deadline and only looks at film from his Penn St/Hand of God years...
Daniel Jeremiah said he was the second "perfect 9.0" prospect grade ever for him, the first was Peyton. An awful lot of people had Saquon that high. And they were right to grade him there because that was the right grade.
The only problem with Saquon was the team he went to and the fact that he suffered a devastating injury and other fairly serious injuries.
A healthy Saquon through 4 seasons...we aren't having this conversation.
Are you saying, "He's just not a good player"??? or are you saying "He's just not a good player after a kick-ass rookie season???"
You're right, the Barkley's struggles are not caused just by injuries. If Barkley was as bad a player as you suggest he probably does not have the kind of success he had in year 1 and year 2 considering the Giants poor OL. I do however feel that it is possible, maybe even likely that Barkley benefited greatly from having Manning as the qb because of his ability to read the defense at the LOS. Even so, watching Barkley play football in year 1 and year 2 showed me a player making the most of a team that struggled to run block.
As for this year, there were really two options: Cut Barkley and give his reps to a young unproven player that may surprise. Keep Barkley and wait and see if he shows he can be the back from the first two years and gives the Giants trade options.
I love Saquon, but he is probably not in the future plans for NYG. Too many holes to fill.
What I would suggest though is that people not get too hung up on positions per se. The Giants didn't select Barkley back in 2018 because they wanted a RB. They took him because he was an electric big-play threat to add to a pathetically anemic offense. The same applies going forward. If the goal is to get 4 yards on first down then clearly there are other cheaper options out there. However, I don't believe that the goal of the offense that Daboll-Kafka envision going forward is getting four yards on first down. They want 40! Because in this day and age that's what wins championships. And if healthy Saquon is one of the few backs in the league who are a legit threat to get those kind of yards. If he had a Deebo Samuel type year then franchising him as a RB could very well be a bargain. But my theory is we play the year and see what happens!!
It was the Giants and Barkley and he was told in February. That is such incompetence and GM malpractice that it's almost hard to believe. But why would he lie?
1) Hesitates looking for the cutback
2) Poor vision, doesn't read the hole in front of him and run for daylight
3) Terrible pass blocker
All 3 of these issues were present and visible during his college days. I know I picked up on this and wrote about it before he was drafted, as did numerous others. One stat that jumps out at you was that he led all college RB is stuff%. He was double the next nearest.
The problem for a player like Barkley, is that once the DCs saw his weaknesses on tape they could adjust to take advantage. The players in the NFL are faster and better, his cutback lanes can be taken away from him. He can't just use his athletic ability to win on as many plays as he did in college.
I don't think injuries have been as impactful to him as many suggest. I think the DCs are exploiting these weaknesses to take away his strengths. Unless he completely changes his game, I don't see that dynamic runner ever emerging again.
He is what he always has been. His problems were there to be scouted in college. The error people made was giving him such a high rating on his athletic ability alone rather than looking at him as a complete football player, which he has never been.
What I would suggest though is that people not get too hung up on positions per se. The Giants didn't select Barkley back in 2018 because they wanted a RB. They took him because he was an electric big-play threat to add to a pathetically anemic offense. The same applies going forward. If the goal is to get 4 yards on first down then clearly there are other cheaper options out there. However, I don't believe that the goal of the offense that Daboll-Kafka envision going forward is getting four yards on first down. They want 40! Because in this day and age that's what wins championships. And if healthy Saquon is one of the few backs in the league who are a legit threat to get those kind of yards. If he had a Deebo Samuel type year then franchising him as a RB could very well be a bargain. But my theory is we play the year and see what happens!!
Your quite welcome, Colin!
Incidentally, I know you've been a big proponent of having big-strike weapons, and I am in your court on this one, but over the past several years I've had a hard time envisioning the Giants winning with such weapons so long as they trotted out there such an inept offensive line. Hopefully with Andrew Thomas, Evan Neal and a few others they've stabilized that situation!
It was the Giants and Barkley and he was told in February. That is such incompetence and GM malpractice that it's almost hard to believe. But why would he lie?
Why is it incompetent to pick your guy when he is the highest rated player ever from CFB? Was he the wrong guy to take, as hindsight says, yes. You are going to tell me Jax didn't know they were taking Trevor Lawrence, just to name one.
Of course, the only team that knows for certain who they are taking is the #1 pick. But you cannot tell me that the top 5 picking teams do not know who they want and can reasonably expect to pick?
It is fine to hate on DG and his lousy 4 years as GM, but to think teams do not know who they want is naive.
It's amazing how much hate there is for Saquon because of where Gettleman drafted him. It's as if he forced Gettleman to draft him there somehow.
What I would suggest though is that people not get too hung up on positions per se. The Giants didn't select Barkley back in 2018 because they wanted a RB. They took him because he was an electric big-play threat to add to a pathetically anemic offense. The same applies going forward. If the goal is to get 4 yards on first down then clearly there are other cheaper options out there. However, I don't believe that the goal of the offense that Daboll-Kafka envision going forward is getting four yards on first down. They want 40! Because in this day and age that's what wins championships. And if healthy Saquon is one of the few backs in the league who are a legit threat to get those kind of yards. If he had a Deebo Samuel type year then franchising him as a RB could very well be a bargain. But my theory is we play the year and see what happens!!
Let me be blunt, Colin. This betrays a complete misunderstanding of the role rushing plays in winning NFL games.
Quote:
I know we disagree about Saquon. DG was definitely not the only one who loved him as a prospect. The underperformance by Barkley isn’t just caused by injuries. He’s just not a good player. Stars are able to compensate to at least perform at NFL replacement level. Barkley fell short of even that low bar.
Are you saying, "He's just not a good player"??? or are you saying "He's just not a good player after a kick-ass rookie season???"
MS - the guy had elite athletic skills which covered up his poor football skills. Things like reading blocks and understanding his role in the offense. As the injuries pile up, the tide comes down and we have a guy with good but not outstanding athletic skills… who is just a lousy football player.
Quote:
In comment 15761846 cosmicj said:
Quote:
I know we disagree about Saquon. DG was definitely not the only one who loved him as a prospect. The underperformance by Barkley isn’t just caused by injuries. He’s just not a good player. Stars are able to compensate to at least perform at NFL replacement level. Barkley fell short of even that low bar.
Are you saying, "He's just not a good player"??? or are you saying "He's just not a good player after a kick-ass rookie season???"
MS - the guy had elite athletic skills which covered up his poor football skills. Things like reading blocks and understanding his role in the offense. As the injuries pile up, the tide comes down and we have a guy with good but not outstanding athletic skills… who is just a lousy football player.
Agreed cosmic, and as I said above, the fact that his elite AA was covering for his lack of football skills was something that people detected at the time and should have been picked up by a good scout and GM.