To get the uncomplicated bits out of the way; Barkley had a fabulous game, looks great, was the reason the Giants won, and the best thing he can do for the Giants, no matter what the future holds, is more of that this year.
I think it's undeniable for some set of fans, Barkley has become synonymous with the losing Gettleman era. And somehow even when the Giants did something seemingly right (acquired a great talent) -- bad outcomes followed. This week is the first week Barkley has been on a winning team, he's missed a bunch of games, and it's pretty hard to hear the Giants didn't field calls to see if there was a big haul out there for a draft day trade.
But if Barkley stays healthy and looks like he did Sunday, that connection will fade, and Barkley will take his place as a really fantastic player on the Giants.
The complicated bit is what to do with him. Now, some fans and maybe GMs will say worry about that in the offseason. I don't think the Giants have that luxury. The Giants find themselves with two of their most important offensive players in walk years.
In the best case both Jones and Barkley do really well, and get strong consideration for the franchise tag. Only one obviously can get it.
The Giants have their bye on week 9, meaning the Giants will have the full 8 games before the trade deadline on 11/1. That's a key date to keep in mind.
The Giants could certainly sign either Barkley or Jones to a longterm extension, and that may happen for one or both of them during the year.
I'd hate for the Giants to not maximize the value of Barkley if it's going to be difficult to keep him.
I know this isn't a topic many are interested in thinking about in week 2, but it's really fascinating to me to see how Schoen approaches building the team.
franchise tag for a RB is very low. Likely they do it for Barkley if no long-term contract is reached prior.
Jones is gone unless he signs a 10-14 million short term deal like 2 years. Even if that's the case I can see the Giants drafting a QB behind him. He would have to have an amazing year to get a real 2nd contract from the Giants.
if not as im wont to point out the FT is a perfectly reasonable outcome that gives the nyg 2 years of leverage.
the only outlier possibility perhaps worth considering in the near future is an extension if barkley is reasonable - i think talking to other teams and his agent are 2 paths that need to be walked in parallel ahead of the deadline because if both sides decide the best value is in keeping him, the best day to extend any player approaching FA is yesterday. with 2 potential tag years at a low # and off all the injuries would he take the same 17m fully guaranteed Nick Chubb took last year? Chubb's AAV was 12.5m which is almost the same as the tag #. so you are basically getting 2 extra option years in return for guaranteeing money up front.
saquon barkley for the price of marquez valdez scantling seems like a good use of cap allocation to me. or to continue the browns comp, amari cooper just got 100m and 40m of it guaranteed and even though he has been a solid player the pendulum has swung so far the other way in the RB market i'd take the 70% off RB discount for chubb (or barkley).
but regardless the best thing for all is him continuing to play well and stay healthy because a) he seems like a good guy and b) if he's playing well there are pretty much only good options with his future cap hit likely capped at the tag amount.
I think the biggest factor is how Daniel Jones looks in the first 8 games. If he's having a pretty good first 8 games, it'll be really interesting to see what the Giants do with Barkley.
Jones is gone unless he signs a 10-14 million short term deal like 2 years. Even if that's the case I can see the Giants drafting a QB behind him. He would have to have an amazing year to get a real 2nd contract from the Giants.
If you think of Barkley as a playmaker instead of as a RB, $12-16M is not a bad deal. The only RBs paid more than that are McCaffrey and Kamara. Both are as dangerous in the passing game as in rushing.
The injury history and short shelf life for the position obviously have to be factored in as well, but a reasonable deal is not impossible.
yes that's part of the equation. if they feel confident they need tag leverage on jones then they need to be more aggressive if they also want to bring back barkley.
they could transition 1 of them but that's a double edged sword because all it takes is 1 team giving either a christian kirk type deal they are gone and you dont even get the comp pick.
as much as the first 5-6 weeks are just the first 5-6 weeks, it's really the first 10 months of this regime working with these guys and they need to be prepared to make their assessments then if either is a keeper and to at least the extent of determining who they'd want to tag.
i think Barkley is the much easier evaluation because it almost entirely comes down to health, and i think that decision is simply whats the best offer before the deadline vs. tag value for 2 years+.
If the Giants go into the offseason with Jones and Barkley on the roster, they only have team control on one of them.
i think Barkley is the much easier evaluation because it almost entirely comes down to health, and i think that decision is simply whats the best offer before the deadline vs. tag value for 2 years+.
On its own the Barkley situation is pretty straightforward. But Jones has to be factored, simply because they have two birds and practically one stone.
But, I do think Schoen will be open to trading Barkley. It won’t be popular though because I think 4-4 at the bye is not far fetched at all. But, Saquon is also a tremendous talent. He wasn’t “just a RB” out of college and there is a reason Sy gave him a 94 grade. As I heard someone say on GMFB today, “he looked like Bo Jackson”.
Depending on how the season goes will determine this, but if he keeps playing like he did yesterday, I would not rule out an extension.
If the Giants go into the offseason with Jones and Barkley on the roster, they only have team control on one of them.
they could transition tag jones. i think he's the one other teams would be less likely to 'overpay' on a long term deal because there's so much risk in a QB. i have no idea what kind of contract he'd get on the open market and since they have taylor they could walk from it. but it would cost them a comp pick to do it that way.
Yes, it was expensive, but it was ~9M less than a franchise tag. And more importantly kept more options open.
The most simple outcome is if both guys sucked, then you just know. But if both players look pretty good, you have 2 guys on a short track record of health + success.
Barkley is a more complicated matter. He can absolutely be the best RB in the NFL. If he continues to play anywhere close to this in the next few weeks he maybe be the most valuable trade piece come November 1. However, if Schoen and Daboll feel they are close to playoffs this season and to a real contender next season, they may try to keep him. McCaffery and Kamara are the best comps for him and he is probably better than both. He would be an outstanding finishing piece for a contender.
So I think Jones is 95% finished for the Giants and would place Barkley at 50%.
I agree with the transition tag at ~10M as an option and gauge the market. What do you think the parameters of a reasonable deal might be?
With the exclusive franchise tag, it looks to me like the tag would be just a bit under $11mm. If Barkley is healthy, that seems like a sensible choice.
The transition tag doesn’t seem like a good option in this situation.
You think the Giants are going to let Jones go for a 3rd round comp pick if he has a really good season?
The other version is, “If other parts of Gettleman’s plan for the Giants had worked out, drafting Saquon would have been a great move.”
He was a horrible pick, for completely predictable reasons: positional value, bad team, awful line, cooked QB, etc.
He’s also a fine young man and, when healthy, a wonderful running back. Sunday was perhaps his most complete performance, though we can expect more from him in the passing game as the season progresses. He’s one of the two best players on the team, and by far the most entertaining.
No matter how well he plays, though, he’s still a running back with a reconstructed knee, some holes in his game, and some accumulated wear on his body. Schoen is not going to get a lot for him, and shouldn’t bid against himself on an extension. If Saquon walks, he walks.
Quote:
just because of how cold the RB market has been in recent offseasons for productive players like Aaron Jones. But that's why i'd guess if the nyg want barkley back there's a reasonable extension to be had. RBs have very little leverage in today's game.
I agree with the transition tag at ~10M as an option and gauge the market. What do you think the parameters of a reasonable deal might be?
honestly barkley is a guy that i dont think is comp'able because there have been no big UFA RB deals. so if you look at UFA comps like say fournette, you would come to the conclusion that it's a no-brainer to transition tag just because of how low the biggest RB deals are. there's no accurate representation of a 'worst case'.
but if we comp'd christian kirk in February, that probably would have been half of what he ended up getting. that's the worry with barkley - will another team look at him as more than a rb? i would rather have barkley than kirk salaries notwithstanding. there may be a GM willing to give barkley a crazy deal in a similar way. and the transition tag invites another team to overpay because they know they need to do that to win the player.
aaron jones got 4x48 for a 12m AAV but with just 13m guaranteed. so on an extension early i'd guess barkley comes in somewhere around that or chubb and less than Henry (he got 50m for 12.5m AAV and 25m guaranteed). since he already publicly said he's open to that and he's had all the injuries i'd guess he'd be an easier extension to work out than williams was a few years ago.
Quote:
regardless of how his season goes.
You think the Giants are going to let Jones go for a 3rd round comp pick if he has a really good season?
Yes.
All that could definitely prove to be true. But next offseason, Schoen will have to look back and analyze Should I have traded Barkley after week 8 for X compensation, or let him walk for max a 2024 late 3rd round comp pick.
Letting him walk without playing out the game theory feels like something the last management group would have done.
What they are willing to pay for that, I don't know. But I do see a scenario where a 2nd round pick is on the table.
But you also don't give a RB (no matter how talented) a long-term deal when the team has other options. Giants will tag Barkley if he's had a great year and is still standing after week 17.
Until Jones starts carrying the offense in a way Barkley did on Sunday, I think it’s a moot point regarding Jones.
A few “nice plays” from a QB during a game isn’t enough to make a long term commitment or significant financial commitment. Jones play has not earned the salary the 5th year option would provide.
Eh, I’m not so sure. Barkley had a fantastic game either way.
Yesterday's game was not an anomaly. There is enough body of work to know he can produce games like this on a regular basis. He makes the Giants better. He is a difference maker in Giants wins.
For some reason, the bad offensive lines that are often used as an excuse for Jones performances are almost never mentioned when discussing Barkley. He couldn't make his own holes. He isn't Barry Sanders. No one is.
Trade him at your own risk. You will never receive fair value in exchange.
I could see franchising him. I can't see giving him a new contract.
Yesterday's game was not an anomaly. There is enough body of work to know he can produce games like this on a regular basis. He makes the Giants better. He is a difference maker in Giants wins.
For some reason, the bad offensive lines that are often used as an excuse for Jones performances are almost never mentioned when discussing Barkley. He couldn't make his own holes. He isn't Barry Sanders. No one is.
Trade him at your own risk. You will never receive fair value in exchange.
Well said! And your very last sentence is absolutely dead-on! There is no chance Giants could get "fair value" trading Saquon Barkley.
Yes you can say hr is RB how many hears does he have left, but he is a great fit in Daboll's scheme because you can flex himnout and he can play the slot, it will extend his career..
Barkley is a superstsr when he is healthy, you dont let superstsars walk out the door..
Yes you can say hr is RB how many hears does he have left, but he is a great fit in Daboll's scheme because you can flex himnout and he can play the slot, it will extend his career..
Barkley is a superstsr when he is healthy, you dont let superstsars walk out the door..
Agreed. If he plays at or near the level he played at Sunday you'd have to keep him even if its just tagging him for a few years. That play he made on the 2 point conversion was elite. There aren't more than a handful of RB's that score there.
Giants can’t be picky with their playmakers, but they can’t go crazy
I could see franchising him. I can't see giving him a new contract.
the recent rb contracts were essentially franchise tags with option years (chubb, jones especially).
the only silver lining to all of barkley's injuries is that he has less wear and tear than a typical 4 year RB (he only has 600 career carries right now, zeke and henry are around 1500 so any extension likely covers Barkley's career well under that volume threshold). he's still only 25. so a 3 year chubb extension beyond this one would cover ages 26, 27, 28 and basically just resolve the need to tag him twice, instead guaranteeing him some $ and getting 1 extra year of control. if he's willing to take that i think id do it. remember chubb also had the major knee injury at uga and some other injuries as a pro so a lot of similar history is baked in, same draft class too.
chubb only signed his deal last year and it's still tradeable. so it's not like they'd be handcuffed to barkley. the downside would be dead cap if he gets injured, which is the same downside you have with any player at any position. the upside is probably worth it if barkley can put together a strong 5-6 weeks and show he can play this way consistently.
Jones is still a hard no for me right now, dawg. If he does enough this season to warrant it, work on a one year deal for fair compensation or just let him walk. You're not winning playoff games with Jones as is, and he's still showing his warts.
HE's going to get paid if he is healthy in January 2023. Why would we NOT want a field tilter like this? Why can't we have that? Don't tell me it's fungible, if it was we'd see more of it and we'd see more teams never draft RBs in round 1-2 or never spend any money on the position. They do spend. They do draft RBs high so stop making things up.
franchise tag for a RB is very low. Likely they do it for Barkley if no long-term contract is reached prior.
Absolutely, the franchise tag isn't bad.
I'd be open to signing Saquon to a new deal, but nothing over four years.
nah, we aren't even in the game without him.
And quit saying trade him to a contender, we just beat a #1 seed and the first seed team in our division just lost their QB and Left Tackle.
The Eagles barely scraped into the playoffs last year and are considered contenders already.
Quote:
If he has the year he looks like he's primed to have, it's going to get awfully tempting to want to keep him around for the new era here. But, I still think the prudent football move is probably to trade him if an offer as high as a 2nd winds up on the table.
I could see franchising him. I can't see giving him a new contract.
the recent rb contracts were essentially franchise tags with option years (chubb, jones especially).
the only silver lining to all of barkley's injuries is that he has less wear and tear than a typical 4 year RB (he only has 600 career carries right now, zeke and henry are around 1500 so any extension likely covers Barkley's career well under that volume threshold). he's still only 25. so a 3 year chubb extension beyond this one would cover ages 26, 27, 28 and basically just resolve the need to tag him twice, instead guaranteeing him some $ and getting 1 extra year of control. if he's willing to take that i think id do it. remember chubb also had the major knee injury at uga and some other injuries as a pro so a lot of similar history is baked in, same draft class too.
chubb only signed his deal last year and it's still tradeable. so it's not like they'd be handcuffed to barkley. the downside would be dead cap if he gets injured, which is the same downside you have with any player at any position. the upside is probably worth it if barkley can put together a strong 5-6 weeks and show he can play this way consistently.
I just worry about sustainability/durability. Of course, if I thought we were getting the version of 26 we saw on Sunday for several years, I'd offer him a new contract yesterday.
It's not that I don't think he's worth the money or doesn't impact the game enough to warrant it, it's more that RB's can fall off and fall off fast. Todd Gurley was one of the best RB's on the planet for 2 years, and then by age 27, he was out of football entirely.
I feel like the optimal amount of time to have Barkley here would probably be this year + 2 additional seasons. If that could be done via tagging him twice, I might prefer that to a new deal that hitches us to him beyond that.
Jones just has little chance to make the necessary QB grade to continue on as a Giant. I actually think Schoen/Daboll are there with decision already (or at least that it is extremely unlikely). And the cost is really secondary, it's the fact that he isn't a good enough QB that make this decision clear.
Barkley being a much better football player makes this one tougher, but really only some. The issue here is the expected declining value of a RB on a second contract, and an oft-injured one at that, is just not a prudent longer term investment. The tags could solve for that but don't see the point unless Schoen really expects to compete for a title next season which isn't happening either.
If someone offers something for Barkley in October it should be seriously considered and weighed against what he gives us in 2022 (if still competing for a playoff spot). Or just let him become a free agent in 2023 if offers are low or non-existent and bargain for his services like everybody else. If $ work then give him a new deal.
This makes perfect sense to me as long as we can get a high enough draft pick
If he plays like he did last weekend for a full season I think that is exactly what the franchise tag is for. You want to pay the top players what they are worth without having to commit long term. He looked like prime AP out there on Sunday so yeah if you think you can have that player for a full season you pay top dollar.
Tiki didn't really arrive until 2000. MAybe Bark peaks in year 4 too. Different situations but some RBs were unlucky early but have much more gas in their tank later on in their career.
If he plays this season you'd really only have the one bad 2020 injury to worry about and BArkley would be 2 full years removed.
Under 1000 carries as well. HE could have 1000 more. That's a lot of wins if the team is built the right way.
His stats were as good (or better) than the two best NFL RBs (Jim Brown & Barry Sanders) in the history of the NCAA.
Dan Jones is no Johnny Unitas or Tom Brady (two college "nobodies" who became "somebodies"). What I'm saying - Jones is a heck more replaceable.
Durability, that will always be a question, but I don't question his work ethic and training.
Some people just get injured more often.
It's a big risk and needs to be part of any deal.
I really think Jones will be available at 12-16 million even if he has a good year too much baggage and most other teams will see a system improvement not Necessarily Jones taking the next step.
I see him like Mariota, trubisky, Winston, brissett type.
Which could be a nice bridge to a drafted QB.
If Barkley plays enough games like yesterday(Outplayed Derrick Henry) he worth it. Lets see what happens. Very, very excited by his play. That guy got dirty yards and made big plays.
Yesterday, Barkley was perfect. Went beyond the X's and O's(stolen) and won the game. we talk about wanting a dog on defense. Barkley was a dog on offense yesterday. Put us on his back. You build teams with those players regardless of position. Consistency matters, let's see more. If he continues this, he will be a Giant. Owner loves him as well.
There's no way Barkley excepts a deal with anything around 20M guaranteed, when the franchise tag for one year is 13M.
If he has a great year, it is hard to see anyone offering more than the Giants. If he has a good but not great year, the offers will will be for a backup QB and the Giants could still be the high bidder.
The Giants have only one decision to make. Should he be tagged? That’s unreasonable so really Jones’ future is out of their control, unless HE decides to sign as a free agent.
Until Jones starts carrying the offense in a way Barkley did on Sunday, I think it’s a moot point regarding Jones.
A few “nice plays” from a QB during a game isn’t enough to make a long term commitment or significant financial commitment. Jones play has not earned the salary the 5th year option would provide.
Agreed. Jones is going to have to "take over" games to stick her past 2022. Just isn't likely. I can see him having a few good games where you start thinking about it, but you will have those bad endzone throws as well, and games that are complete duds - if that happens there's no reason to keep him.
Barkley being tagged (if healthy and productive) makes a lot of sense.
1 win and we're absolving gettleman, extending barkley and taking it as given that we're gonna be 3-0.
Just pump the brakes and enjoy it.
1 win and we're absolving gettleman, extending barkley and taking it as given that we're gonna be 3-0.
Just pump the brakes and enjoy it.
Meh, it is better then the Jones or Toney bashing threads!
Apologies i'm not too well versed. But a team trading for Barkley mid year would still be able to tag him correct?
No matter how great Barkley does until then, I'm not sure he's fetching more than a 4th-5th? at the deadline. In the MLB its so easy to point and say we need player X and we'll probably get to the World Series. There's a series of games where the better* team is winning. NFL is any given sunday. No matter who you acquired, you can just get out-worked in the divisional round.
An Injury at the RB position to a team that is like 6-1 at the deadline might pay up alittle more? But again, 8 games left on the contract.
Plus, if someone does want to keep him, the franchise tag is way easier for an RB than an edge.
Plus, if someone does want to keep him, the franchise tag is way easier for an RB than an edge.
If Barkley continues to play like he did Sunday, he should net a first. That’s a small price to play for a win now team. The Rams won a super bowl mortgaging 1st round picks. When at the top of his game, Barkley is more than a running back - he is a catalyst for the offense.
You aren't going to find anyone here that isn't willing to pay top RB dollars for the Saquon Barkley last Sunday. The question is will he miss games, will he miss a lot of games. Will he get dinged up and slowed down?
No question he's an elite talent but we just haven't seen enough of the good Saquon to trust him even on a 1 year deal if it isn't a clean year this year is risky.
the trade deadline rental/comp pick dynamic is the primary reason why i like the strategy of structuring tradable veterans for the trade deadline as opposed to the offseason. the trading team is generally in better position to eat cap, you only need the player to put a few good games on tape, and then you can cash in on the comp pick/rental dynamic from a team that's a little more urgent since they are usually trying to win a SB.
if i was a GM of a rebuilding team with cap room id be all about 1 year deals for vets with big signing bonuses, minimum base salaries, and then pump and dump to create extra draft picks at the deadline.
Quote:
for Von Miller as a rental. If Barkley looks this dominant a 2 seems possible.
Plus, if someone does want to keep him, the franchise tag is way easier for an RB than an edge.
If Barkley continues to play like he did Sunday, he should net a first. That’s a small price to play for a win now team. The Rams won a super bowl mortgaging 1st round picks. When at the top of his game, Barkley is more than a running back - he is a catalyst for the offense.
I'd agree that would be the worth, just not sure you fetch that. I'd argue that Von was worth a 1st, especially seeing the resulting success he had. Totally changed that D. Wasn't fetched though...
The positional value conversation only has merit when his YP-Touch and 1Ds don't match up with the number of touches.
If he's averaging north of 7 YP-Touch and pacing towards 100 1Ds, I agree.
To be a great weapon, and merit lots of touches, my view is he needs the explosive plays and the chain moving plays.
so i think the question is a 3rd + what? i could see a 3rd and a 2nd like von miller being offered. then the question is do you take that or not? it's probably pick #50 plus pick #82 or something like that, so you are talking in the range of an ezeudu and a flott type.
even if someone put a singular 1st on the table im not even sure it's so different value wise because it's almost definitely a late one.
there's logic either way and i do think that's the type of decision we'll see schoen have to make, but if he keeps i think he may as well be prepared to extend him.
Obviously his third year he tears his ACL on a play that could happen to anyone
Last year he sprains his ankle when a teammate steps on his foot in dallas
I am not sure I would consider him injury prone where his body can't handle the physical nature of the NFL. He has had some real bad luck with injuries.
The biggest hurdle for Saquon Barkley at this point in my view is: How long/well is the reconstructed knee going to hold up? Certainly a fair question for any team looking to invest in him.
Obviously his third year he tears his ACL on a play that could happen to anyone
Last year he sprains his ankle when a teammate steps on his foot in dallas
I am not sure I would consider him injury prone where his body can't handle the physical nature of the NFL. He has had some real bad luck with injuries.
The biggest hurdle for Saquon Barkley at this point in my view is: How long/well is the reconstructed knee going to hold up? Certainly a fair question for any team looking to invest in him.
Oh jesus come on with this. People said a concern with taking an RB #2 was due to injuries durability the data proves out on an individual level and you want to chalk it up as luck. That's ridiculous.
I suppose all RBs are just unlucky then getting injured at the highest rates and having the shortest careers?
What injuries are unlucky and what are deserved?
I can't believe people write this stuff.
Less arrogance; more understanding
Quote:
for Von Miller as a rental. If Barkley looks this dominant a 2 seems possible.
Plus, if someone does want to keep him, the franchise tag is way easier for an RB than an edge.
If Barkley continues to play like he did Sunday, he should net a first. That’s a small price to play for a win now team. The Rams won a super bowl mortgaging 1st round picks. When at the top of his game, Barkley is more than a running back - he is a catalyst for the offense.
Not happening. Schoen gets GM of the Year if he lands a first rounder for a RB (even if you think he is more).
Day 2 pick at best...
You're extraordinarily welcome to do so!
But I do think we'll keep him. We will be trying to win next year and we don't have very many good players. Even if RB is low positional value, he is good. Plus we'll have a QB on a rookie deal and we cut a lot of the dead wood already.
The more I think about it, the more likely the franchise tag seems. Unless Mara steps in to reward one of his guys.
Just as a fan though, I'd love to see what he looks like on the Bills or Ravens
Less arrogance; more understanding
My understanding of ligament issues is there is a moment they tear but they absolutely get worn down, not sure what your point is. Plus any injury can be the result of fatigue, and you can't really explain that away. The more you might be compensating for other dings the more potentially off-balance or susceptible to other ailments you can be. That is why injuries generally go up as usage does.
And I'm sorry but only good points need to be understood, your point was bad. A known and predictable data set performing within the distribution shouldn't have individual points explained away as "luck" pretty definitionally there isn't anything to understand. Odd enough that you'd bring the weak stuff in here but are doubling down as if you have a point when you don't. Many said you don't draft an RB #2 because of durability, we've experienced that and you want to act like this was just bad luck? Seriously? Lol.
I do.
sleep like a baby after too.
Don't care what he does, wherever he goes.
Doesn't matter.
His career isn't look to be long or injury free.
It could be injury free, but if it is, it is just a lucky guess.
At that point, it's highly likely Schoen keeps SB and pushes the SB decision to the offseason.
I think multi-year contracts for RBs - off their rookie deals - are not wise. Because of the injury risk, and the likelihood the production curves bends sooner rather than later, the position should be treated on a year-to-year basis.
Even Peterson, who was a physical freak, struggled to stay healthy after his MVP season in 2012. And that MVP season was after an incredible five-year run.
Derrick Henry is a horse. He signed a new deal in the months leading up to the 2020 season. In 2020, Henry only played 8 games.
Look at Alvin Kamara. Signs a new contract heading in to the 2020 season. He had a very good season in 2020. In 2021? Kamara's production falls off all across the board and he misses four games to boot.
The examples are just too strong to support avoiding any multi-year contract for SB. As mentioned, he already has an injury history and, IMV, he's very motivated to have a good year because he's trying to earn that second contract.
No matter how well he does, we shouldn't fall into the trap thinking SB will be the exception and not the rule.
Quote:
running backs are more suspectable to wear and tear (body breaking down) these were not wear and tear injuries.
Less arrogance; more understanding
My understanding of ligament issues is there is a moment they tear but they absolutely get worn down, not sure what your point is. Plus any injury can be the result of fatigue, and you can't really explain that away. The more you might be compensating for other dings the more potentially off-balance or susceptible to other ailments you can be. That is why injuries generally go up as usage does.
And I'm sorry but only good points need to be understood, your point was bad. A known and predictable data set performing within the distribution shouldn't have individual points explained away as "luck" pretty definitionally there isn't anything to understand. Odd enough that you'd bring the weak stuff in here but are doubling down as if you have a point when you don't. Many said you don't draft an RB #2 because of durability, we've experienced that and you want to act like this was just bad luck? Seriously? Lol.
Then your durability rules should apply to anyone that gets tackled frequently. Saquon did not get hurt just because he is a running back. He didn’t tear his acl just because he is a running back, he didn’t get a high ankle sprain because he is a running back and so on and so forth.
And no need to reply if you are going to continue with your attitude, or you can have the last word on this if something like that is important to you.
If I don’t like being talked to a certain way then I should not talk to others in that same way.
Live and hopefully learn