Gio and Boomer brought up a depressing BUT interesting point. -Saquon is healthy, doing well and at high value
-Giants are so far from being a contender that they still need to find more talent in the draft
-A few teams, including Bills(with a good relationship with Schoen)lack a running game and need to depressure Allen and are about as close to winning a SB as ever
-Jones is probably gone and with the WRs we have now, it's basically a Pop Warner team with Saquon wasting his time anyways
Take the draft pick trade and run? Stick with the fan fave for another season? Front office would get roasted for it but Saquon has no value if he gets hurt again. Its all poker now folks
Quote:
In comment 15836972 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
were intimating that RBs were flying off the board in the Top 10 and that just isn't the case any longer.
The trend is what I showed you and it's indisputable.
You can be cute and do your little word pivot, or you can look at the facts and smarten up...
That’s not what I was intimating. I’ll recapitulate what I said but my original statement is still there. If there are only 2 RB’s taken in the top 5 in 10 years. What valid statements can you make about the two teams that have these players and what conclusions about ‘trends’ in the NFL can they support… with a sample size of 2?
Your opinion is good for rhetoric but don’t pass it off as even introductory level analysis.
Most of the analytical premises you guys are using does not account for an outlier because analytics as a whole is created to make conclusions about the middle of the bell curve, not the end.
There isn’t enough sample size to make conclusions about outliers. If you want to argue about whether saquon is an outlier, start a new thread.
And to your point that there are less RB’s being taken in the top 10, that is exactly the chicken or the egg typa stuff that even introductory level statisticians avoid.
What was the prominent personnel grouping of hs football 20 years ago… 31 personnel. What is the prominent personnel grouping now? 11 personnel. If you were 5’8 160 twenty years ago, you were an RB, now those same kids are slot receivers. There is a much higher percentage of WR talent recruited into division 1 football than there was 20 years ago, for many reasons besides just personnel groupings. Have RB’s been devalued because of their role in top offenses or because of a supposed decrease in talent.
If you can’t without a doubt answer that research question with a sound argument, how can you begin to answer the questions you’re attempting to answer. Hint: Amazon is still trying to answer that question, so good luck.
Just stop using stats you know nothing about to make your opinion seem more substantial than others, it’s just an opinion
I am not using stats...I don't even need to.
I am showing you the facts that teams are placing extremely low value on the RB position early in drafts over the past several years. And I am showing you that teams are finding very good value in RBs later in drafts where they should be selected.
It is not a position to build your team around or overextend value to because of the short shelf life, injury factor and heavy supply of replaceable talent each draft and free agent period.
The only thing dumber than placing too much value on a RB in the draft is placing too much value on one for a second contract.
But go find your outliers, quantify your sample sizes and figure out if its a chicken or an egg debate. It will only bring you right back to what I wrote above...
You used “teams” as the subject of your conclusion which does not equal to “all teams”, so the outlier argument still hasn’t been touched.
But let’s talk facts since you wanna go there. The team that spends the most money on analytics rn with their own in-house analytical department is the Rams. Great example since they’re the most recent winners of the Super Bowl. One of their analytical conclusions they implemented was the value of RB vs replacement level was lower than that of other positions but also carried the highest injury risk and lowest shelf life.
So they applied this change to their roster building strategy and reallocated that money to other positions while using mid rd draft picks to draft and trade for RB. But they didn’t win any Super Bowls using this philosophy, they got close, lost to the Patriots and were a shit show the next year.
But then they implemented a new analysis based conclusion that the only players with higher value than 1st round draft picks were blue chip players still in their prime.
They then traded two 1sts for Jalen Ramsey, disgruntled player still in his prime, two 1sts for Matthew Stafford, still in his prime. After these two actions, they immediately won the next super bowl.
Now you can look at these results and say, look, they only acquired players with high positional value, and while no one could say you’re wrong, it also doesn’t mean you’re right.
But by trading saquon Barkley, a blue chip player in his prime… for a 2nd rd pick… while the Rams are throwing away 1st rd picks to acquire blue chip players, might just be the only thing “dumber than giving an RB a 2nd contract” because it is the opposite philosophy that arguably won the Rams the Super Bowl.
Then you can argue but hey, they only gave away those picks for high positional value players. That whole positional value metric is based on how likely it is that your replacement will have the same production as the starter. They still haven’t replaced Gurley’s production.
And when Gurley was shot, only then did they realize the true value of Jared Goff and some of the other pieces they valued. It took them gaining a star cornerback, a star QB, a star pass rusher Von Miller, and the top edge from FA, Leonard Floyd, to climb the hump and actually win it.
And here you are trying to build your team with less stars because your following the Joneses(The Rams). But they’re never going to share their analytical conclusions with you or me because they paid way too much money in data scientist and data engineer salaries to acquire it.
You can claim that your NFL analyses are just as good as theirs are, sure, but to claim that your opinion ( value judgement, or belief) about the positional VALUE of RB’s just shows me this whole conversation is lost on you. But that’s just my opinion.
When you imitate the team that sets the trend, you’re already behind the curve.
I know, I said above I’d consider it. I’m talking about a 3rd or worse and just don’t see a point to it.
But I can also see us franchising him for a year.
Fuck. I'm in the Dante category: 'The hottest places in Hell are reserve for those-who in a time or moral crisis-maintain their neutrality.' Haha.
Quote:
In comment 15837010 aGiantGuy said:
Quote:
In comment 15836972 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
were intimating that RBs were flying off the board in the Top 10 and that just isn't the case any longer.
The trend is what I showed you and it's indisputable.
You can be cute and do your little word pivot, or you can look at the facts and smarten up...
That’s not what I was intimating. I’ll recapitulate what I said but my original statement is still there. If there are only 2 RB’s taken in the top 5 in 10 years. What valid statements can you make about the two teams that have these players and what conclusions about ‘trends’ in the NFL can they support… with a sample size of 2?
Your opinion is good for rhetoric but don’t pass it off as even introductory level analysis.
Most of the analytical premises you guys are using does not account for an outlier because analytics as a whole is created to make conclusions about the middle of the bell curve, not the end.
There isn’t enough sample size to make conclusions about outliers. If you want to argue about whether saquon is an outlier, start a new thread.
And to your point that there are less RB’s being taken in the top 10, that is exactly the chicken or the egg typa stuff that even introductory level statisticians avoid.
What was the prominent personnel grouping of hs football 20 years ago… 31 personnel. What is the prominent personnel grouping now? 11 personnel. If you were 5’8 160 twenty years ago, you were an RB, now those same kids are slot receivers. There is a much higher percentage of WR talent recruited into division 1 football than there was 20 years ago, for many reasons besides just personnel groupings. Have RB’s been devalued because of their role in top offenses or because of a supposed decrease in talent.
If you can’t without a doubt answer that research question with a sound argument, how can you begin to answer the questions you’re attempting to answer. Hint: Amazon is still trying to answer that question, so good luck.
Just stop using stats you know nothing about to make your opinion seem more substantial than others, it’s just an opinion
I am not using stats...I don't even need to.
I am showing you the facts that teams are placing extremely low value on the RB position early in drafts over the past several years. And I am showing you that teams are finding very good value in RBs later in drafts where they should be selected.
It is not a position to build your team around or overextend value to because of the short shelf life, injury factor and heavy supply of replaceable talent each draft and free agent period.
The only thing dumber than placing too much value on a RB in the draft is placing too much value on one for a second contract.
But go find your outliers, quantify your sample sizes and figure out if its a chicken or an egg debate. It will only bring you right back to what I wrote above...
You used “teams” as the subject of your conclusion which does not equal to “all teams”, so the outlier argument still hasn’t been touched.
But let’s talk facts since you wanna go there. The team that spends the most money on analytics rn with their own in-house analytical department is the Rams. Great example since they’re the most recent winners of the Super Bowl. One of their analytical conclusions they implemented was the value of RB vs replacement level was lower than that of other positions but also carried the highest injury risk and lowest shelf life.
So they applied this change to their roster building strategy and reallocated that money to other positions while using mid rd draft picks to draft and trade for RB. But they didn’t win any Super Bowls using this philosophy, they got close, lost to the Patriots and were a shit show the next year.
But then they implemented a new analysis based conclusion that the only players with higher value than 1st round draft picks were blue chip players still in their prime.
They then traded two 1sts for Jalen Ramsey, disgruntled player still in his prime, two 1sts for Matthew Stafford, still in his prime. After these two actions, they immediately won the next super bowl.
Now you can look at these results and say, look, they only acquired players with high positional value, and while no one could say you’re wrong, it also doesn’t mean you’re right.
But by trading saquon Barkley, a blue chip player in his prime… for a 2nd rd pick… while the Rams are throwing away 1st rd picks to acquire blue chip players, might just be the only thing “dumber than giving an RB a 2nd contract” because it is the opposite philosophy that arguably won the Rams the Super Bowl.
Then you can argue but hey, they only gave away those picks for high positional value players. That whole positional value metric is based on how likely it is that your replacement will have the same production as the starter. They still haven’t replaced Gurley’s production.
And when Gurley was shot, only then did they realize the true value of Jared Goff and some of the other pieces they valued. It took them gaining a star cornerback, a star QB, a star pass rusher Von Miller, and the top edge from FA, Leonard Floyd, to climb the hump and actually win it.
And here you are trying to build your team with less stars because your following the Joneses(The Rams). But they’re never going to share their analytical conclusions with you or me because they paid way too much money in data scientist and data engineer salaries to acquire it.
You can claim that your NFL analyses are just as good as theirs are, sure, but to claim that your opinion ( value judgement, or belief) about the positional VALUE of RB’s just shows me this whole conversation is lost on you. But that’s just my opinion.
When you imitate the team that sets the trend, you’re already behind the curve.
Don’t feel the more you write the better the post. The better you write the better the post.
And the better you write in less words makes it great.
Now, what’s your point....paying RBs is great value?
But I can also see us franchising him for a year.
Fuck. I'm in the Dante category: 'The hottest places in Hell are reserve for those-who in a time or moral crisis-maintain their neutrality.' Haha.
That isn't really neutral tho, it's a utility thing and it makes sense. Two wildly different outcomes but both are about maximizing his value to the team.
Quote:
In comment 15837063 sharp315 said:
Quote:
In comment 15837050 SFGFNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
If we franchise him, what's the hit? If it's not unreasonable, I'd consider it.
Franchise Tag for RB was 9.5m this year so it will probably be 10m for 2023. But more importantly is what makes you think Saquon will play on a 10m contract?
Not what is being reported in Over The Cap...
K. 10m or 12m - big difference. Vs 30-35m guaranteed if he holds out and gets to Free Agency like Lev Bell did.
If he gets to free agency and gets $35m you should be happy for him. And thank the lord that we didn’t pay it...
I actually love when I see this...
:- )
Quote:
In comment 15837010 aGiantGuy said:
Quote:
In comment 15836972 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
were intimating that RBs were flying off the board in the Top 10 and that just isn't the case any longer.
The trend is what I showed you and it's indisputable.
You can be cute and do your little word pivot, or you can look at the facts and smarten up...
That’s not what I was intimating. I’ll recapitulate what I said but my original statement is still there. If there are only 2 RB’s taken in the top 5 in 10 years. What valid statements can you make about the two teams that have these players and what conclusions about ‘trends’ in the NFL can they support… with a sample size of 2?
Your opinion is good for rhetoric but don’t pass it off as even introductory level analysis.
Most of the analytical premises you guys are using does not account for an outlier because analytics as a whole is created to make conclusions about the middle of the bell curve, not the end.
There isn’t enough sample size to make conclusions about outliers. If you want to argue about whether saquon is an outlier, start a new thread.
And to your point that there are less RB’s being taken in the top 10, that is exactly the chicken or the egg typa stuff that even introductory level statisticians avoid.
What was the prominent personnel grouping of hs football 20 years ago… 31 personnel. What is the prominent personnel grouping now? 11 personnel. If you were 5’8 160 twenty years ago, you were an RB, now those same kids are slot receivers. There is a much higher percentage of WR talent recruited into division 1 football than there was 20 years ago, for many reasons besides just personnel groupings. Have RB’s been devalued because of their role in top offenses or because of a supposed decrease in talent.
If you can’t without a doubt answer that research question with a sound argument, how can you begin to answer the questions you’re attempting to answer. Hint: Amazon is still trying to answer that question, so good luck.
Just stop using stats you know nothing about to make your opinion seem more substantial than others, it’s just an opinion
I am not using stats...I don't even need to.
I am showing you the facts that teams are placing extremely low value on the RB position early in drafts over the past several years. And I am showing you that teams are finding very good value in RBs later in drafts where they should be selected.
It is not a position to build your team around or overextend value to because of the short shelf life, injury factor and heavy supply of replaceable talent each draft and free agent period.
The only thing dumber than placing too much value on a RB in the draft is placing too much value on one for a second contract.
But go find your outliers, quantify your sample sizes and figure out if its a chicken or an egg debate. It will only bring you right back to what I wrote above...
You used “teams” as the subject of your conclusion which does not equal to “all teams”, so the outlier argument still hasn’t been touched.
But let’s talk facts since you wanna go there. The team that spends the most money on analytics rn with their own in-house analytical department is the Rams. Great example since they’re the most recent winners of the Super Bowl. One of their analytical conclusions they implemented was the value of RB vs replacement level was lower than that of other positions but also carried the highest injury risk and lowest shelf life.
So they applied this change to their roster building strategy and reallocated that money to other positions while using mid rd draft picks to draft and trade for RB. But they didn’t win any Super Bowls using this philosophy, they got close, lost to the Patriots and were a shit show the next year.
But then they implemented a new analysis based conclusion that the only players with higher value than 1st round draft picks were blue chip players still in their prime.
They then traded two 1sts for Jalen Ramsey, disgruntled player still in his prime, two 1sts for Matthew Stafford, still in his prime. After these two actions, they immediately won the next super bowl.
Now you can look at these results and say, look, they only acquired players with high positional value, and while no one could say you’re wrong, it also doesn’t mean you’re right.
But by trading saquon Barkley, a blue chip player in his prime… for a 2nd rd pick… while the Rams are throwing away 1st rd picks to acquire blue chip players, might just be the only thing “dumber than giving an RB a 2nd contract” because it is the opposite philosophy that arguably won the Rams the Super Bowl.
All this says is that there are more than one way to fill out a roster. The Rams can trade picks for players because the rest of their roster is solid. A team like the Giants can try this but it would be stupid because the rest of the roster (like the OL) would be garbage. You’re ignoring where the rest of the roster is.
Sure they did. Or they didn’t need to. RB as a position has been devalued because there is very little difference between a great RB and merely a good one, and passing efficiency is much more important to be a winning team then running is. Lots of info on this you should look it up.
It is standard knowledge know, which is the real point. No team is going to give the Giants a decent pick in trade for him. They don’t need to. Those resources are better spent elsewhere.
The Giants can tag him for two more years. I’m not just giving him away.
Too good? He's more injured than good. SB has an availability cloud hanging over his head.
If you were in the market, would you trade a first for SB with all of the intel you have? God, no.
If you get a second or third rounder, you tell the trading partner 'thank you', and get the travel coordinator on the phone to book SB and his family out of NJ.
Quote:
The shit he got for his performance in '21 was warranted. He danced too much, didn't run with authority, blocking sucked.
He's been great this season thus far. He also knows he's playing for a contract.
Why did he dance too much in 21? Why did he not run with authority in 21?
What were the primary reasons for those things happening?
I
l'll play, he was still getting over his injury. He didn't trust his knee mentally and physically. He couldn't do what he used to yet, and he was afraid of re-injury. Every expert I read, and it was also mentioned by Aikman on Monday night, said that his injury would take 2 seasons to recover from.
Quote:
Why is Jones gone? He has perhaps the worst group of WR's ever assembled on an NFL team and at best an average oline, tell me again why he is gone?
Kenny Golladay has a horrible offensive line, no secondary receivers and a QB the team declined a fifth year option on. Tell me again why he needs to go?
Oh yeah...because you can evaluate a player without having a perfect structure around him.
Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can't believe NoGayneDane defended you. I told him about oyu and your post just proves what I said. Just wow!!!!
Quote:
In comment 15837036 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
In comment 15837010 aGiantGuy said:
Quote:
In comment 15836972 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
were intimating that RBs were flying off the board in the Top 10 and that just isn't the case any longer.
The trend is what I showed you and it's indisputable.
You can be cute and do your little word pivot, or you can look at the facts and smarten up...
That’s not what I was intimating. I’ll recapitulate what I said but my original statement is still there. If there are only 2 RB’s taken in the top 5 in 10 years. What valid statements can you make about the two teams that have these players and what conclusions about ‘trends’ in the NFL can they support… with a sample size of 2?
Your opinion is good for rhetoric but don’t pass it off as even introductory level analysis.
Most of the analytical premises you guys are using does not account for an outlier because analytics as a whole is created to make conclusions about the middle of the bell curve, not the end.
There isn’t enough sample size to make conclusions about outliers. If you want to argue about whether saquon is an outlier, start a new thread.
And to your point that there are less RB’s being taken in the top 10, that is exactly the chicken or the egg typa stuff that even introductory level statisticians avoid.
What was the prominent personnel grouping of hs football 20 years ago… 31 personnel. What is the prominent personnel grouping now? 11 personnel. If you were 5’8 160 twenty years ago, you were an RB, now those same kids are slot receivers. There is a much higher percentage of WR talent recruited into division 1 football than there was 20 years ago, for many reasons besides just personnel groupings. Have RB’s been devalued because of their role in top offenses or because of a supposed decrease in talent.
If you can’t without a doubt answer that research question with a sound argument, how can you begin to answer the questions you’re attempting to answer. Hint: Amazon is still trying to answer that question, so good luck.
Just stop using stats you know nothing about to make your opinion seem more substantial than others, it’s just an opinion
I am not using stats...I don't even need to.
I am showing you the facts that teams are placing extremely low value on the RB position early in drafts over the past several years. And I am showing you that teams are finding very good value in RBs later in drafts where they should be selected.
It is not a position to build your team around or overextend value to because of the short shelf life, injury factor and heavy supply of replaceable talent each draft and free agent period.
The only thing dumber than placing too much value on a RB in the draft is placing too much value on one for a second contract.
But go find your outliers, quantify your sample sizes and figure out if its a chicken or an egg debate. It will only bring you right back to what I wrote above...
You used “teams” as the subject of your conclusion which does not equal to “all teams”, so the outlier argument still hasn’t been touched.
But let’s talk facts since you wanna go there. The team that spends the most money on analytics rn with their own in-house analytical department is the Rams. Great example since they’re the most recent winners of the Super Bowl. One of their analytical conclusions they implemented was the value of RB vs replacement level was lower than that of other positions but also carried the highest injury risk and lowest shelf life.
So they applied this change to their roster building strategy and reallocated that money to other positions while using mid rd draft picks to draft and trade for RB. But they didn’t win any Super Bowls using this philosophy, they got close, lost to the Patriots and were a shit show the next year.
But then they implemented a new analysis based conclusion that the only players with higher value than 1st round draft picks were blue chip players still in their prime.
They then traded two 1sts for Jalen Ramsey, disgruntled player still in his prime, two 1sts for Matthew Stafford, still in his prime. After these two actions, they immediately won the next super bowl.
Now you can look at these results and say, look, they only acquired players with high positional value, and while no one could say you’re wrong, it also doesn’t mean you’re right.
But by trading saquon Barkley, a blue chip player in his prime… for a 2nd rd pick… while the Rams are throwing away 1st rd picks to acquire blue chip players, might just be the only thing “dumber than giving an RB a 2nd contract” because it is the opposite philosophy that arguably won the Rams the Super Bowl.
All this says is that there are more than one way to fill out a roster. The Rams can trade picks for players because the rest of their roster is solid. A team like the Giants can try this but it would be stupid because the rest of the roster (like the OL) would be garbage. You’re ignoring where the rest of the roster is.
Quote:
Then you can argue but hey, they only gave away those picks for high positional value players. That whole positional value metric is based on how likely it is that your replacement will have the same production as the starter. They still haven’t replaced Gurley’s production.
Sure they did. Or they didn’t need to. RB as a position has been devalued because there is very little difference between a great RB and merely a good one, and passing efficiency is much more important to be a winning team then running is. Lots of info on this you should look it up.
It is standard knowledge know, which is the real point. No team is going to give the Giants a decent pick in trade for him. They don’t need to. Those resources are better spent elsewhere.
Ok finally, feedback. It’s funny that you say standard knowledge because some information is free and I’m a pretty cheap guy. Long story short I got some information to support your main claims of
1: very little difference between a great RB and a good RB
2: passing efficiency is much more important to be a winning team than* running is
I’ll just focus on 2 cause given the fact that information is free I think you can take the time out to present that argument with meaningful advanced stats.
The estimated points added per drop back play of the 2018 rams from regular season to super bowl was .172 compared to .208 in 2021. The 2021 Rams created more value per pass play. TRUE.
The Dropback Success rate for the 2018 rams offense was 50.3 compared to 51.3 in 2021. The 2021 Rams created had more success per pass play. TRUE.
We surely can then conclude that the 2021 Rams offense was more efficient overall! Yay!
The estimated points added per play of the 2018 Rams from regular season to super bowl was .130 compared to .067 EPA/play in 2021. 2021 Rams Offense created more value per play than the 2018 version. FALSE.
The overall success rate of the offense for the 2018 Rams was 49.8 compared to 46.0 In 2021. 2021 Rams Offense was more successful than the 2018 version. FALSE.
Ok, I’m confused, I thought it was much easier to win when you pass better but the data says that the 21’ rams was less efficient as an offense when they passed better. Do we then conclude that winning is negatively correlated overall efficiency?… of course not. Hmm, let’s plug in more data.
Which team ran the ball more efficiently. Data says 2018 Rams Offense had 0.065 Rush EPA/ play compared to a -0.166 in 2021. Rams rushing attack was more successful in 2018. TRUE.
Maybe it was their defense that carried them over the hump, THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE, I watched the game Von Miller made a ton of plays, and Ramsey was on their best receiver making life difficult. Lets see if the data supports this
According to EPA/Play the Rams 2018 defense added a value of -0.003 EPA per play ( the higher the negative number, the more points they took away from the opposition per play) compared to -0.050 in 2021. Rams 2021 defense was more efficient than the 2018 version. TRUE.
Conclusions: Rams 2021 overall offense was less efficient with more efficient passing.
Rams defense in 2021 was over 16x better than the 2018 version.
With better rushing efficiency and less passing efficiency the 2018 Rams were clearly a more efficient offense in regards to efficiency, and also generated more total yds and total touchdowns with a much worse passing game than the 2021 counterpart.
Well, the good news is, the data doesn’t say you’re wrong, it just doesn’t support the idea that you’re right. I would have to create a whole other argument if I wanted to claim you were wrong, but I don’t, that should be on you, before you start touting absolutes on a forum.
Dude, did you really think I wouldn’t look this up? Did you think I would give you the benefit of the doubt? Thank you for wasting my time finding information I already knew.
If you’re going to use a different operational metric for your comparison, please provide them and substantiate your own claim. Otherwise, again, your opinion is just as non-verifiable as my own.
Quote:
No way I’m moving him for a 2nd or 3rd round pick. Not trading him for pennies on the dollar. He’s too good. I get he was a polarizing pick, but he can win a game by himself (Tennessee).
The Giants can tag him for two more years. I’m not just giving him away.
Too good? He's more injured than good. SB has an availability cloud hanging over his head.
If you were in the market, would you trade a first for SB with all of the intel you have? God, no.
If you get a second or third rounder, you tell the trading partner 'thank you', and get the travel coordinator on the phone to book SB and his family out of NJ.
When he’s on top of his game which he is this year, he should net more than a 3rd round pick. Especially to a team like the Bills or Chiefs which can put them over the edge for a SB. If it’s a third just let him walk and take the comp pick.
But we all know you’re gonna stick with your conclusion to trade Barkley no matter what the stats say, because it’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it.
But we all know you’re gonna stick with your conclusion to trade Barkley no matter what the stats say, because it’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it.
Dude, they won the damn super bowl by becoming a more big play pass oriented team. They got rid of the jag QB and got a very good one, while they replaced a very good RB with a committee.
Quote:
Therefore, one can conclude, that the offensive production of Todd Gurley - his replacement( Darrel Henderson & Cam Akers) is more than the production of Matthew Stafford- his replacement (Jared Goff). Based on the efficiency metrics found free on the internet. This also doesn’t take into account any of Gurley’s receptions, or his replacements for that matter.
But we all know you’re gonna stick with your conclusion to trade Barkley no matter what the stats say, because it’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it.
Dude, they won the damn super bowl by becoming a more big play pass oriented team. They got rid of the jag QB and got a very good one, while they replaced a very good RB with a committee.
Now support those statement with stats, or agree to disagree.
Quote:
In comment 15836824 Sean said:
Quote:
No way I’m moving him for a 2nd or 3rd round pick. Not trading him for pennies on the dollar. He’s too good. I get he was a polarizing pick, but he can win a game by himself (Tennessee).
The Giants can tag him for two more years. I’m not just giving him away.
Too good? He's more injured than good. SB has an availability cloud hanging over his head.
If you were in the market, would you trade a first for SB with all of the intel you have? God, no.
If you get a second or third rounder, you tell the trading partner 'thank you', and get the travel coordinator on the phone to book SB and his family out of NJ.
When he’s on top of his game which he is this year, he should net more than a 3rd round pick. Especially to a team like the Bills or Chiefs which can put them over the edge for a SB. If it’s a third just let him walk and take the comp pick.
Also, this is from Sy’s game review:
-Saquon Barkley: 14 att – 81 yards – 1 TD / 4 rec – 45 yards
18 touches for the team’s best player by a country mile, in a tight game where NYG had a second-half lead and where the passing game simply was not working. More on that awful note down below. Barkley’s touchdown run was about as nice a play as you are going to see in this league. The vision, the quick adjustment, the jump cut, and the breakaway speed can be such a downright lethal combination. If NYG wants their best shot at winning games, his touches need to be north of 20 at a bare minimum week in, week out and probably closer to 30. There is no debating it. He is ready and he is the one guy who changes the feeling of the entire offense when he gets the ball.
I’m sorry. I’m not just giving him away. They can get better than a third round pick.
Quote:
In comment 15837356 aGiantGuy said:
Quote:
Therefore, one can conclude, that the offensive production of Todd Gurley - his replacement( Darrel Henderson & Cam Akers) is more than the production of Matthew Stafford- his replacement (Jared Goff). Based on the efficiency metrics found free on the internet. This also doesn’t take into account any of Gurley’s receptions, or his replacements for that matter.
But we all know you’re gonna stick with your conclusion to trade Barkley no matter what the stats say, because it’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it.
Dude, they won the damn super bowl by becoming a more big play pass oriented team. They got rid of the jag QB and got a very good one, while they replaced a very good RB with a committee.
Now support those statement with stats, or agree to disagree.
I think I gave the stat that matters. In 6 years of doing it one way they won zero Super Bowls. The first year with a top QB... 1 SB.
Quote:
In comment 15837358 Producer said:
Quote:
In comment 15837356 aGiantGuy said:
Quote:
Therefore, one can conclude, that the offensive production of Todd Gurley - his replacement( Darrel Henderson & Cam Akers) is more than the production of Matthew Stafford- his replacement (Jared Goff). Based on the efficiency metrics found free on the internet. This also doesn’t take into account any of Gurley’s receptions, or his replacements for that matter.
But we all know you’re gonna stick with your conclusion to trade Barkley no matter what the stats say, because it’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it.
Dude, they won the damn super bowl by becoming a more big play pass oriented team. They got rid of the jag QB and got a very good one, while they replaced a very good RB with a committee.
Now support those statement with stats, or agree to disagree.
I think I gave the stat that matters. In 6 years of doing it one way they won zero Super Bowls. The first year with a top QB... 1 SB.
That’s hardly a stat, that’s an observation, at best. You don’t know why what you’re observing is happening. You’re just placing arbitrary meaning on top of an observation and presenting it as a reason for or against a substantial decision our organization has to make.
I get it, people simplify things, it makes life easier, but certain decisions deserve a deeper dive. Isn’t that what you were so mad at DG for not doing? Not being analytical?
Again, I’m not saying your wrong, but your word isn’t gospel, and when it’s challenged, the go-to on this board is usually “ how can you not have observed this.” That is groupthink my guy, and we’ll continue to suck if we don’t start thinking outside of the ‘groupthink’.
By the time we draft someone as good as Barkley again, the eagles would have added their 3rd superstar and convinced Kelce to come back for a 16th year and somehow they’ll still have more cap space than us.
And its just great for all the season ticket holders to dump early in the season your huge marketable player.
You need playmakers, players that scare the defense. Part of creating culture is a winning culture. If you trade him, you are telling all the players on your team that we are forfeiting this season.
Also, giving 12 - 15 million to a player that impacts every play when they are on the field is not ridiculous at all. Some of the receiver contracts are ridiculous. I take Barkley over all the receivers in the 10 to 15 millio
n range per season.
Use him right and sign him for the next 3 years, I think it is a good use of money for a player who can go for a touchdown anywhere on the field, any play they have the ball. Even if you bring in a new QB next year, having Barkley and maybe a solid oline makes that transition easier.
WR money - ( New Window )
He is the ONLY playmaker they have. You can hope to replace him with a worse player, to what benefit? Save some money when the Giants are likely to have a QB on a rookie deal?
The Giants are about to have loads of cap space. And all those picks you're talking about, they need to be invested in primarily a QB, very likely two receivers, possible OL, a DT, a CB.
There is a ton of needs on this team and trading Barkley, the only offensive threat the Giants have, opens another one and you're highly unlikely to get a player close to as good as Barkley is.
It's simply not happening. I know BW is disappointed, bc he's been trying to ship him out of here ever since Gettleman drafted him against his wishes, but Barkley is one of the best offensive players in the game, and this team has nothing after him save for a wishful renaissance from Kadarius Toney, who is far, far more likely to be the one traded.
Whoever the QB is in 2023 and beyond is going to need help, even beyond Saquon. Opening another hole in the offense and losing a weapon like Barkley in the process makes no sense. The money will be fine.
The Cowboys pay Zeke an awful lot and they also have tons of good players around him. That's what the Giants need to do. And yes, the argument is the Cowboys aren't currently getting a good return on that investment, but it's a good thing Barkley is a much better player than Zeke.
This rebuild can be done...with Barkley in the fold. And when they do it with #26 still here, they will be a better team for it.
Hit on QB, draft better (it's been a low bar), and they will see themselves come out the other side with a tremendous player in the backfield in tow.
Quote:
In comment 15837097 aGiantGuy said:
Quote:
In comment 15837036 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
In comment 15837010 aGiantGuy said:
Quote:
In comment 15836972 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
were intimating that RBs were flying off the board in the Top 10 and that just isn't the case any longer.
The trend is what I showed you and it's indisputable.
You can be cute and do your little word pivot, or you can look at the facts and smarten up...
That’s not what I was intimating. I’ll recapitulate what I said but my original statement is still there. If there are only 2 RB’s taken in the top 5 in 10 years. What valid statements can you make about the two teams that have these players and what conclusions about ‘trends’ in the NFL can they support… with a sample size of 2?
Your opinion is good for rhetoric but don’t pass it off as even introductory level analysis.
Most of the analytical premises you guys are using does not account for an outlier because analytics as a whole is created to make conclusions about the middle of the bell curve, not the end.
There isn’t enough sample size to make conclusions about outliers. If you want to argue about whether saquon is an outlier, start a new thread.
And to your point that there are less RB’s being taken in the top 10, that is exactly the chicken or the egg typa stuff that even introductory level statisticians avoid.
What was the prominent personnel grouping of hs football 20 years ago… 31 personnel. What is the prominent personnel grouping now? 11 personnel. If you were 5’8 160 twenty years ago, you were an RB, now those same kids are slot receivers. There is a much higher percentage of WR talent recruited into division 1 football than there was 20 years ago, for many reasons besides just personnel groupings. Have RB’s been devalued because of their role in top offenses or because of a supposed decrease in talent.
If you can’t without a doubt answer that research question with a sound argument, how can you begin to answer the questions you’re attempting to answer. Hint: Amazon is still trying to answer that question, so good luck.
Just stop using stats you know nothing about to make your opinion seem more substantial than others, it’s just an opinion
I am not using stats...I don't even need to.
I am showing you the facts that teams are placing extremely low value on the RB position early in drafts over the past several years. And I am showing you that teams are finding very good value in RBs later in drafts where they should be selected.
It is not a position to build your team around or overextend value to because of the short shelf life, injury factor and heavy supply of replaceable talent each draft and free agent period.
The only thing dumber than placing too much value on a RB in the draft is placing too much value on one for a second contract.
But go find your outliers, quantify your sample sizes and figure out if its a chicken or an egg debate. It will only bring you right back to what I wrote above...
You used “teams” as the subject of your conclusion which does not equal to “all teams”, so the outlier argument still hasn’t been touched.
But let’s talk facts since you wanna go there. The team that spends the most money on analytics rn with their own in-house analytical department is the Rams. Great example since they’re the most recent winners of the Super Bowl. One of their analytical conclusions they implemented was the value of RB vs replacement level was lower than that of other positions but also carried the highest injury risk and lowest shelf life.
So they applied this change to their roster building strategy and reallocated that money to other positions while using mid rd draft picks to draft and trade for RB. But they didn’t win any Super Bowls using this philosophy, they got close, lost to the Patriots and were a shit show the next year.
But then they implemented a new analysis based conclusion that the only players with higher value than 1st round draft picks were blue chip players still in their prime.
They then traded two 1sts for Jalen Ramsey, disgruntled player still in his prime, two 1sts for Matthew Stafford, still in his prime. After these two actions, they immediately won the next super bowl.
Now you can look at these results and say, look, they only acquired players with high positional value, and while no one could say you’re wrong, it also doesn’t mean you’re right.
But by trading saquon Barkley, a blue chip player in his prime… for a 2nd rd pick… while the Rams are throwing away 1st rd picks to acquire blue chip players, might just be the only thing “dumber than giving an RB a 2nd contract” because it is the opposite philosophy that arguably won the Rams the Super Bowl.
All this says is that there are more than one way to fill out a roster. The Rams can trade picks for players because the rest of their roster is solid. A team like the Giants can try this but it would be stupid because the rest of the roster (like the OL) would be garbage. You’re ignoring where the rest of the roster is.
Quote:
Then you can argue but hey, they only gave away those picks for high positional value players. That whole positional value metric is based on how likely it is that your replacement will have the same production as the starter. They still haven’t replaced Gurley’s production.
Sure they did. Or they didn’t need to. RB as a position has been devalued because there is very little difference between a great RB and merely a good one, and passing efficiency is much more important to be a winning team then running is. Lots of info on this you should look it up.
It is standard knowledge know, which is the real point. No team is going to give the Giants a decent pick in trade for him. They don’t need to. Those resources are better spent elsewhere.
Ok finally, feedback. It’s funny that you say standard knowledge because some information is free and I’m a pretty cheap guy. Long story short I got some information to support your main claims of
1: very little difference between a great RB and a good RB
2: passing efficiency is much more important to be a winning team than* running is
I’ll just focus on 2 cause given the fact that information is free I think you can take the time out to present that argument with meaningful advanced stats.
The estimated points added per drop back play of the 2018 rams from regular season to super bowl was .172 compared to .208 in 2021. The 2021 Rams created more value per pass play. TRUE.
The Dropback Success rate for the 2018 rams offense was 50.3 compared to 51.3 in 2021. The 2021 Rams created had more success per pass play. TRUE.
We surely can then conclude that the 2021 Rams offense was more efficient overall! Yay!
The estimated points added per play of the 2018 Rams from regular season to super bowl was .130 compared to .067 EPA/play in 2021. 2021 Rams Offense created more value per play than the 2018 version. FALSE.
The overall success rate of the offense for the 2018 Rams was 49.8 compared to 46.0 In 2021. 2021 Rams Offense was more successful than the 2018 version. FALSE.
Ok, I’m confused, I thought it was much easier to win when you pass better but the data says that the 21’ rams was less efficient as an offense when they passed better. Do we then conclude that winning is negatively correlated overall efficiency?… of course not. Hmm, let’s plug in more data.
Which team ran the ball more efficiently. Data says 2018 Rams Offense had 0.065 Rush EPA/ play compared to a -0.166 in 2021. Rams rushing attack was more successful in 2018. TRUE.
Maybe it was their defense that carried them over the hump, THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE, I watched the game Von Miller made a ton of plays, and Ramsey was on their best receiver making life difficult. Lets see if the data supports this
According to EPA/Play the Rams 2018 defense added a value of -0.003 EPA per play ( the higher the negative number, the more points they took away from the opposition per play) compared to -0.050 in 2021. Rams 2021 defense was more efficient than the 2018 version. TRUE.
Conclusions: Rams 2021 overall offense was less efficient with more efficient passing.
Rams defense in 2021 was over 16x better than the 2018 version.
With better rushing efficiency and less passing efficiency the 2018 Rams were clearly a more efficient offense in regards to efficiency, and also generated more total yds and total touchdowns with a much worse passing game than the 2021 counterpart.
Well, the good news is, the data doesn’t say you’re wrong, it just doesn’t support the idea that you’re right. I would have to create a whole other argument if I wanted to claim you were wrong, but I don’t, that should be on you, before you start touting absolutes on a forum.
Dude, did you really think I wouldn’t look this up? Did you think I would give you the benefit of the doubt? Thank you for wasting my time finding information I already knew.
If you’re going to use a different operational metric for your comparison, please provide them and substantiate your own claim. Otherwise, again, your opinion is just as non-verifiable as my own.
When did I say this was only true for the Rams? I don’t know what your point is. The central idea about why Saquon is unlikely to be traded remains true: teams don’t value RBs as much. It is still true for the Rams as well. But keep going down your rabbit hole I guess.
It's one thing if they don't re-sign him but dealing him before the deadline seems like a surefire way to kill any morale this new staff has built. Plus anyone thinking a team is trading a 1st RD for a partial year RB rental on an expiring contract is nuts.
And its just great for all the season ticket holders to dump early in the season your huge marketable player.
+1 this. Dealing your best players GUARANTEES at least 1 horrible season, probably 2. Saquon is over 40% of total offense production. What's the plan by trading him? Have a year of sub 200 yards offense per game of just DJ running for his life? Makes no sense.
He still has to show he can stay healthy but a special RB can make a big impact. I'd rather have a special OL. If you can have both at the same time and its feasible even better.
If the Giants move on from Jones they have a lot of flexibility. I think it would be easier and more practical to have a upper tier OL/RB in his early years of development. This lessens the need to have across the board upper tier WR group. One stud and a few solid WR's would be a great place to be. Balanced offense with upper echelon D still wins big in this league. This was the initial thought process behind the pick imv. AGiants presents some good arguments about offense.
If the Giants go this route then JS just needs to take the franchise tag route or if a longer contract it should be more money up front so you can get out of it relatively easy after 3 years imv. I doubt many teams are interested in signing RB's to a second contract they can't get out of after 2-3 years.
The Rams D closed the deal last year. A little "luck" getting OBJ didn't hurt.
And if Dak, Schultz and Gallup had also played...what would have happened?
Quote:
If the Bears are as bad as some think (and Fields is not good), Giants will be 3-1 and could have been 4-0 with a healthy Williams. I would wait until the injured get back and the edge rushers get acclimated before writing off the season.
And if Dak, Schultz and Gallup had also played...what would have happened?
I'm not saying a healthy Giants team is as good as a healthy Dallas team. I'm saying the Giants season is not lost, not yet. Barkley seems to have learned a few things under Daboll. He doesn't dance in the backfield nearly as much as in prior years. It's too soon to write the season off as a lost cause and start trading assets for 2nd or 3rd round draft picks.
The NY Giants lost. And it will never count in the win column no matter how excuses you can drum up...
The NY Giants lost. And it will never count in the win column no matter how excuses you can drum up...
My point is, don't trade Barkley for a 2nd or 3rd round pick because you've given up on the season. It's too soon to give up on the season.
Quote:
using a poor excuse for the loss because our starting DL was out while the other team was missing their franchise QB of all players.
The NY Giants lost. And it will never count in the win column no matter how excuses you can drum up...
My point is, don't trade Barkley for a 2nd or 3rd round pick because you've given up on the season. It's too soon to give up on the season.
If the Giants are still in the playoff running in late OCT I can understand some wanting to keep Saquon.
I would still make the deal for a day 2 pick in a heartbeat because I am more interested in building a better overall team than the short term gain, but I understand not everybody thinks that way...
Agree. When certain posters show up the thread is effectively over.
This team isn't winning a Super Bowl this season. Schoen has to think long term.
I’m with you. He’s been awesome this year, but people have really short memories. His production this year doesn’t erase his history of lower body injuries. I feel like we’re in the minority, which surprises me, but a 2nd seems like a no brainer
You would trade Saquon Barkley for a 3rd round pick? Some Giants fans make zero sense.
He is the only playmaker on this team by a country mile and one of maybe 5 guys on this roster who are close to a blue chipper.
Why not try to build with him? Hes 25 years ago and you can turn things around very very quickly. He's a good teammate with a good attitude. They need more players like him.
If you could get multiple 1sts or some bounty of valuable picks- you would consider it. But that isn't happening.
Quote:
In comment 15837540 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
using a poor excuse for the loss because our starting DL was out while the other team was missing their franchise QB of all players.
The NY Giants lost. And it will never count in the win column no matter how excuses you can drum up...
My point is, don't trade Barkley for a 2nd or 3rd round pick because you've given up on the season. It's too soon to give up on the season.
If the Giants are still in the playoff running in late OCT I can understand some wanting to keep Saquon.
I would still make the deal for a day 2 pick in a heartbeat because I am more interested in building a better overall team than the short term gain, but I understand not everybody thinks that way...
The season is not even half over by the trade deadline. Explain how any team is out of playoff contention at that point? It seems ludicrous to me for a brand new coaching staff and front office to come in, admit defeat not even 50% through first season, and start dealing away the best players on the team for an equivalent of peanuts.
Just because Joe Schoen is new doesn't mean he's invincible. He would get run out of town if he deals Saquon for a 3rd and then finishes anywhere less than NFC Championship in 2023. You can't continuously flog this fanbase. They need something - anything - to be happy about.
Where does the offense production come from if you deal Saquon? He's literally the only playmaker on this roster through 3 weeks.
Quote:
In comment 15837600 GeofromNJ said:
Quote:
In comment 15837540 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
using a poor excuse for the loss because our starting DL was out while the other team was missing their franchise QB of all players.
The NY Giants lost. And it will never count in the win column no matter how excuses you can drum up...
My point is, don't trade Barkley for a 2nd or 3rd round pick because you've given up on the season. It's too soon to give up on the season.
If the Giants are still in the playoff running in late OCT I can understand some wanting to keep Saquon.
I would still make the deal for a day 2 pick in a heartbeat because I am more interested in building a better overall team than the short term gain, but I understand not everybody thinks that way...
The season is not even half over by the trade deadline. Explain how any team is out of playoff contention at that point? It seems ludicrous to me for a brand new coaching staff and front office to come in, admit defeat not even 50% through first season, and start dealing away the best players on the team for an equivalent of peanuts.
Just because Joe Schoen is new doesn't mean he's invincible. He would get run out of town if he deals Saquon for a 3rd and then finishes anywhere less than NFC Championship in 2023. You can't continuously flog this fanbase. They need something - anything - to be happy about.
Where does the offense production come from if you deal Saquon? He's literally the only playmaker on this roster through 3 weeks.
A lot to unpack here...
First of all the Giants have been out of realistic playoff contention by the trade deadline in 3 of the 4 years Saquon has been on the team.
Second, getting a 3rd for Saquon doesn't directly mean the Giants are expected to be on the doorstep of the SuperBowl in 2023. But I can assure you, Schoen won't be going anywhere if he makes good value decisions versus emotional ones where guys like Saquon and Jones are concerned. Fans (and John Mara) make bad emotional decisions.
Lastly, yes I realize this stellar Offense won't be as good if/when Saquon is traded. But we are going to have to solve for that anyway next year, so wouldn't it be better to have an extra early pick and more cap space to figure it out?
We haven't picked a GOOD player let alone stud in round 3 in decades.
We have plenty of fucking cap space coming. The objective is to add as many great players as possible. Keeping 95% of those great players is the easy part. Take a guess what the hard part is? I'll give you some time to come up with the right answer.
2--you know for a fact he's going to get injured again.
That's it. If you think he's healthy for the long term and you think he's open to coming back here why on earth wouldn't any NYG fan want him back?
You're scarred from prior bad contracts? Go get some therapy.
We haven't picked a GOOD player let alone stud in round 3 in decades.
We have plenty of fucking cap space coming. The objective is to add as many great players as possible. Keeping 95% of those great players is the easy part. Take a guess what the hard part is? I'll give you some time to come up with the right answer.
I will guess...figuring out between our two great players, Saquon Barkley and Daniel Jones, which should get the epic 4-year extension deal versus just the overly expensive 1-year Franchise Tag?
-Barkley's unfortunately been injury prone at a position that doesn't have much of a shelf life to begin with.
-When he hits free agency, we're not guaranteed to be the one who signs him unless we tag him.
-We're not likely to enter deep playoff contention in the next few seasons.
On the other hand:
-I don't imagine he'd cost a ton of money to sign to a 4 or 5 year contract
-I think the odds of drafting a player of his caliber with whatever pick we'd acquire in a trade are very low
-He's a great team guy with outstanding intangibles and could be considered someone to help build the culture around
-Barkley's unfortunately been injury prone at a position that doesn't have much of a shelf life to begin with.
-When he hits free agency, we're not guaranteed to be the one who signs him unless we tag him.
-We're not likely to enter deep playoff contention in the next few seasons.
On the other hand:
-I don't imagine he'd cost a ton of money to sign to a 4 or 5 year contract
-I think the odds of drafting a player of his caliber with whatever pick we'd acquire in a trade are very low
-He's a great team guy with outstanding intangibles and could be considered someone to help build the culture around
To add to the 2nd part
- he is a good player and we have very few good players
- we can probably afford it, provided its not to big a contract. We don't have many guys to pay