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
Might as well trade Daboll before we go under sub-500…..
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.
Stop with the Mara BS. If Schoen feels he can get good value for Barkley, he will do it. Barkley is a FA and may not even want to re-sign here.
I think that after what Mara has done, especially with dumpster fire Gettleman, he will let Schoen do what needs to be done.
Until then build around him, Thomas, Love, Mckinney and Neal.
The comp pick is in the second year(2024) and at max a late 3rd rounder...if Buffalo offers a 2nd or a 3rd and 4th, it may be worth it.
Hell yes, I would like to keep Barkley but if they determine they will not re-sign him, then you need to trade him.
Quote:
from a midseason RB trade worth taking away one of the few watchable elements of this team? There's always potential for a comp pick if you're moving on from Barkley. Maybe a pick as good as you'd get in trade.
The comp pick is in the second year(2024) and at max a late 3rd rounder...if Buffalo offers a 2nd or a 3rd and 4th, it may be worth it.
Hell yes, I would like to keep Barkley but if they determine they will not re-sign him, then you need to trade him.
Comp picks also get negated by FA signings, which Giants will most likely need
But trading him for a 3rd or 4th? That's just dumb. You franchise him for a year. You will get the same return then anyway
Exactly. AGAIN, this is a fantasy. NFL teams have learned that RBs are not worth premium picks. No one is going to give the Giants a package that outweighs what we get from him playing out the year. Barkley is worth more to the Giants than what he would get in trade, at most a 5th round pick or lower. Why would someone give us a first round pick for a guy with 13 games left? Absolute insanity.
I think Jones and some of the WRs are gone, but SB could still stick.
Quote:
from a midseason RB trade worth taking away one of the few watchable elements of this team? There's always potential for a comp pick if you're moving on from Barkley. Maybe a pick as good as you'd get in trade.
Exactly. AGAIN, this is a fantasy. NFL teams have learned that RBs are not worth premium picks. No one is going to give the Giants a package that outweighs what we get from him playing out the year. Barkley is worth more to the Giants than what he would get in trade, at most a 5th round pick or lower. Why would someone give us a first round pick for a guy with 13 games left? Absolute insanity.
Because he really helps them get to the Super Bowl? Look what the Rams did to get to the Super Bowl last year... You trade for him, you re-sign him and you keep your offense together.
Come down to, what is a Super Bowl worth?
Oh yeah...because you can evaluate a player without having a perfect structure around him.
You've really outdone yourself here. It's almost impressive.
Quote:
In comment 15836723 JB_in_DC said:
Quote:
from a midseason RB trade worth taking away one of the few watchable elements of this team? There's always potential for a comp pick if you're moving on from Barkley. Maybe a pick as good as you'd get in trade.
Exactly. AGAIN, this is a fantasy. NFL teams have learned that RBs are not worth premium picks. No one is going to give the Giants a package that outweighs what we get from him playing out the year. Barkley is worth more to the Giants than what he would get in trade, at most a 5th round pick or lower. Why would someone give us a first round pick for a guy with 13 games left? Absolute insanity.
Because he really helps them get to the Super Bowl? Look what the Rams did to get to the Super Bowl last year... You trade for him, you re-sign him and you keep your offense together.
Come down to, what is a Super Bowl worth?
More importantly, what is an RB worth coming off an injury and with only 13 games left in a contract? The Rams didn't trade for an RB though, and positions matter. The RB position is devalued because you can get relatively same production from non-premium picks.
No one is giving us a top pick for Barkley. We might as well keep him.
The fact is their RB situation is not good but they can get away with that because they have a star QB, a star WR, and very good secondary receivers/TEs
Buffalo has playmakers at other positions, the Giants dont. The Giants need to keep playmakers
If you trade Barkley, then trade Leo Williams, Adoree Jackson, and everyone else. And good luck signing guys like McKinney and Thomas and Love when the time comes because they wont want to start over from scratch next year and go 3-14 in 2023 and 2024
Mathematically at least, just about every team will still be in playoff contention a month from now.
More importantly, what is an RB worth coming off an injury and with only 13 games left in a contract? The Rams didn't trade for an RB though, and positions matter. The RB position is devalued because you can get relatively same production from non-premium picks.
No one is giving us a top pick for Barkley. We might as well keep him.
Coming off injury is irrelevant because he is playing at a high level. Many, many players get injured and return to play.
Barkley is not just some RB. He is a finish piece for a team like the Bills. We are talking about a top 5, closer to top 3, RB in the NFL.
We cannot assess what Buffalo or KC or Baltimore feels like they need to make a serious SB run. You may be correct and he doesn't help any of these teams. And maybe he would not return a 2nd or 3rd pick. But he would still need to resign with the Giants or else even passing on a 5th was a waste of an asset. Look at what not taking a 3rd for Bradberry ended up costing the Giants(yes Bradberry had a contract).
If RBs are so replaceable, as some suggest, then you get what you can for Barkley and draft a RB next year at a fraction of what it will cost to re-sign Barkley.
I would love to keep him, but what will it cost to re-sign him.
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.
Did Kenny Golladay catch or botch those 2 passes that came at critical moments in a very winnable game? Is he beating out the other WR's in practice? Is he acting like a leader? 49% catch rate in 2021, 40% so far through 3 games. Not really sure what else there is to say.
A second?
A third?
A third and a 5th?
A second and a 4th?
The Giants can tag him for two more years. I’m not just giving him away.
The fact is their RB situation is not good but they can get away with that because they have a star QB, a star WR, and very good secondary receivers/TEs
The RB by committee is the smarter design. And if Buffalo can add a Barkley to seal the deal for the stretch run in 2022 it is all the better.
Maybe we should trade our RB and see if we can use the pick to find a star WR, or a very good secondary receiver/TEs.
And nobody is telling you anything. You didn't listen the first time around on here...
His Cap hit is $7.2mil this year. Amounts to a $5mil raise without long term lock. This is almost 100% what they will do.
Carl Banks was on earlier and suggested that Barkley may be in the Giants long term plans and that running backs do not make as much money as other skill positions.
The Giants can tag him for two more years. I’m not just giving him away.
Getting a 1st round pick for Barkley makes Schoen GM of the Year.
Passing on a 2nd round pick would be a fairly big error by a rookie GM...
On the other, without him you may have a year like last year and I do not think ownership or fans can stomach that. Plus from a business standpoint he’s the face of the franchise and basically the only jersey you see in stores (a few Jones and Thibs, but not a lot of Sills jerseys selling).
More importantly, how does he fit into what Shoen wants to build and culture? He’s the best skill player we have or have had since OBJ, does getting rid of him send a bad message?
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.
Getting a 1st round pick for Barkley makes Schoen GM of the Year.
Passing on a 2nd round pick would be a fairly big error by a rookie GM...
Agree and a 3rd for someone you are not considering re-signing is good too.
Looked at Kamara, Cook and Elliot contracts - between $14 and $18 mill per is what I see. That is probably what Barkley is looking at.. 3-5 years at AAV $15 mill.
I cannot see Schoen going for that.
It’s funny how much less appealing draft picks are after the player is selected. I’m not trading Saquon for Matt Peart. I’ll apply the tag.
Quote:
More importantly, what is an RB worth coming off an injury and with only 13 games left in a contract? The Rams didn't trade for an RB though, and positions matter. The RB position is devalued because you can get relatively same production from non-premium picks.
No one is giving us a top pick for Barkley. We might as well keep him.
Coming off injury is irrelevant because he is playing at a high level. Many, many players get injured and return to play.
Barkley is not just some RB. He is a finish piece for a team like the Bills. We are talking about a top 5, closer to top 3, RB in the NFL.
We cannot assess what Buffalo or KC or Baltimore feels like they need to make a serious SB run. You may be correct and he doesn't help any of these teams. And maybe he would not return a 2nd or 3rd pick. But he would still need to resign with the Giants or else even passing on a 5th was a waste of an asset. Look at what not taking a 3rd for Bradberry ended up costing the Giants(yes Bradberry had a contract).
If RBs are so replaceable, as some suggest, then you get what you can for Barkley and draft a RB next year at a fraction of what it will cost to re-sign Barkley.
I would love to keep him, but what will it cost to re-sign him.
Dude, we get a 3rd if someone signs him in free agency.
Wake up.
It’s funny how much less appealing draft picks are after the player is selected. I’m not trading Saquon for Matt Peart. I’ll apply the tag.
He makes over $7M now. Tag him and he'll cost over $12M.
Trade him for a 2nd and we can draft another potential core player and use the $12M on several moderately priced free agents to shore up WR and TE....
Again, when you let a player go, you are simultaneously increasing the talent of your opposition and weakening yours.
This upcoming draft might have at best 5 all pro’s, but you’re gonna trade away an all-pro to save money on a talentless team.
We’re not the rams who need to be strategic with who they pay, we just need to stop paying average talent.
I do that all day long.
- Jonathan Taylor
- Nick CHubb
- Joe Mixon
- Dalvin Cook
- Derrick Henry
And you would have a much cheaper starter for the rebuild period...
Again, when you let a player go, you are simultaneously increasing the talent of your opposition and weakening yours.
This upcoming draft might have at best 5 all pro’s, but you’re gonna trade away an all-pro to save money on a talentless team.
We’re not the rams who need to be strategic with who they pay, we just need to stop paying average talent.
you don't tie up big dollars in RBs. you want to buck the trend because you think you are smarter than the best minds in the game? Or do you want to play the game in a manner that gives you the best chance of winning? I think every big investment in an RB over the last ten years has backfired.
Quote:
As to why it’s so bad applying the tag to him? Everyone is so excited to move him for a third which could be another Matt Peart.
It’s funny how much less appealing draft picks are after the player is selected. I’m not trading Saquon for Matt Peart. I’ll apply the tag.
He makes over $7M now. Tag him and he'll cost over $12M.
Trade him for a 2nd and we can draft another potential core player and use the $12M on several moderately priced free agents to shore up WR and TE....
What you’re saying is that a David Njoku level player(11 mil per year TE) and another wandale Robinson would make the Giants a better team than Saquon Barkley would….
Robbie Anderson signed a 13 mil a year contract last free agency, so he would likely cost 15 next year, 2 years ago he was not a better player than Golladay.
This reasoning is just beyond me
Quote:
The adaptations to this new era of football just seem superfluous and non-productive. Trade a top 3 back in football for a 2nd Rd pick because he might not sign with you.. ok, but can we also acknowledge that we have the best chance out of any team to sign him at this moment.
Again, when you let a player go, you are simultaneously increasing the talent of your opposition and weakening yours.
This upcoming draft might have at best 5 all pro’s, but you’re gonna trade away an all-pro to save money on a talentless team.
We’re not the rams who need to be strategic with who they pay, we just need to stop paying average talent.
you don't tie up big dollars in RBs. you want to buck the trend because you think you are smarter than the best minds in the game? Or do you want to play the game in a manner that gives you the best chance of winning? I think every big investment in an RB over the last ten years has backfired.
In the last 10 years there have been about 4 or 5 rb’s drafted in the top 10 . About 2 drafted in the top 5
So tell me exactly what trend you’re evaluating with that sample size.
Quote:
In comment 15836905 aGiantGuy said:
Quote:
The adaptations to this new era of football just seem superfluous and non-productive. Trade a top 3 back in football for a 2nd Rd pick because he might not sign with you.. ok, but can we also acknowledge that we have the best chance out of any team to sign him at this moment.
Again, when you let a player go, you are simultaneously increasing the talent of your opposition and weakening yours.
This upcoming draft might have at best 5 all pro’s, but you’re gonna trade away an all-pro to save money on a talentless team.
We’re not the rams who need to be strategic with who they pay, we just need to stop paying average talent.
you don't tie up big dollars in RBs. you want to buck the trend because you think you are smarter than the best minds in the game? Or do you want to play the game in a manner that gives you the best chance of winning? I think every big investment in an RB over the last ten years has backfired.
In the last 10 years there have been about 4 or 5 rb’s drafted in the top 10 . About 2 drafted in the top 5
So tell me exactly what trend you’re evaluating with that sample size.
We're talking about big dollar contracts for RBs, not draft position.
Its fine if you never ever want to pay a RB but that doesn't make it correct. It depends on how you pay them and guys like Henry, Cook, Kamara, etc have really team friendly deals whether you want to admit it or not.
Quote:
In comment 15836890 Sean said:
Quote:
As to why it’s so bad applying the tag to him? Everyone is so excited to move him for a third which could be another Matt Peart.
It’s funny how much less appealing draft picks are after the player is selected. I’m not trading Saquon for Matt Peart. I’ll apply the tag.
He makes over $7M now. Tag him and he'll cost over $12M.
Trade him for a 2nd and we can draft another potential core player and use the $12M on several moderately priced free agents to shore up WR and TE....
What you’re saying is that a David Njoku level player(11 mil per year TE) and another wandale Robinson would make the Giants a better team than Saquon Barkley would….
Robbie Anderson signed a 13 mil a year contract last free agency, so he would likely cost 15 next year, 2 years ago he was not a better player than Golladay.
This reasoning is just beyond me
Interesting how you selectively chose some over-valued players that got really bad contracts from those teams.
That is what we would be doing with Barkley...
Quote:
In comment 15836775 mikeinbloomfield said:
Quote:
More importantly, what is an RB worth coming off an injury and with only 13 games left in a contract? The Rams didn't trade for an RB though, and positions matter. The RB position is devalued because you can get relatively same production from non-premium picks.
No one is giving us a top pick for Barkley. We might as well keep him.
Coming off injury is irrelevant because he is playing at a high level. Many, many players get injured and return to play.
Barkley is not just some RB. He is a finish piece for a team like the Bills. We are talking about a top 5, closer to top 3, RB in the NFL.
We cannot assess what Buffalo or KC or Baltimore feels like they need to make a serious SB run. You may be correct and he doesn't help any of these teams. And maybe he would not return a 2nd or 3rd pick. But he would still need to resign with the Giants or else even passing on a 5th was a waste of an asset. Look at what not taking a 3rd for Bradberry ended up costing the Giants(yes Bradberry had a contract).
If RBs are so replaceable, as some suggest, then you get what you can for Barkley and draft a RB next year at a fraction of what it will cost to re-sign Barkley.
I would love to keep him, but what will it cost to re-sign him.
Dude, we get a 3rd if someone signs him in free agency.
Wake up.
Dude, you wake up
No they do not get a 3rd round pick, they may get a 3rd round pick. If a number of people get higher contracts than him, we may get a 4th, 5th or higher. Yes if there are not many signings of high value contracts, they could get a 3rd.
Plus you do not get it until 2024.
Quote:
In comment 15836905 aGiantGuy said:
Quote:
The adaptations to this new era of football just seem superfluous and non-productive. Trade a top 3 back in football for a 2nd Rd pick because he might not sign with you.. ok, but can we also acknowledge that we have the best chance out of any team to sign him at this moment.
Again, when you let a player go, you are simultaneously increasing the talent of your opposition and weakening yours.
This upcoming draft might have at best 5 all pro’s, but you’re gonna trade away an all-pro to save money on a talentless team.
We’re not the rams who need to be strategic with who they pay, we just need to stop paying average talent.
you don't tie up big dollars in RBs. you want to buck the trend because you think you are smarter than the best minds in the game? Or do you want to play the game in a manner that gives you the best chance of winning? I think every big investment in an RB over the last ten years has backfired.
In the last 10 years there have been about 4 or 5 rb’s drafted in the top 10 . About 2 drafted in the top 5
So tell me exactly what trend you’re evaluating with that sample size.
Wake up and look at last several years of first round picks on RBs...
2022 - Zero RBs taken
2021 - 2 RBs taken at #24 and #25
2020 - 1 RB taken at #32
2019 - 1 RB taken at #24
Now can you see the trend? Do you think the entire NFL is using that moron Dave Gettleman as an example of what not to do at the top of a draft with respect to RBs?
Awful.
Gettleman also desperately tried to do it by acquiring WRs with 2-cent heads and other red flags like Tate, Golladay and Toney. And extending Shepard to an overpriced deal as well.
All of this was just trouble...
WR and RB are now completely different. It's a passing league now, more so than even 5 years ago. It used to be that WRs needed 3 years to mature. Now we have rookies coming into the league tearing it up. A high draft pick for WR is sensible. For RB it doesn't make sense to spend a high to mid first. Look at Garrett Wilson, Drake London and Olave. All three look to be great first round WR adds.
And when the Giants stop drafting gadget WRs like Toney and Wandale ahead of prototypical WRs like Bateman, E. Moore, Pickens, and Pierce we'll do better.
Build a reliable OL and 1-2 decent blocking TEs and watch your middle and late round picks at RB do just fine...
Quote:
Why on Earth would you give an injury-prone player who plays an injury-prone position big dollars? I hate to say it, but Barkley is going to get hurt again. The far smarter play is to do what the 49ers are doing, and the Rams post-Gurley. Get a few backs in the 3rd-4th-5th (sometimes 2nd) rounds that fit your system. They are cheaper and they are likely to be just as productive as the old school bell cow back. You don't need a top back to have a strong running game.
Build a reliable OL and 1-2 decent blocking TEs and watch your middle and late round picks at RB do just fine...
for sure.
Quote:
In comment 15836910 Producer said:
Quote:
In comment 15836905 aGiantGuy said:
Quote:
The adaptations to this new era of football just seem superfluous and non-productive. Trade a top 3 back in football for a 2nd Rd pick because he might not sign with you.. ok, but can we also acknowledge that we have the best chance out of any team to sign him at this moment.
Again, when you let a player go, you are simultaneously increasing the talent of your opposition and weakening yours.
This upcoming draft might have at best 5 all pro’s, but you’re gonna trade away an all-pro to save money on a talentless team.
We’re not the rams who need to be strategic with who they pay, we just need to stop paying average talent.
you don't tie up big dollars in RBs. you want to buck the trend because you think you are smarter than the best minds in the game? Or do you want to play the game in a manner that gives you the best chance of winning? I think every big investment in an RB over the last ten years has backfired.
In the last 10 years there have been about 4 or 5 rb’s drafted in the top 10 . About 2 drafted in the top 5
So tell me exactly what trend you’re evaluating with that sample size.
Wake up and look at last several years of first round picks on RBs...
2022 - Zero RBs taken
2021 - 2 RBs taken at #24 and #25
2020 - 1 RB taken at #32
2019 - 1 RB taken at #24
Now can you see the trend? Do you think the entire NFL is using that moron Dave Gettleman as an example of what not to do at the top of a draft with respect to RBs?
Good try. But that is not the same trend he was referring to. He said “you do not tie up big money in RB’s.” 1. You don't have the data to support that statement.
2. There are very few RB’s that have been regarded consensus top 3 overall talents in the draft.
And dude, I’m not saying your conclusion of trading Saquon is wrong, you can very well be right for reasons unbeknownst to you. But the premises used here to support this argument are not sound. It’s your choice if you want to acknowledge that.
My opinion is to keep Saquon and that’s just my opinion, but I’m not gonna make conclusions about what ‘trends’ exist in the NFL just to get you guys to agree with me. You’re free to disagree
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...
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
We play 5 more games until the deadline. 4-4 or better and I don't think you can trade him unless you are blown away with an offer. If its just a 3rd then there really isn't any point to the move - just finish up the season and tag him if you wish for an extra year with your play maker. But a 2nd piques my interest, adding in a conditional pick on top of it would be something i'd take seriously.
This team isn't winning a Super Bowl this season. Schoen has to think long term.
This team isn't winning a Super Bowl this season. Schoen has to think long term.
A 2nd from the Bills is about the same as a 3rd. I think it’ll be nowhere near equal in production. Most of these 2nd/3rd round picks bust. *But* if that pick helps the Giants move up for a QB, I’d be all for it.
Saquon IS the offense. I get it’s easy to just dump all these players for picks, but it’s tough to replace the production. There have been posters suggesting trading Andrew Thomas too a few months back. At some point you have to keep the good players. Although I get the RB argument.
Saquon got a lot of shit which wasn’t fair. He’s healthy and playing fantastic right now.
You can't get emotional about the decision. It's about what is in the best long term interest of the Giants. The Giants need first rounders in case they want to move up for a QB.
That’s what I’m thinking. A contender can give a late first for Saquon.
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...
He's been great this season thus far. He also knows he's playing for a contract.
Quote:
Saquon is the only redeeming quality of this offense. You completely crush the soul of this offense and this team if you dump him. Won't happen. Giants will give him a real contract offer this offseason or maybe even before. He won't play on the Franchise Tag. 10m to risk a career ending injury? Nope. Saquon is looking to get paid in what will likely be his only real Free Agency contract.
You can't get emotional about the decision. It's about what is in the best long term interest of the Giants. The Giants need first rounders in case they want to move up for a QB.
The long term implications of dealing away your best players is to breed more losing and a losing mentality. You think sinking this season and probably next is worth a 1st rounder? You think the fans want ANOTHER 2 seasons of lifeless offense? Good luck. John Mara will clean house yet again because this team will be dead on arrival. You can move up for a QB without selling the farm.
You think he will buck the trend that most RBs decline over time and he will actually be better in years 5-9 versus his first several years? Because that's what the contract price will assume you think...
This team isn't winning a Super Bowl this season. Schoen has to think long term.
“We aren’t winning the Super Bowl” isn’t a good enough reason to trade him for a mid round pick. You do that enough times and you have no good players and better hit on all your picks or you’ll be getting fired after year 3.
SB or bust isn’t how NFL teams operate.
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?
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?
You think he will buck the trend that most RBs decline over time and he will actually be better in years 5-9 versus his first several years? Because that's what the contract price will assume you think...
Saquons injury with stepping on the foot was a fluke injury. The guy is a workout warrior. I have faith that his injury problems are behind him.
Over the Cap is estimating RB franchise tag next year at $12.5M
Which in my view is about twice as much as Saquon is worth...
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...
Quote:
A RB that has had serious injuries in the NFL and will be now entering into his second contract period.
You think he will buck the trend that most RBs decline over time and he will actually be better in years 5-9 versus his first several years? Because that's what the contract price will assume you think...
Saquons injury with stepping on the foot was a fluke injury. The guy is a workout warrior. I have faith that his injury problems are behind him.
Oh, so then we are good. You have the faith...
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.
Quote:
I'd be over the moon if we could get a 2nd for Saquon. Over the moon. Schoen would have to make that deal.
This team isn't winning a Super Bowl this season. Schoen has to think long term.
“We aren’t winning the Super Bowl” isn’t a good enough reason to trade him for a mid round pick. You do that enough times and you have no good players and better hit on all your picks or you’ll be getting fired after year 3.
SB or bust isn’t how NFL teams operate.
You are right, that isn’t enough.
Saquon becoming a free agent next year, the franchise tag being over $12m for RBs, his injury history, and that he is in a very fungible position though is more than enough reasons.
Ignoring those facts enough times and you’ll be getting fired after year 3...
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