so far this year Saquon has:
4 runs 20+ yards (tied for 2nd to Chubb's 5),
1 run 40+ (tied for 2nd behind Swift's 2),
and 1 reception 20+ yards.
compared against WRs, there are only 7 who have more than his 5 plays 20+ and 12 who have more than 1 play 40+ yards.
among the most common arguments against RB positional value relative to WRs are 1) durability, 2) big plays, 3) value over replacement (there are a lot of average running backs who can slot in and produce around 4 ypc). there's truth in each of those arguments - and that's why RB contracts are basically discounted 50% vs. WR contracts. Last year's RB tag was $9.570 million while the WR tag was $18.419 million.
so back to barkley and his value relative to a WR, if he's making big plays at the rate he is right now, doesn't that make him as a player closer in value to a receiver than a RB? his presence commands safety attention just as any great WR does, and if anything his big plays are less risky because they come from a handoff not a dropback/no pass required.
Last year's UFA winner Christian Kirk has 6 catches 20+ and 2 40+ for a surprisingly overachieving Jags team that's 6th in the NFL in scoring. If Kirk cost 18m AAV over 4 years with 37m guaranteed, isn't Barkley a pretty good value on a 1 year tag around $10m? Or a Nick Chubb extension (3 years, 36m, 17m guaranteed)? It's not hard to find receivers who signed in march for $9-10m+ like Marquez Valdez Scantling or Kirk's teammate Evan Engram who have far fewer plays 20+ and simply far less good at football.
barkley's big play rate so far this year isn't an outlier either, in his rookie year he had 16 20+ which was 5 more than the next closest RB (which was Chubb) and 7 40+ which was 3 more than the next closest RB (which was also Chubb). Tyreek Hill (the nfl's current leader with 3x40+) was the only player who had 7+ 40+ plays in 2018 (he had 8).
ahead of the deadline this is what schoen needs to decide. it's not hard to envision contenders like LAR and BAL calling up with big offers - possibly even firsts - thinking barkley could be a gamechanger in their offenses and knowing they may need to overpay to get the nyg to give him up in a year where they aren't far off the division pace. if i were guessing id say they won't get an offer good enough to deal him, and if they decide to keep him they would probably be smart to try to get him on a chubb type extension which is basically the equivalent of 2 tags and a 3rd year option. durability is the concern but more and more i dont think there's any way to predict that a small physical guy like tyreek hill has been able to stay healthy while others havent. chubb came back from one of the worst knee injuries ive seen in CFB and he's been pretty healthy since. whether it's here or elsewhere i hope barkley gets the same good fortune because he's a fun player to watch and seems like a really good guy.
This league is about big plays and he does that (when healthy). When you compare it to what even middle of the road WR2s are making, it’s pretty astounding.
HE's not getting traded. No team is calling up offering a first rounder but even if they did, i'd be hard pressed to part with #26. Call me crazy I don't care I have been touting this guy since April 2018 because of this stretch of games. Barkley helps you win games. Period. He's a monster talent.
I think he at least needs to be tagged. If he keeps up close to his current pace and stays healthy, he’s likely worth a long term deal.
I always have. It's not like SB has had these lingering, Kadarious Toney type injuries. H4s had a Torn ACL, Sprained ankles ect.
He seems all the back and he's proven to be a player you can literally ride to victory.
I'm not a fan of trading our best player. He's far and away our best offensive player and Daboll loves him.
We are 0-4 without Barkley. That's a fact.
tags the next 2 years would = $20m. but to get that he'd have to stay healthy each year.
if you offer to guarantee him that same $20m right now in return for an extra year(s) that seems like win-win for both sides.
and then you have a tag available if nec for jones in 2023, and if nec for dex or mckinney in 2024.
the other way to look at this - if you let barkley go, where else are you finding a guy who can create 10+ big plays (20+) per year? the entire WR corps may not do it combined this year and that group includes 1 big $ FA, 1 first round pick, and 2 second round picks.
Saquon's value is the potential plus-type player the Giants can draft with an extra premium-type pick (possibly) from trading him, and the extra money Schoen can have at his disposal for free agents/other extensions at more valuable positions to the roster than RB.
And if that trade value is at a high-point this month for a championship-caliber team then all the better. His value to the Giants only likely goes down going forward as he just becames a free agent or a more expensive veteran at a postion that declines sooner than most...
A WR, on the other hand, has to beat 1-2 (maybe three) to make a big play. And the rules give the WR starting space to get the advantage to make the big play. No such rule applies to the RB.
Barkley fever is running rampant around here.
A WR, on the other hand, has to beat 1-2 (maybe three) to make a big play. And the rules give the WR starting space to get the advantage to make the big play. No such rule applies to the RB.
Barkley fever is running rampant around here.
I think one reason why Barkley fever is running rampant is because of the posts repeatedly telling us he did not know how to play the position, or that he was not a difference maker, or that he was a losing player.
Most agree the Giants had no business taking SB at #2, however he is an asset and a difference maker.
He is a difference maker and imagine if we had a upper tier WR on the outside and a better IOL.
Team offensive football is about balance and creating dilemma's for the defense. SB is a big dilemma and if more are added things only get better. If we had some WR's this team is in a far different situation points wise imv.
Very interested decision ahead.
Quote:
RBs start behind the LOS and have to typically beat 5+ defenders to make big plays. That is where the physical toll takes place.
A WR, on the other hand, has to beat 1-2 (maybe three) to make a big play. And the rules give the WR starting space to get the advantage to make the big play. No such rule applies to the RB.
Barkley fever is running rampant around here.
I think one reason why Barkley fever is running rampant is because of the posts repeatedly telling us he did not know how to play the position, or that he was not a difference maker, or that he was a losing player.
Most agree the Giants had no business taking SB at #2, however he is an asset and a difference maker.
Oh, Barkley has been brilliant and is in the MVP hunt right now. But I just don't think the model holds up and I'll stick with the NFL trends about the role of the RB in today's game.
:-)
Quote:
In comment 15844603 bw in dc said:
Quote:
RBs start behind the LOS and have to typically beat 5+ defenders to make big plays. That is where the physical toll takes place.
A WR, on the other hand, has to beat 1-2 (maybe three) to make a big play. And the rules give the WR starting space to get the advantage to make the big play. No such rule applies to the RB.
Barkley fever is running rampant around here.
I think one reason why Barkley fever is running rampant is because of the posts repeatedly telling us he did not know how to play the position, or that he was not a difference maker, or that he was a losing player.
Most agree the Giants had no business taking SB at #2, however he is an asset and a difference maker.
Oh, Barkley has been brilliant and is in the MVP hunt right now. But I just don't think the model holds up and I'll stick with the NFL trends about the role of the RB in today's game.
Right, I'm not saying otherwise. The Giants and Barkley are not aligned as of now for him to be a valuable contributor to a contending team. That could change if he is retained at a reasonable amount and they find the quarterback and WR they need. Also still work to do on the OL and linebacker.
:-)
Yup. I was starting to worry about you. Glad you are catching on. Great work with the video study. Proud of you!
A WR, on the other hand, has to beat 1-2 (maybe three) to make a big play. And the rules give the WR starting space to get the advantage to make the big play. No such rule applies to the RB.
Barkley fever is running rampant around here.
What’s not to buy, a star RB is vastly cheaper than a WR already, by a wide margin in fact. They are cheaper than many #2 WRs.
Quote:
RBs start behind the LOS and have to typically beat 5+ defenders to make big plays. That is where the physical toll takes place.
A WR, on the other hand, has to beat 1-2 (maybe three) to make a big play. And the rules give the WR starting space to get the advantage to make the big play. No such rule applies to the RB.
Barkley fever is running rampant around here.
What’s not to buy, a star RB is vastly cheaper than a WR already, by a wide margin in fact. They are cheaper than many #2 WRs.
exactly. here's the list of WR with 5 plays 20+ and 1 play 40+ like Barkley:
Hill 8/3
Jefferson 7/2
Kirk 6/2
Olave 6/2
D. Parker 6/1
Waddle 6/3
Diggs 5/2
M. Hollins 5/2
Agholor 5/1
AJB 5/1
N. Collins 5/1
that's not a long list. the guys on 2nd contracts are making $20m, cost a 1st round pick, or both.
saving cap room is only worthwhile if you have a better use of it. i just don't know what the better use of $10m would be so it really just comes down to whether or not you want to bet on health.
Quote:
In comment 15844603 bw in dc said:
Quote:
Barkley fever is running rampant around here.
Most agree the Giants had no business taking SB at #2, however he is an asset and a difference maker.
Oh, Barkley has been brilliant and is in the MVP hunt right now. But I just don't think the model holds up and I'll stick with the NFL trends about the role of the RB in today's game.
Look around what’s happening in the NFL. NFL defenses are saying NO to explosive plays at all else. What does this mean? Well good RBs are now worth more as well as WRs that operate well horizontally.
This is why analytics is doomed to fail in NFL, trends change fast, especially by the time you get a good sample size in.
2) Use the additional $ saved to also sign a Center and another Tight End as those positions are like a barren desert on our roster.
just spit-ballin'...
Quote:
RBs start behind the LOS and have to typically beat 5+ defenders to make big plays. That is where the physical toll takes place.
A WR, on the other hand, has to beat 1-2 (maybe three) to make a big play. And the rules give the WR starting space to get the advantage to make the big play. No such rule applies to the RB.
Barkley fever is running rampant around here.
What’s not to buy, a star RB is vastly cheaper than a WR already, by a wide margin in fact. They are cheaper than many #2 WRs.
I was referring to Eric's point about SB getting 20+ yard plays vs WRs. I just don't think that holds up because of the number of defenders a RB - even one like Barkley who is playing spectacularly - has to deal with on every play. The game is just easier for WR to make those splash plays.
2) Use the additional $ saved to also sign a Center and another Tight End as those positions are like a barren desert on our roster.
just spit-ballin'...
Who is going to give high enough picks for him? Sure you may find a James Robinson, but equally how many Day 2 RB have Buffalo drafted over last few years and Josh Allen is their top rusher?
It isn’t Barkley fever either, it’s ok to talk about what he’s doing well and how we can franchise him for a reasonable price if a solid deal can’t be agreed upon. It’s also fine to want to trade him but until I know what he’d command I’m going to enjoy watching him here and I hope I can watch him past 2022.
And I have never felt he was a bad pick. The mistake was not building the OL and offense
Big thing is - look at what he is doing with that offensive line and those receivers. Every team knows he is all the Giants have(I think Breida can help) that is dangerous, especially if Jones is unable to run.
Wait til you see what Green Bay dials up for him Sunday - they may have two spies specifically for him...
Quote:
1) Use the pick you get from Barkley to draft his halfback replacement in 2023 to a much cheaper rookie deal.
2) Use the additional $ saved to also sign a Center and another Tight End as those positions are like a barren desert on our roster.
just spit-ballin'...
Who is going to give high enough picks for him? Sure you may find a James Robinson, but equally how many Day 2 RB have Buffalo drafted over last few years and Josh Allen is their top rusher?
Mike - Go look at the NFL rushing leaders for 2021 and year to date 2022. It is filled with Day 2 and early Day 3 picks...
Saquon's value is the potential plus-type player the Giants can draft with an extra premium-type pick (possibly) from trading him, and the extra money Schoen can have at his disposal for free agents/other extensions at more valuable positions to the roster than RB.
And if that trade value is at a high-point this month for a championship-caliber team then all the better. His value to the Giants only likely goes down going forward as he just becames a free agent or a more expensive veteran at a postion that declines sooner than most...
Vs what? What is SB's value in helping bring around the culture change BD is trying to bring? What's the value of the extra pick and a few dollars to JS if he isn't here to use them?
You don't get to year 3 of a rebuild if year 1 and 2 are disasters. And that's why you don't trade the only weapon you have on offense for a lottery ticket.
If the giants trade Barkley this offense has no chance. How long before the defense starts mailing it in? Then we have last season all over.
Then what's the plan? Draft a new qb and watch him struggle with no weapons.....
It's stupid and why I don't think this front office is even considering it. They understand they need to put a competitive team on the field this year and next to get to year three and four. Barkley provides the front office time. That's what they need to build out the pieces that are needed. That's his value.
And don't be surprised if they extend Jones on a 3 year reasonable contract too. Not because they think he is the long term solution but because he is a guy BD can use to continue to implement his system. If the qb can't run the system, the rest of the players have issued learning it too. It's why Andy Ried signed Smith in KC when he got there. I saw an interview with him and he stated just this. Need a qb that could run the system so the other players could learn it. Once the other players where in place he got his qb. Don't be surprised if we go that route.
Big thing is - look at what he is doing with that offensive line and those receivers. Every team knows he is all the Giants have(I think Breida can help) that is dangerous, especially if Jones is unable to run.
Wait til you see what Green Bay dials up for him Sunday - they may have two spies specifically for him...
there's not really any argument because we don't know what the offers are. if there's a strong offer then there's a decision, so if you mean the hypothetical where there's a 1st round pick or 2 seconds on the table or something like that then i agree it's a fair decision either way.
anyone wish-casting a 3rd round pick (or the $10m of cap room or both) replacing barkley's production is deluding themselves on the odds of that happening.
Quote:
or a WR signed in Free Agency like Chubb or Kirk, respectively.
Saquon's value is the potential plus-type player the Giants can draft with an extra premium-type pick (possibly) from trading him, and the extra money Schoen can have at his disposal for free agents/other extensions at more valuable positions to the roster than RB.
And if that trade value is at a high-point this month for a championship-caliber team then all the better. His value to the Giants only likely goes down going forward as he just becames a free agent or a more expensive veteran at a postion that declines sooner than most...
Vs what? What is SB's value in helping bring around the culture change BD is trying to bring? What's the value of the extra pick and a few dollars to JS if he isn't here to use them?
You don't get to year 3 of a rebuild if year 1 and 2 are disasters. And that's why you don't trade the only weapon you have on offense for a lottery ticket.
If the giants trade Barkley this offense has no chance. How long before the defense starts mailing it in? Then we have last season all over.
Then what's the plan? Draft a new qb and watch him struggle with no weapons.....
It's stupid and why I don't think this front office is even considering it. They understand they need to put a competitive team on the field this year and next to get to year three and four. Barkley provides the front office time. That's what they need to build out the pieces that are needed. That's his value.
And don't be surprised if they extend Jones on a 3 year reasonable contract too. Not because they think he is the long term solution but because he is a guy BD can use to continue to implement his system. If the qb can't run the system, the rest of the players have issued learning it too. It's why Andy Ried signed Smith in KC when he got there. I saw an interview with him and he stated just this. Need a qb that could run the system so the other players could learn it. Once the other players where in place he got his qb. Don't be surprised if we go that route.
That's a damn good post KJBBQ. I don't subscribe to all of it, but there is definitely logic to it and it was well thought out.
And since you just joined the site in Sept 2022, I look forward to seeing more posts like this from you. It's a nice change of pace from some of the tired thinking from many defenders here...
You may want to check that out...
Quote:
In comment 15844573 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
or a WR signed in Free Agency like Chubb or Kirk, respectively.
Saquon's value is the potential plus-type player the Giants can draft with an extra premium-type pick (possibly) from trading him, and the extra money Schoen can have at his disposal for free agents/other extensions at more valuable positions to the roster than RB.
And if that trade value is at a high-point this month for a championship-caliber team then all the better. His value to the Giants only likely goes down going forward as he just becames a free agent or a more expensive veteran at a postion that declines sooner than most...
Vs what? What is SB's value in helping bring around the culture change BD is trying to bring? What's the value of the extra pick and a few dollars to JS if he isn't here to use them?
You don't get to year 3 of a rebuild if year 1 and 2 are disasters. And that's why you don't trade the only weapon you have on offense for a lottery ticket.
If the giants trade Barkley this offense has no chance. How long before the defense starts mailing it in? Then we have last season all over.
Then what's the plan? Draft a new qb and watch him struggle with no weapons.....
It's stupid and why I don't think this front office is even considering it. They understand they need to put a competitive team on the field this year and next to get to year three and four. Barkley provides the front office time. That's what they need to build out the pieces that are needed. That's his value.
And don't be surprised if they extend Jones on a 3 year reasonable contract too. Not because they think he is the long term solution but because he is a guy BD can use to continue to implement his system. If the qb can't run the system, the rest of the players have issued learning it too. It's why Andy Ried signed Smith in KC when he got there. I saw an interview with him and he stated just this. Need a qb that could run the system so the other players could learn it. Once the other players where in place he got his qb. Don't be surprised if we go that route.
That's a damn good post KJBBQ. I don't subscribe to all of it, but there is definitely logic to it and it was well thought out.
And since you just joined the site in Sept 2022, I look forward to seeing more posts like this from you. It's a nice change of pace from some of the tired thinking from many defenders here...
I've actually been here a long time under another name. Quit because all of the lousy so called football posts. Look at mostly the food threads.
I won’t bore everyone with the details, but professionally my job is to model the likelihood good things are likely to happen under a semi-complex set of circumstances.
One thing football is bad at, is just measuring aggregate numbers, taking an average and calling either the aggregate a success (number of catches) or the average (say YPC) and calling it a day.
What we should do is isolate what a good thing is, and then measure the number times out of the number of opportunities, and then model the predictability of that happening (duh, but you get the point).
For a playmaker the list of good things in priority order would be:
1) scoring a TD
2) making a first down
3) gaining one standard deviation above the league average on first and second down, via pass or rush respectively on ~50% of touches (debatable)
4) gaining two standard deviations above on ~10% of touches (debatable)
TDs are virtually always a good thing, the only outlier and not significant is when a player should kneel to avoid change of possession, first downs are always good unless the better choice was to go out of bounds vs. gaining yards.
Where you’re getting at I think is the latter 2, which is the value of chunk plays and/or the value of consistency. Those things are both important and need to work in harmony.
Said in another way: big plays are great, but one big play doesn’t make up for not meeting the objective on the other plays.
I suspect what we’re seeing from Barkley this year, specifically opposed to 2018, is the number of touches he’s achieving one or more of the above is much, much higher.
I won’t bore everyone with the details, but professionally my job is to model the likelihood good things are likely to happen under a semi-complex set of circumstances.
One thing football is bad at, is just measuring aggregate numbers, taking an average and calling either the aggregate a success (number of catches) or the average (say YPC) and calling it a day.
What we should do is isolate what a good thing is, and then measure the number times out of the number of opportunities, and then model the predictability of that happening (duh, but you get the point).
For a playmaker the list of good things in priority order would be:
1) scoring a TD
2) making a first down
3) gaining one standard deviation above the league average on first and second down, via pass or rush respectively on ~50% of touches (debatable)
4) gaining two standard deviations above on ~10% of touches (debatable)
TDs are virtually always a good thing, the only outlier and not significant is when a player should kneel to avoid change of possession, first downs are always good unless the better choice was to go out of bounds vs. gaining yards.
Where you’re getting at I think is the latter 2, which is the value of chunk plays and/or the value of consistency. Those things are both important and need to work in harmony.
Said in another way: big plays are great, but one big play doesn’t make up for not meeting the objective on the other plays.
I suspect what we’re seeing from Barkley this year, specifically opposed to 2018, is the number of touches he’s achieving one or more of the above is much, much higher.
i think what we're seeing this year is the big plays + exactly what you said. there are very few if any negative plays, he's gaining extra yards (deviations above normal), first downs like the screen pass yesterday, 2 important touchdowns, the important 2 point conversion.
but separate from barkley, i think the big play component is the most central to the RB vs. WR positional weighting. 90 catch receivers only get 5 catches per week so that's a lot of snaps where they aren't touching the ball. while they impact coverage and can move the chains on shorter throws, their value is very much tied to the 20 big plays they create over the season that only a handful are good enough to create however they do it - RAC, route running, jump balls, deep balls, whatever.
Oh, Barkley has been brilliant and is in the MVP hunt right now. But I just don't think the model holds up and I'll stick with the NFL trends about the role of the RB in today's game.
Look around what’s happening in the NFL. NFL defenses are saying NO to explosive plays at all else. What does this mean? Well good RBs are now worth more as well as WRs that operate well horizontally.
This is why analytics is doomed to fail in NFL, trends change fast, especially by the time you get a good sample size in.
Not ready to declare some watershed moment yet. We're only four weeks in. There was a lot of talent movement this offseason. So, there is a lot of dust to settle.
Wilson is adjusting to a new team in Denver. Green Bay is adjusting to the loss of Adams. Bucs have been injured on the OL and at WR. Dallas lost two key receivers. Pittsburgh lost their HoF QB. Cleveland is waiting for their big play QB. Etc.
Avoiding 0 or negative plays have a huge carryover to the rest of the series and the chance at another series. The more you string together the more you increase your chances for another big play.
BD ran a drill early in camp that put the O in I think 2nd/3rd and 10 or more situations. Results were not good. 2nd/6 3rd/3 etc. are a big deal. Its even a bigger deal with the WR group the Giants have right now.
It’s also worth noting that two of the coaches who have gone with this approach, Jim Harbaugh and Andy Reid, had much more institutional clout than Daboll. Daboll needs a high quality QB to put on a Giants uniform by 2024 at the latest for his career to flourish.
Barkley is among the best RBs in the league. But I'd trade him for a top 15-20 WR. Unfortunately that deal is not on the table and we need some way to get explosive plays.
Bottom line is I'd trade Barkley for a 1st this year if we could do it. But if we don't, there is a real case for signing him long term, even acknowledging that you don't pay RBs.
It's about Barkely being a playmaker
Being against resigning Barkley can’t be based on your view of the position in abstract, because that position has already been devalued.
It must be based on relative value vs spending on other positions. Eric’s post is really well put. Is Saquon equivalent value to a WR getting $12-14mm AARV, which is very solid but not superstar level? Like Mike Williams (SD) or Michael Thomas (NO). I say yes.
Bottom line is I'd trade Barkley for a 1st this year if we could do it. But if we don't, there is a real case for signing him long term, even acknowledging that you don't pay RBs.
I think there is a case to re-sign SB. But only short-term, not long-term. The risk exposure - due to contact - just reduces the chance to be productive long-term. And SB already has a significant injury history.
That's why WRs make much more sense. If they catch 5 passes a game at 14 YPC that's 70 yards and a good chance for a TD every other game. And he typically has to beat 1-2 defenders. Limited contact.
A RB has to touch the ball 3X+ to get to 70 yards and deal with 7+ defenders getting through the LOS. Much more contact.
The only RB I would think longer term is a freak like Henry who doles out as much punishment as he receives, and probably more. But he's the exception.
And while you can't forecast durability for a WR sight unseen you absolutely can forecast durability based on durability. And if a small receiver has shown he can handle the load no reason to not project it forward that way. That is the crux of this, Barkley was supposed to be a different kind of body and elusiveness that wasn't going to take the hits to lose durability and he hasn't proven to be that.
You can and should forecast a player that hasn't been durable to continue that way and IMO that is the full extent of why Barkley won't get paid what he should as an elite playmaker.
Also I agree with Eric's take. The explosiveness and "value" Barkley adds is definitely as good as a #2 WR, likely a #1 Wr. I don't think re-signing him will be a bad value. He is unique, and not just a normal RB.
And while you can't forecast durability for a WR sight unseen you absolutely can forecast durability based on durability. And if a small receiver has shown he can handle the load no reason to not project it forward that way. That is the crux of this, Barkley was supposed to be a different kind of body and elusiveness that wasn't going to take the hits to lose durability and he hasn't proven to be that.
You can and should forecast a player that hasn't been durable to continue that way and IMO that is the full extent of why Barkley won't get paid what he should as an elite playmaker.
I don't recall the argument that Barkley's body would hold up better than other running backs. I think you had people here defending the pick for a couple of reasons:
He was a play maker which the Giants need badly.
Not a typical running back that you can find later in the draft.
Some thought the Giants were closer than they actually were and could afford the Barkley pick.
I am no way defending the pick, but I have been involved in probably most of the Saquon discussions and I can't recall that argument being made, or at least it was not a popular argument.
This is why analytics is doomed to fail in NFL, trends change fast, especially by the time you get a good sample size in.
Analytics is doomed to fail? Like as a discipline? Do you realize how much new data is being created and how much it is advancing the game. What a silly comment.
FYI why people PREFER to lean on advanced analytics many times is because, machines can pick up on trend changes quicker than people because people tend to have much more confirmation bias and stubbornness than an algorithm.
If value / trends are changing, machines aren't going to miss them if they are programmed with the right flexibility. But people using blanket statements to make assessments that they picked up from a past analysis, yes, is a big problem. But that is on the human not the calculation.
Quote:
Bottom line is I'd trade Barkley for a 1st this year if we could do it. But if we don't, there is a real case for signing him long term, even acknowledging that you don't pay RBs.
I think there is a case to re-sign SB. But only short-term, not long-term. The risk exposure - due to contact - just reduces the chance to be productive long-term. And SB already has a significant injury history.
That's why WRs make much more sense. If they catch 5 passes a game at 14 YPC that's 70 yards and a good chance for a TD every other game. And he typically has to beat 1-2 defenders. Limited contact.
A RB has to touch the ball 3X+ to get to 70 yards and deal with 7+ defenders getting through the LOS. Much more contact.
The only RB I would think longer term is a freak like Henry who doles out as much punishment as he receives, and probably more. But he's the exception.
We have a 72m WR right now, a 1st Rounder, and 2 2nd Rounders (including Shep till he went down). That's a lot of cap investment. How's that been working out for us?
Regarding a Saquon contract, I don't see a way to get him back on a short term offer even if it was fully guaranteed. From memory CMC's contract was 38m guaranteed over 4 years. Saquon will be looking for at least that in guaranteed money. For the Giants to do 38m over 2 or 3 years makes no sense so the only way to lure him back would be a similar 4 year contract at 38m-40m guaranteed.
You have to remember that Saquon is 25 right now and will be 26 in February. This is likely going to be his only Free Agent contract. He will be going for the big bucks because he's not going to get another chance at this. He won't play on the Franchise Tag and risk a career ending injury.
Being against resigning Barkley can’t be based on your view of the position in abstract, because that position has already been devalued.
It must be based on relative value vs spending on other positions. Eric’s post is really well put. Is Saquon equivalent value to a WR getting $12-14mm AARV, which is very solid but not superstar level? Like Mike Williams (SD) or Michael Thomas (NO). I say yes.
Mike Wiliams and Mike Thomas are actually both around $20m so way beyond the cost of Saquon. the 11-13m level of WR is more like Nelson Agholor, Robbie Anderson, Corey Davis.
Hunter Renfrow just extended for $15m. Allen Robinson got 15m from the rams and looks like a worse contract than Golladay already. Robert Woods got 16m from TEN and it was his first game back from an ACL but he was basically invisible.
Quote:
In comment 15845457 Jerry in_DC said:
Quote:
Bottom line is I'd trade Barkley for a 1st this year if we could do it. But if we don't, there is a real case for signing him long term, even acknowledging that you don't pay RBs.
I think there is a case to re-sign SB. But only short-term, not long-term. The risk exposure - due to contact - just reduces the chance to be productive long-term. And SB already has a significant injury history.
That's why WRs make much more sense. If they catch 5 passes a game at 14 YPC that's 70 yards and a good chance for a TD every other game. And he typically has to beat 1-2 defenders. Limited contact.
A RB has to touch the ball 3X+ to get to 70 yards and deal with 7+ defenders getting through the LOS. Much more contact.
The only RB I would think longer term is a freak like Henry who doles out as much punishment as he receives, and probably more. But he's the exception.
We have a 72m WR right now, a 1st Rounder, and 2 2nd Rounders (including Shep till he went down). That's a lot of cap investment. How's that been working out for us?
Regarding a Saquon contract, I don't see a way to get him back on a short term offer even if it was fully guaranteed. From memory CMC's contract was 38m guaranteed over 4 years. Saquon will be looking for at least that in guaranteed money. For the Giants to do 38m over 2 or 3 years makes no sense so the only way to lure him back would be a similar 4 year contract at 38m-40m guaranteed.
You have to remember that Saquon is 25 right now and will be 26 in February. This is likely going to be his only Free Agent contract. He will be going for the big bucks because he's not going to get another chance at this. He won't play on the Franchise Tag and risk a career ending injury.
if he completes this year and has 2k yards / 10+ touchdowns / all pro / etc I agree his ask may get to the 4 year CMC level.
but since CMC signed Chubbs and Aaron Jones and others have signed much more modest contracts. CMC had no injury history when he extended, Barkley does. If they don't trade him the time to extend him is right after the deadline so they can hopefully get him on a deal similar to the Chubb deal signed 1 year ago. Or the Aaron Jones FA deal from 2021 (4 years 48m).
the earlier they sign him the more preferential the terms will be because if there's a half season left to play the risk of an injury is there on his end (and in the offseason if tagged he's already got 1 year guaranteed at $10m in his pocket so it's a lot easier to play the waiting game).
A WR, on the other hand, has to beat 1-2 (maybe three) to make a big play. And the rules give the WR starting space to get the advantage to make the big play. No such rule applies to the RB.
Barkley fever is running rampant around here.
Part of the reason Barkley has gotten hurt so much is because he's been gang tackled by 3-4 300lb dudes in the backfield because the run blocking has been so bad. The run blocking has only been good for one 8 game stretch since he's been here and he was on sideline. The RBs that play for good lines get hurt a helluva lot less than the guys that play behind shitty ones
The reality is the top tier elite RBs are absolute steals today with the NFL defenses reacting to what is going on around the league. We are going to play shell and we will let you run the ball. Most teams aren't built to do this and the ones that don't have a good 1-3 WR options are in trouble without Mahomes or Allen (who have been stymied by this approach)
The next step is the league will be looking for WRs that do good work horizontally and good running attacks again. We are actually way ahead of the ball here if KT ever finds the field consistently and if Wandale pans out (which is why he was coveted by some of theses big offenses like KC we found out)
This is why doing analytics on the NFL is generally a fools errand and strictly applying them. By the time you get a sample size, its too late. In the NFL the absolute best way to find success is to zig while everyone else is zagging. BB is notorious for this and the Seahawks been to two SBs and won with this forumula. The other option is just get the next Mahomes or Brady (who is retiring and ironically if we don't sign DJ I wouldn't be surprised at all if he finds his way there). Good luck. Looks like Allen is going to join that club and its way premature to put Herbert there as he's 17-19 in his career on a very solid roster. Maybe Burrow?
Quote:
In comment 15844621 bw in dc said:
This is why analytics is doomed to fail in NFL, trends change fast, especially by the time you get a good sample size in.
Analytics is doomed to fail? Like as a discipline? Do you realize how much new data is being created and how much it is advancing the game. What a silly comment.
FYI why people PREFER to lean on advanced analytics many times is because, machines can pick up on trend changes quicker than people because people tend to have much more confirmation bias and stubbornness than an algorithm.
If value / trends are changing, machines aren't going to miss them if they are programmed with the right flexibility. But people using blanket statements to make assessments that they picked up from a past analysis, yes, is a big problem. But that is on the human not the calculation.
Are the analytics picking up what's going on around the league this year? It's pretty obvious from observation (and you saw the shift beginning last year).
I do get the stubbornness of people and confirmation bias, but it only takes a forward thinker to beat these. And the reality is algos are always going to lag, its why you still have successful traders and investors still out there that don't use algos like the big firms do and the big firms use algos because it scales much better. Doesn't mean the small fish still ain't eating.
The rub is the vast majority of people aren't able to do it because of said confirmation bias. I'd hope billionaire orgs can find the talent to do so, it's out there and will always be one step ahead of the algos.
And doomed to fail was a bit strong, but it should be a supplemental piece in any successful billion-dollar organization. This isn't baseball, there's just waaaay too many moving pieces to stay ahead of what humans can observe at this point in time.
Barkley gives you potential WR1 big play production at a fraction of the cost even when franchised. I need a really high pick to give that up.
So much to rebuild here still. Early picks are gold, and few RBs buck the trend of time and provide less of an impact during second contracts.
Quote:
In comment 15844713 Returning Video Tapes said:
Quote:
In comment 15844621 bw in dc said:
This is why analytics is doomed to fail in NFL, trends change fast, especially by the time you get a good sample size in.
Analytics is doomed to fail? Like as a discipline? Do you realize how much new data is being created and how much it is advancing the game. What a silly comment.
FYI why people PREFER to lean on advanced analytics many times is because, machines can pick up on trend changes quicker than people because people tend to have much more confirmation bias and stubbornness than an algorithm.
If value / trends are changing, machines aren't going to miss them if they are programmed with the right flexibility. But people using blanket statements to make assessments that they picked up from a past analysis, yes, is a big problem. But that is on the human not the calculation.
Are the analytics picking up what's going on around the league this year? It's pretty obvious from observation (and you saw the shift beginning last year).
I do get the stubbornness of people and confirmation bias, but it only takes a forward thinker to beat these. And the reality is algos are always going to lag, its why you still have successful traders and investors still out there that don't use algos like the big firms do and the big firms use algos because it scales much better. Doesn't mean the small fish still ain't eating.
The rub is the vast majority of people aren't able to do it because of said confirmation bias. I'd hope billionaire orgs can find the talent to do so, it's out there and will always be one step ahead of the algos.
And doomed to fail was a bit strong, but it should be a supplemental piece in any successful billion-dollar organization. This isn't baseball, there's just waaaay too many moving pieces to stay ahead of what humans can observe at this point in time.
I'd say the first mistake is talking about analytics as a monolith. I'm sure different teams have different qualities of analytics departments as well as different strengths and weaknesses.
I don't necessarily view a successful implementation of advanced analytics and technology supplemental more like a computer better and more forward thinking people can wield them more effectively, nothing more, nothing less. They shouldn't be the decision point or ignored really ever.
I think you are making the same mistake on Wall St. making this big divide between traders and computers. Traders are using computer outputs and models every day to do their work. It's the same analogy, I bet the best traders would do fine reading the paper and talking on the phone. But a computer helps them do better and advanced analytics are simply another extension of that. Your analysis also leaves out traders that write their own programs, of which I know many. But all of this leaves out what computers are best at, which is seeing blind spots. Having a sub par technology program will make you think that they are less helpful to this process than they can be. They aren't slow to change perspective unless you program that way and make them clunky, they aren't meant to be the decision maker or shouldn't be but good systems in their very nature show you perspectives you don't already have.
Quote:
Which you can see from the contracts and tag values for the position.
Being against resigning Barkley can’t be based on your view of the position in abstract, because that position has already been devalued.
It must be based on relative value vs spending on other positions. Eric’s post is really well put. Is Saquon equivalent value to a WR getting $12-14mm AARV, which is very solid but not superstar level? Like Mike Williams (SD) or Michael Thomas (NO). I say yes.
Mike Wiliams and Mike Thomas are actually both around $20m so way beyond the cost of Saquon.
Eric - That isn’t correct. Both are in the $13-14mm range this season. It’s true both become a lot more expensive next season. In fact, expect Thomas to get cut next offseason. Giants FA target?
So much to rebuild here still. Early picks are gold, and few RBs buck the trend of time and provide less of an impact during second contracts.
Often times when the names are attached to the picks, the talent traded away is the much better option.
The one caution is we’re in week four, and running back is simply a more grueling position. You’re getting hit more times a year. I doubt the leader in 20 YD+ plays over 17 games ends up a running back.
This is where I think the calculation on value as a weapon includes other factors. If you’re getting a high number of TDs, a high number of 1st downs, a low number of low yardage plays on non-converting plays — then I think the value is there — if the games played per season are there too.
Some of you might remember, but I was all for signing Barkley to an extension after his ACL tear. Knowing you were always picking up his option, and with leverage, that was the time to extend him.
I think Barkley probably comes down to earth a bit by week 8, and the prospect of trading him for a late first is a real consideration.
We have a 72m WR right now, a 1st Rounder, and 2 2nd Rounders (including Shep till he went down). That's a lot of cap investment. How's that been working out for us?
Regarding a Saquon contract, I don't see a way to get him back on a short term offer even if it was fully guaranteed. From memory CMC's contract was 38m guaranteed over 4 years. Saquon will be looking for at least that in guaranteed money. For the Giants to do 38m over 2 or 3 years makes no sense so the only way to lure him back would be a similar 4 year contract at 38m-40m guaranteed.
You have to remember that Saquon is 25 right now and will be 26 in February. This is likely going to be his only Free Agent contract. He will be going for the big bucks because he's not going to get another chance at this. He won't play on the Franchise Tag and risk a career ending injury.
Look, DG had the right idea to provide more skills/weapons for the offense. Unfortunately, the dolt signed/drafted the wrong pieces. But don't obliterate the idea because of the incompetent GM.
I fully expect Team Barkley, especially if SB kills it all the way through this year, will be seeking the biggest RB contract ever. And they should. That's smart business. But we shouldn't bite because if there is one position where past performance is not indicative of future results, it's RB.
Quote:
We have a 72m WR right now, a 1st Rounder, and 2 2nd Rounders (including Shep till he went down). That's a lot of cap investment. How's that been working out for us?
Regarding a Saquon contract, I don't see a way to get him back on a short term offer even if it was fully guaranteed. From memory CMC's contract was 38m guaranteed over 4 years. Saquon will be looking for at least that in guaranteed money. For the Giants to do 38m over 2 or 3 years makes no sense so the only way to lure him back would be a similar 4 year contract at 38m-40m guaranteed.
You have to remember that Saquon is 25 right now and will be 26 in February. This is likely going to be his only Free Agent contract. He will be going for the big bucks because he's not going to get another chance at this. He won't play on the Franchise Tag and risk a career ending injury.
Look, DG had the right idea to provide more skills/weapons for the offense. Unfortunately, the dolt signed/drafted the wrong pieces. But don't obliterate the idea because of the incompetent GM.
I fully expect Team Barkley, especially if SB kills it all the way through this year, will be seeking the biggest RB contract ever. And they should. That's smart business. But we shouldn't bite because if there is one position where past performance is not indicative of future results, it's RB.
I won't be heart broken if he doesn't get a new contract with us. I'm just saying the only way to keep him is with a real contract and not the Franchise Tag and not a 2 year deal as other people have suggested.
Regarding value for money... Saquon may be looking for 40m guaranteed. We gave Golladay 40m guaranteed and there's a good chance he leaves the Giants without a single TD. So, 2nd contract RBs aren't cheap but neither are washed up X receivers.
Quote:
In comment 15845706 cosmicj said:
Quote:
Which you can see from the contracts and tag values for the position.
Being against resigning Barkley can’t be based on your view of the position in abstract, because that position has already been devalued.
It must be based on relative value vs spending on other positions. Eric’s post is really well put. Is Saquon equivalent value to a WR getting $12-14mm AARV, which is very solid but not superstar level? Like Mike Williams (SD) or Michael Thomas (NO). I say yes.
Mike Wiliams and Mike Thomas are actually both around $20m so way beyond the cost of Saquon.
Eric - That isn’t correct. Both are in the $13-14mm range this season. It’s true both become a lot more expensive next season. In fact, expect Thomas to get cut next offseason. Giants FA target?
you are looking at a 1 year figure not AAV (which is the better representation of the contracts they signed, single years get manipulated because of the team's cap situation not the player's value).
You can sort the table below by AAV - i would suspect any deal SB signs would be in the 12-14m range.
https://overthecap.com/position/wide-receiver - ( New Window )
The one caution is we’re in week four, and running back is simply a more grueling position. You’re getting hit more times a year. I doubt the leader in 20 YD+ plays over 17 games ends up a running back.
This is where I think the calculation on value as a weapon includes other factors. If you’re getting a high number of TDs, a high number of 1st downs, a low number of low yardage plays on non-converting plays — then I think the value is there — if the games played per season are there too.
Some of you might remember, but I was all for signing Barkley to an extension after his ACL tear. Knowing you were always picking up his option, and with leverage, that was the time to extend him.
I think Barkley probably comes down to earth a bit by week 8, and the prospect of trading him for a late first is a real consideration.
to your point i think it's almost always true that several top WRs have more big plays than whoever the top RB is. Barkley and Chubb seem to be the 2 consistent outliers there. Last year Jonathan Taylor's huge season was just 14 20+ (though 5 40+ was good, 8 WRs accomplished that with 5 7+).
ironically the only place i've seen the 20+ and 40+ calculated is NFL.com. Cooper Kupp had 30 20+ last year and 9 40+ so you can very easily understand why top WRs are worth $30m now.
i do think Barkley at the price of some very mediocre WRs like Corey Davis or Robbie Anderson is a no brainer even with the extra injury risk from taking more hits (which is a legitimate concern but hopefully one they can mitigate by not needing to give him as many touches in future years).
https://www.nfl.com/stats/player-stats/category/receiving/2021/REG/all/receiving40plusyardseach/DESC - ( New Window )
Quote:
I think Barkley is having a great year, and I agree with everything Eric posted in this thread.
The one caution is we’re in week four, and running back is simply a more grueling position. You’re getting hit more times a year. I doubt the leader in 20 YD+ plays over 17 games ends up a running back.
This is where I think the calculation on value as a weapon includes other factors. If you’re getting a high number of TDs, a high number of 1st downs, a low number of low yardage plays on non-converting plays — then I think the value is there — if the games played per season are there too.
Some of you might remember, but I was all for signing Barkley to an extension after his ACL tear. Knowing you were always picking up his option, and with leverage, that was the time to extend him.
I think Barkley probably comes down to earth a bit by week 8, and the prospect of trading him for a late first is a real consideration.
to your point i think it's almost always true that several top WRs have more big plays than whoever the top RB is. Barkley and Chubb seem to be the 2 consistent outliers there. Last year Jonathan Taylor's huge season was just 14 20+ (though 5 40+ was good, 8 WRs accomplished that with 5 7+).
ironically the only place i've seen the 20+ and 40+ calculated is NFL.com. Cooper Kupp had 30 20+ last year and 9 40+ so you can very easily understand why top WRs are worth $30m now.
i do think Barkley at the price of some very mediocre WRs like Corey Davis or Robbie Anderson is a no brainer even with the extra injury risk from taking more hits (which is a legitimate concern but hopefully one they can mitigate by not needing to give him as many touches in future years). https://www.nfl.com/stats/player-stats/category/receiving/2021/REG/all/receiving40plusyardseach/DESC - ( New Window )
Eric - I completely agree. No player in football means more to their offense right now that SB. All of your stats vs. WR's make sense, but WR's require a QB to throw them the ball, SB is doing this without the threat of a dangerous passing game. Without SB the Giants are likely 0-4; if you don't think that is worth paying the guy $12-14M then I'm not sure who is worth that.
I'll caveat this with SB has had a rough 3-years of injuries. SB needs to at least play 14 games this year to feel like the injury risk is worth paying a RB top $.
Eric - I completely agree. No player in football means more to their offense right now that SB.
I haven't thought about this idea, but it's a very interesting one. And you may be right.
I think the impact Tyreek Hill has had on that Miami offense is enormous. He's a real force multiplier down there and he's opened up a lot of options.
then took the shallow cross for 41 yards on the go ahead drive with 9 minutes left in the 4th Q. That catch and run put them right on the edge of the red zone.
going into today only Waddle and Hill had 3x 40+ yard plays, so there's a chance Barkley will be tied for the lead after today.
i think he now has 7 plays 20+ which would be 1 off Hill's 8 going into today. Justin Jefferson had 7 entering today and i think he's probably already a few beyond that.
i know many don't want to talk extensions now, but there may be value to be had with at least 1 of him/jones by doing so. and they can't tag both of them. barkley imo is the easier decision to extend because the #'s at the RB position are so depressed.