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.
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.