Adam Schefter
@AdamSchefter
·
20s
An MRI showed that Giants’ RB Saquon Barkley suffered an “ordinary” ankle sprain that now is expected to sideline him three weeks, per source.
Those numbers are unlikely to influence his return or his effort level at all. That’s not a comment on Saquon, good or bad. It’s just an acknowledgment that, in the context of his career earnings and future opportunities, the numbers are inconsequential. And frankly, reaching those incentive triggers in a more diverse offense, against a tougher schedule, figured to be difficult anyway.
If Barkley makes any “business decisions,” they will involve his prospects for a big third contract, not his 2023 incentives. His hopes for a big payday still hinge on his value above replacement level, which he can best demonstrate in games. Obviously, we won’t help himself by rushing back, but I don’t see how that would help the Giants either. The interests of player and team appear reasonably (although not perfectly) aligned.
to what he can lose as a UFA if he doesn’t return and play well. Worst thing he can do is dog it, and that seems wildly uncharacteristic of him in the first place.
Those numbers are unlikely to influence his return or his effort level at all. That’s not a comment on Saquon, good or bad. It’s just an acknowledgment that, in the context of his career earnings and future opportunities, the numbers are inconsequential. And frankly, reaching those incentive triggers in a more diverse offense, against a tougher schedule, figured to be difficult anyway.
If Barkley makes any “business decisions,” they will involve his prospects for a big third contract, not his 2023 incentives. His hopes for a big payday still hinge on his value above replacement level, which he can best demonstrate in games. Obviously, we won’t help himself by rushing back, but I don’t see how that would help the Giants either. The interests of player and team appear reasonably (although not perfectly) aligned.
To clarify, because I did leave out some implied (though not especially well implied) context - I don't think missing three games, and potentially this year's bonuses will be a reason for Barkley to make business decisions. Rather, my concern is that the very nature of a RB on a one-year deal near the end of his highest earnings window is one that might lend itself to making business decisions to not endanger that 2024 payday. And that the performance incentive bonuses exist as a reward for not putting his next contract ahead of his current one. If those incentives are effectively removed from the equation, that puts the onus to perform this year squarely on SB's shoulders with no immediate individual benefit (especially because the Giants can tag Barkley again if they so choose).
I do agree with those who have noted that "business decisions" would run counter (no pun intended) to what we know about Barkley's personality and competitiveness, but I also recognize that Schoen must have felt that there was a good enough reason to insert performance bonuses into the revised contract, so I didn't think it was absurd to consider the possibility.
Won’t be able to face the GMEN at full strength. So they won’t really know if they are better than us if they win. And if they lose they will realize they suck.
I think that’s how the logic behind all that works, right?
Breida has a history of getting hurt when his touches rise.
Assuming he’s the clear RB2, the staff can either manage his workload to keep him fresh or ride him and deal with it if/when he breaks down. I think he’ll get the first opportunity, especially since Thursday is a homecoming/revenge game for him. Still, RB by committee makes sense when the team gets home and has some time to practice - counterintuitively with the old vet Breida as the speed back. He’s the one with the extra gear, assuming he still has it.
Is it too late to make any adjustments to his contract? Such as pro rating his incentives in particular? If they can make supplemental changes then I think that would change the concerns of both parties involved.
Is Barkleys blocking. Other backs might be able to get some chunk yardage, but I’m worried they may be horrific at blocking. And with how our line has performed my biggest concern is for DJ getting trucked.
Who thinks Barkley is going to do anything but play at a 100% effort is a fucking idiot. Try and understand, his character is thankfully not like your own.
Who thinks Barkley is going to do anything but play at a 100% effort is a fucking idiot. Try and understand, his character is thankfully not like your own.
This is absolutely true. Saquon showed his character when he decided to return to the team and accept the $11 million and risk injury in a contract year. He could have held out until Week 10 and made "business decisions" but he chose not to
Who thinks Barkley is going to do anything but play at a 100% effort is a fucking idiot. Try and understand, his character is thankfully not like your own.
This is absolutely true. Saquon showed his character when he decided to return to the team and accept the $11 million and risk injury in a contract year. He could have held out until Week 10 and made "business decisions" but he chose not to
He also could have signed the tag immediately after the multi-year deadline passed, but instead he threatened to hold out. That threat only vanished when the contract was modified, and the only modification that actually changed the financial value of the contract was the insertion of the performance incentive bonuses.
It's fine if you want to suggest that those incentives are ultimately meaningless to Barkley, but the sequence of events leading up to him being a team player and signing his contract without a holdout might indicate that they were important to him at the time.
Does it change the way he approaches this season if those benchmarks become unachievable? Those of you who say it won't are probably correct, but I don't think it's a completely unfair question.
Who thinks Barkley is going to do anything but play at a 100% effort is a fucking idiot. Try and understand, his character is thankfully not like your own.
Barkley can still give 100% effort and make business decisions, too.
Instead of trying to get an extra yard on the sideline by taking on more contact, for example, he could simply step out. Franco Harris made a career out of doing that.
Frankly, I wouldn't fault him for making those decisions. At the end of the day, whether you care to accept it, football is a business and in order to maximize earnings you need to be available for as long as possible. Especially RBs.
The running back who actually made "business decisions"
is Jonathan Taylor by trying to force a trade to a team that would sign him to big $$$. That's what I thought Saquon would do in the offseason but I was wrong
the only way I see Saquon making "business decisions" is if the Giants are eliminated from the playoffs and there's nothing to play for. Then he has nothing to play for but $$$ for the next few years
The timing actually could have been much worse, if he had blown out his knee in 2021 or 2022. The Browns got two excellent seasons from him after he got paid. It’s still really bad, and will provide another argument against big second contracts for running backs.
I think this subject often gets muddled with the straw man that RBs are “interchangeable”. Nobody actually believes that Matt Breida or Eric Gray or Gary Brightwell can do the things Saquon Barkley can, any more than Jerome Ford can fully replace Nick Chubb. The more defensible position is that the best way to mitigate injury risk and short career length at the position is to limit a team’s reliance on - and investment in - an alpha dog. Joe Schoen appears to subscribe to this approach, like his former colleagues in Buffalo; but the roster he inherited has constrained his ability to bolster the RB room. Hence, a cheap vet, a fifth-round pick, and an inherited sixth-round special teams player are the default committee until Barkley returns.
The main silver lining is a chance to see how priminent a role Gray (and perhaps Brightwell) can play in the future, whether or not that future includes Saquon Barkley. A grimmer benefit of the injuries to both Chubb and Barkley is the continuing suppression of Saquon’s post-2023 market value, assuming the Giants want to retain him and he chooses to keep playing in a league that treats his position as it does.
is that any significant length of absence (especially early in the season) basically pushes his individual incentives out of reach.
Do any of you worry that there is a risk of business decisions being made by Barkley once his bonuses are unachievable?
You're saying that Barkley would decide to mail it in this season if he can't earn $800k of incentives in order to get a better payday from someone next season?
That would be an interesting strategy in OppositeLand.
Exactly. Hey, I'm going to suck for the rest of the season so somebody will sign me to a big contract next year doesn't sound like a good strategy.
Barkley can still give 100% effort and make business decisions, too.
Instead of trying to get an extra yard on the sideline by taking on more contact, for example, he could simply step out. Franco Harris made a career out of doing that.
They do that anyway and have been doing that for many years.
Stepping out of bounds yard early isn’t a business decision
that’s smart football as it both protects yourself and the ball, and every player will do that. IMO a business decision is completely giving up on a play, like Cam Newton not trying to retrieve that ball in the Super Bowl. Big difference between the two.
Those numbers are unlikely to influence his return or his effort level at all. That’s not a comment on Saquon, good or bad. It’s just an acknowledgment that, in the context of his career earnings and future opportunities, the numbers are inconsequential. And frankly, reaching those incentive triggers in a more diverse offense, against a tougher schedule, figured to be difficult anyway.
If Barkley makes any “business decisions,” they will involve his prospects for a big third contract, not his 2023 incentives. His hopes for a big payday still hinge on his value above replacement level, which he can best demonstrate in games. Obviously, we won’t help himself by rushing back, but I don’t see how that would help the Giants either. The interests of player and team appear reasonably (although not perfectly) aligned.
To clarify, because I did leave out some implied (though not especially well implied) context - I don't think missing three games, and potentially this year's bonuses will be a reason for Barkley to make business decisions. Rather, my concern is that the very nature of a RB on a one-year deal near the end of his highest earnings window is one that might lend itself to making business decisions to not endanger that 2024 payday. And that the performance incentive bonuses exist as a reward for not putting his next contract ahead of his current one. If those incentives are effectively removed from the equation, that puts the onus to perform this year squarely on SB's shoulders with no immediate individual benefit (especially because the Giants can tag Barkley again if they so choose).
I do agree with those who have noted that "business decisions" would run counter (no pun intended) to what we know about Barkley's personality and competitiveness, but I also recognize that Schoen must have felt that there was a good enough reason to insert performance bonuses into the revised contract, so I didn't think it was absurd to consider the possibility.
I disagree with this analysis. If Barkley does miss a full 3 weeks, he's not getting a big pay day in 2024 no matter what. The RB position is too precarious. True, the Giants could tag him again, but that would be a $13M or so 1 year contract, all of it guaranteed, and Barkley will jump at that if they do. No other team will offer him close to that much per year. And I do not see Schoen offering that either. He might get a 3 year contract at $8M per year or thereabouts. The key will be how much is guaranteed. His absolute best bet to maximize the guaranteed dollars is to come back and play his guts out for the remainder of the season. Making "business decisions" just hurts his marketability in 2024.
BTW, Dr. Chao says that this is a regular high ankle sprain
to what he can lose as a UFA if he doesn’t return and play well. Worst thing he can do is dog it, and that seems wildly uncharacteristic of him in the first place.
This is the point everyone is overlooking. If the Giants don't use the tag again, his effort from this year is what will factor into his free agent deal. Dogging it certainly won't help in the negotiations.
The week to week is more fitting of that description.
As a former NCAA athlete who suffered several 'normal' sprains, 3 to 4 weeks was basic for me. But I didn't have to make violent cuts on the ankle when I came back. I also didn't tape it heavily when I came back.
is that any significant length of absence (especially early in the season) basically pushes his individual incentives out of reach.
Do any of you worry that there is a risk of business decisions being made by Barkley once his bonuses are unachievable?
Missing 3 games probably means he misses out on 1350 yards - one of the incentives (tied to also making the playoffs).
The other incentives - 65 receptions, 11 touchdowns- remain within reach. At this point, no I don’t think there is a risk of him making ‘business decisions’. If he misses more time and/or the other incentives are out of reach - I think he still plays to win since I believe he is that kind of competitor and teammate. The incentives all told are 909k, so less than 10% of his compensation.
The 1,350 isn't out of reach. He had 1,312 last year and missed more than a game and a half. He had six other games where he had 63 yards or less, including 22, 33 and 38. He would need about 1,240 yards in the remaining 11. If the O line plays like it did in the second half (and actually improves as Ezeudu, McKethan and Schmitz get more experience, it's doable. The bigger question is will the Giants continue the 2022 and 2023 trend and be behind early in games and need to throw the ball more than run.
Re-injuring himself or performing below an elite talent level does nothing for him in terms of a contract in 2024 and beyond. Especially in light of Chubb's likely career ending injury...
Besides, a committee of Breida/Gray/Brightwell is interchangeable with Barkley anyway. Probably much better in fact for the Giants because all Barkley does is dance around and try to hit home runs. The Niners defense will probably have no idea how to defend it, especially on a short week.
ZogZerg: Dr. Chao’s initial takes are often wrong.
His expertise kicks in when test results become available and he has a chance to tap his sources. His initial takes, based on video of the relevant play, are much better-informed than a fan’s, but they are still guesses. He can diagnose an open tib-fib fracture easily, but soft tissue involves more guesswork.
Re-injuring himself or performing below an elite talent level does nothing for him in terms of a contract in 2024 and beyond. Especially in light of Chubb's likely career ending injury...
Besides, a committee of Breida/Gray/Brightwell is interchangeable with Barkley anyway. Probably much better in fact for the Giants because all Barkley does is dance around and try to hit home runs. The Niners defense will probably have no idea how to defend it, especially on a short week.
Awful, awful take. This is what trying to hard looks like. By the way, his “dancing” is what led to the 10+ yard run after the spin move behind the LOS on the final drive leading up to the play he got injured. That’s a loss for the lauded trio of Breida/Gray/Brightwell.
Might want to see that trio play well a couple times before staying they are interchangeable. As of now Daboll doesn’t agree with you, it’s why Barkley barley came off the field since the start of last season.
Re-injuring himself or performing below an elite talent level does nothing for him in terms of a contract in 2024 and beyond. Especially in light of Chubb's likely career ending injury...
Besides, a committee of Breida/Gray/Brightwell is interchangeable with Barkley anyway. Probably much better in fact for the Giants because all Barkley does is dance around and try to hit home runs. The Niners defense will probably have no idea how to defend it, especially on a short week.
Awful, awful take. This is what trying to hard looks like. By the way, his “dancing” is what led to the 10+ yard run after the spin move behind the LOS on the final drive leading up to the play he got injured. That’s a loss for the lauded trio of Breida/Gray/Brightwell.
Might want to see that trio play well a couple times before staying they are interchangeable. As of now Daboll doesn’t agree with you, it’s why Barkley barley came off the field since the start of last season.
Ha! Seriously, UConn? Hopefully you are just taking my sarcasm to a higher level... If not, you are reading too many negative Barkley threads on BBI... No Giant fan is as strong a Barkley supporter as I am.
RE: ZogZerg: Dr. Chao’s initial takes are often wrong.
His expertise kicks in when test results become available and he has a chance to tap his sources. His initial takes, based on video of the relevant play, are much better-informed than a fan’s, but they are still guesses. He can diagnose an open tib-fib fracture easily, but soft tissue involves more guesswork.
This take was after the MRI results were reported.
Lol, I don’t remember who says what anymore, definitely flew over my head. My bad.
Understandable. I figured the "Niners won't have any idea how to defend Breida" was the giveaway, especially since he started his career there and they gave up on him...
RE: Stepping out of bounds yard early isn’t a business decision
that’s smart football as it both protects yourself and the ball, and every player will do that. IMO a business decision is completely giving up on a play, like Cam Newton not trying to retrieve that ball in the Super Bowl. Big difference between the two.
My view of the business decision element for a RB is avoiding contact that could possibly lead to more yards. In other words, you go down earlier in the play to avoid that contact. That could occur between the tackles just as much as the sideline example. Or you don't go hard on an inside pass route to avoid getting crushed.
I get it, btw. And it actually makes sense for the individual. The cause and effect of the economics of the sport. It's just not the best thing for the team...
ankles every game. Its the norm for running backs.
Countless times you'd see a player hobble off the field like Barkley and be back after a rest and taping. Now with a precautionary x-ray (not back in the day).
If Barkley's injury happened in Q1 it might not even be a topic of discussion now.
We really have no idea.
RE: RE: Stepping out of bounds yard early isn’t a business decision
that’s smart football as it both protects yourself and the ball, and every player will do that. IMO a business decision is completely giving up on a play, like Cam Newton not trying to retrieve that ball in the Super Bowl. Big difference between the two.
My view of the business decision element for a RB is avoiding contact that could possibly lead to more yards. In other words, you go down earlier in the play to avoid that contact. That could occur between the tackles just as much as the sideline example. Or you don't go hard on an inside pass route to avoid getting crushed.
I get it, btw. And it actually makes sense for the individual. The cause and effect of the economics of the sport. It's just not the best thing for the team...
I don’t quite agree. Plenty of times ball carriers fight for extra yardage and get the ball jarred loose, and us fans bitch and complain about not going down. QBs sliding isn’t a business decision either IMO.
I think quitting on a play for fear of getting hurt is how I’d define it and it’s subjective. And I don’t think going down a bit early is quitting. Something like the Cam Newton play in the SB or a WR not going up for a ball because the safety is there is a better example.
That one is going to loom large for Wildcards.
Have to figure Dallas/Philly have WC1 locked up until we see otherwise.
If Barkley makes any “business decisions,” they will involve his prospects for a big third contract, not his 2023 incentives. His hopes for a big payday still hinge on his value above replacement level, which he can best demonstrate in games. Obviously, we won’t help himself by rushing back, but I don’t see how that would help the Giants either. The interests of player and team appear reasonably (although not perfectly) aligned.
And I think he’ll do just fine
Quote:
is that any significant length of absence (especially early in the season) basically pushes his individual incentives out of reach.
Do any of you worry that there is a risk of business decisions being made by Barkley once his bonuses are unachievable?
This is the operative question. I think it is a virtual certainty... Lamar Jackson 2.0.
I disagree
This is how I see it too. You're comparing six figures with seven figures.
If Barkley makes any “business decisions,” they will involve his prospects for a big third contract, not his 2023 incentives. His hopes for a big payday still hinge on his value above replacement level, which he can best demonstrate in games. Obviously, we won’t help himself by rushing back, but I don’t see how that would help the Giants either. The interests of player and team appear reasonably (although not perfectly) aligned.
To clarify, because I did leave out some implied (though not especially well implied) context - I don't think missing three games, and potentially this year's bonuses will be a reason for Barkley to make business decisions. Rather, my concern is that the very nature of a RB on a one-year deal near the end of his highest earnings window is one that might lend itself to making business decisions to not endanger that 2024 payday. And that the performance incentive bonuses exist as a reward for not putting his next contract ahead of his current one. If those incentives are effectively removed from the equation, that puts the onus to perform this year squarely on SB's shoulders with no immediate individual benefit (especially because the Giants can tag Barkley again if they so choose).
I do agree with those who have noted that "business decisions" would run counter (no pun intended) to what we know about Barkley's personality and competitiveness, but I also recognize that Schoen must have felt that there was a good enough reason to insert performance bonuses into the revised contract, so I didn't think it was absurd to consider the possibility.
I think that’s how the logic behind all that works, right?
This is absolutely true. Saquon showed his character when he decided to return to the team and accept the $11 million and risk injury in a contract year. He could have held out until Week 10 and made "business decisions" but he chose not to
Quote:
Who thinks Barkley is going to do anything but play at a 100% effort is a fucking idiot. Try and understand, his character is thankfully not like your own.
This is absolutely true. Saquon showed his character when he decided to return to the team and accept the $11 million and risk injury in a contract year. He could have held out until Week 10 and made "business decisions" but he chose not to
He also could have signed the tag immediately after the multi-year deadline passed, but instead he threatened to hold out. That threat only vanished when the contract was modified, and the only modification that actually changed the financial value of the contract was the insertion of the performance incentive bonuses.
It's fine if you want to suggest that those incentives are ultimately meaningless to Barkley, but the sequence of events leading up to him being a team player and signing his contract without a holdout might indicate that they were important to him at the time.
Does it change the way he approaches this season if those benchmarks become unachievable? Those of you who say it won't are probably correct, but I don't think it's a completely unfair question.
Barkley can still give 100% effort and make business decisions, too.
Instead of trying to get an extra yard on the sideline by taking on more contact, for example, he could simply step out. Franco Harris made a career out of doing that.
Frankly, I wouldn't fault him for making those decisions. At the end of the day, whether you care to accept it, football is a business and in order to maximize earnings you need to be available for as long as possible. Especially RBs.
His last two ankle sprains kept him out 3 games, and limited him a few more.
This will be 50% of his years in the NFL to date impacted by an ankle injury, not to mention his ACL year.
I don't think it's an exaggeration to call Barkley a 75% of the time player.
They'd have to sign him to the 53. Why would they do that?
I think this subject often gets muddled with the straw man that RBs are “interchangeable”. Nobody actually believes that Matt Breida or Eric Gray or Gary Brightwell can do the things Saquon Barkley can, any more than Jerome Ford can fully replace Nick Chubb. The more defensible position is that the best way to mitigate injury risk and short career length at the position is to limit a team’s reliance on - and investment in - an alpha dog. Joe Schoen appears to subscribe to this approach, like his former colleagues in Buffalo; but the roster he inherited has constrained his ability to bolster the RB room. Hence, a cheap vet, a fifth-round pick, and an inherited sixth-round special teams player are the default committee until Barkley returns.
The main silver lining is a chance to see how priminent a role Gray (and perhaps Brightwell) can play in the future, whether or not that future includes Saquon Barkley. A grimmer benefit of the injuries to both Chubb and Barkley is the continuing suppression of Saquon’s post-2023 market value, assuming the Giants want to retain him and he chooses to keep playing in a league that treats his position as it does.
Quote:
is that any significant length of absence (especially early in the season) basically pushes his individual incentives out of reach.
Do any of you worry that there is a risk of business decisions being made by Barkley once his bonuses are unachievable?
You're saying that Barkley would decide to mail it in this season if he can't earn $800k of incentives in order to get a better payday from someone next season?
That would be an interesting strategy in OppositeLand.
Exactly. Hey, I'm going to suck for the rest of the season so somebody will sign me to a big contract next year doesn't sound like a good strategy.
Barkley can still give 100% effort and make business decisions, too.
Instead of trying to get an extra yard on the sideline by taking on more contact, for example, he could simply step out. Franco Harris made a career out of doing that.
They do that anyway and have been doing that for many years.
Quote:
Those numbers are unlikely to influence his return or his effort level at all. That’s not a comment on Saquon, good or bad. It’s just an acknowledgment that, in the context of his career earnings and future opportunities, the numbers are inconsequential. And frankly, reaching those incentive triggers in a more diverse offense, against a tougher schedule, figured to be difficult anyway.
If Barkley makes any “business decisions,” they will involve his prospects for a big third contract, not his 2023 incentives. His hopes for a big payday still hinge on his value above replacement level, which he can best demonstrate in games. Obviously, we won’t help himself by rushing back, but I don’t see how that would help the Giants either. The interests of player and team appear reasonably (although not perfectly) aligned.
To clarify, because I did leave out some implied (though not especially well implied) context - I don't think missing three games, and potentially this year's bonuses will be a reason for Barkley to make business decisions. Rather, my concern is that the very nature of a RB on a one-year deal near the end of his highest earnings window is one that might lend itself to making business decisions to not endanger that 2024 payday. And that the performance incentive bonuses exist as a reward for not putting his next contract ahead of his current one. If those incentives are effectively removed from the equation, that puts the onus to perform this year squarely on SB's shoulders with no immediate individual benefit (especially because the Giants can tag Barkley again if they so choose).
I do agree with those who have noted that "business decisions" would run counter (no pun intended) to what we know about Barkley's personality and competitiveness, but I also recognize that Schoen must have felt that there was a good enough reason to insert performance bonuses into the revised contract, so I didn't think it was absurd to consider the possibility.
I disagree with this analysis. If Barkley does miss a full 3 weeks, he's not getting a big pay day in 2024 no matter what. The RB position is too precarious. True, the Giants could tag him again, but that would be a $13M or so 1 year contract, all of it guaranteed, and Barkley will jump at that if they do. No other team will offer him close to that much per year. And I do not see Schoen offering that either. He might get a 3 year contract at $8M per year or thereabouts. The key will be how much is guaranteed. His absolute best bet to maximize the guaranteed dollars is to come back and play his guts out for the remainder of the season. Making "business decisions" just hurts his marketability in 2024.
Again, he studies all the injuries that take place.
This is the point everyone is overlooking. If the Giants don't use the tag again, his effort from this year is what will factor into his free agent deal. Dogging it certainly won't help in the negotiations.
As a former NCAA athlete who suffered several 'normal' sprains, 3 to 4 weeks was basic for me. But I didn't have to make violent cuts on the ankle when I came back. I also didn't tape it heavily when I came back.
Quote:
is that any significant length of absence (especially early in the season) basically pushes his individual incentives out of reach.
Do any of you worry that there is a risk of business decisions being made by Barkley once his bonuses are unachievable?
Missing 3 games probably means he misses out on 1350 yards - one of the incentives (tied to also making the playoffs).
The other incentives - 65 receptions, 11 touchdowns- remain within reach. At this point, no I don’t think there is a risk of him making ‘business decisions’. If he misses more time and/or the other incentives are out of reach - I think he still plays to win since I believe he is that kind of competitor and teammate. The incentives all told are 909k, so less than 10% of his compensation.
The 1,350 isn't out of reach. He had 1,312 last year and missed more than a game and a half. He had six other games where he had 63 yards or less, including 22, 33 and 38. He would need about 1,240 yards in the remaining 11. If the O line plays like it did in the second half (and actually improves as Ezeudu, McKethan and Schmitz get more experience, it's doable. The bigger question is will the Giants continue the 2022 and 2023 trend and be behind early in games and need to throw the ball more than run.
Besides, a committee of Breida/Gray/Brightwell is interchangeable with Barkley anyway. Probably much better in fact for the Giants because all Barkley does is dance around and try to hit home runs. The Niners defense will probably have no idea how to defend it, especially on a short week.
Besides, a committee of Breida/Gray/Brightwell is interchangeable with Barkley anyway. Probably much better in fact for the Giants because all Barkley does is dance around and try to hit home runs. The Niners defense will probably have no idea how to defend it, especially on a short week.
Awful, awful take. This is what trying to hard looks like. By the way, his “dancing” is what led to the 10+ yard run after the spin move behind the LOS on the final drive leading up to the play he got injured. That’s a loss for the lauded trio of Breida/Gray/Brightwell.
Might want to see that trio play well a couple times before staying they are interchangeable. As of now Daboll doesn’t agree with you, it’s why Barkley barley came off the field since the start of last season.
Quote:
Re-injuring himself or performing below an elite talent level does nothing for him in terms of a contract in 2024 and beyond. Especially in light of Chubb's likely career ending injury...
Besides, a committee of Breida/Gray/Brightwell is interchangeable with Barkley anyway. Probably much better in fact for the Giants because all Barkley does is dance around and try to hit home runs. The Niners defense will probably have no idea how to defend it, especially on a short week.
Awful, awful take. This is what trying to hard looks like. By the way, his “dancing” is what led to the 10+ yard run after the spin move behind the LOS on the final drive leading up to the play he got injured. That’s a loss for the lauded trio of Breida/Gray/Brightwell.
Might want to see that trio play well a couple times before staying they are interchangeable. As of now Daboll doesn’t agree with you, it’s why Barkley barley came off the field since the start of last season.
Ha! Seriously, UConn? Hopefully you are just taking my sarcasm to a higher level... If not, you are reading too many negative Barkley threads on BBI... No Giant fan is as strong a Barkley supporter as I am.
This take was after the MRI results were reported.
Understandable. I figured the "Niners won't have any idea how to defend Breida" was the giveaway, especially since he started his career there and they gave up on him...
My view of the business decision element for a RB is avoiding contact that could possibly lead to more yards. In other words, you go down earlier in the play to avoid that contact. That could occur between the tackles just as much as the sideline example. Or you don't go hard on an inside pass route to avoid getting crushed.
I get it, btw. And it actually makes sense for the individual. The cause and effect of the economics of the sport. It's just not the best thing for the team...
Countless times you'd see a player hobble off the field like Barkley and be back after a rest and taping. Now with a precautionary x-ray (not back in the day).
If Barkley's injury happened in Q1 it might not even be a topic of discussion now.
We really have no idea.
Quote:
that’s smart football as it both protects yourself and the ball, and every player will do that. IMO a business decision is completely giving up on a play, like Cam Newton not trying to retrieve that ball in the Super Bowl. Big difference between the two.
My view of the business decision element for a RB is avoiding contact that could possibly lead to more yards. In other words, you go down earlier in the play to avoid that contact. That could occur between the tackles just as much as the sideline example. Or you don't go hard on an inside pass route to avoid getting crushed.
I get it, btw. And it actually makes sense for the individual. The cause and effect of the economics of the sport. It's just not the best thing for the team...
I don’t quite agree. Plenty of times ball carriers fight for extra yardage and get the ball jarred loose, and us fans bitch and complain about not going down. QBs sliding isn’t a business decision either IMO.
I think quitting on a play for fear of getting hurt is how I’d define it and it’s subjective. And I don’t think going down a bit early is quitting. Something like the Cam Newton play in the SB or a WR not going up for a ball because the safety is there is a better example.