Charlotte Carroll
@charlottecrrll
·
25m
Interesting from Brian Daboll on Saquon Barkley when asked if he's going to be out some time: "I wouldn't count on that."
Followed up on TNF: "I'm not saying that he's out yet. ... He's a quick healer. we're going to take it all the way up to Thursday with him."
Well, all last week he refused to rule out Thomas too.
are really perplexed now. Like Dallas was with Waller.
With or without Barkley, we aren't running on the 9ers.
You beat them with a mobile QB and attacking their secondary.
Exactly. Unleash the second half gameplan from Sunday and watch the tape of what the Rams (who aren't any more talented than NYG) did to the Niners. Run just enough to keep them honest.
but you never know. If it really was just a badly rolled ankle, it's something basketball players play through all the time. That being said I highly doubt he plays Thursday, and I would be very happy if that meant he returns the following Monday.
Are the Niners going to do a lot of things differently these 2 days now because Barkley MIGHT not miss? Then if/when he DOES arrive in street clothes, will the Niners collectively say, well shit, it's Breida and Brightwell? SHIT! What do we do!!!
Are the Niners going to do a lot of things differently these 2 days now because Barkley MIGHT not miss? Then if/when he DOES arrive in street clothes, will the Niners collectively say, well shit, it's Breida and Brightwell? SHIT! What do we do!!!
So dumb.
Exactly.
Here's there gameplan for Barkley - let him run or catch the ball and be sure to tackle or hit him below the knee on the bad leg.
I'm ruling him out. Of course he's out. He just sprained his ankle bad enough to be helped off the field, 4 days before the game. He is OUT. Of course Daboll will say he may plays, he wants 49ers to at least waste some prep on possibility of Barkley playing.
It means the 49ers have to spend more time considering a different game plan.
Would you rather know what your opponent is going to do or have to take into account a completely different game plan?
This isn't some sort of novel theory on my part, coaches have been doing this for decades.
In theory this makes sense, but the game plan changing is a good thing for the 49ers. The NFL is all about matchups and accounting for but not having to deal with a plus player on the field is a win.
I bet if you ask Shanahan privately if he’d rather prep for Barkley and have him not plan or prep and have him play, he’d choose the former.
Teams will have a totally different game plan for the Giants depending on the availability of Barkley.
Barkley is still vastly underrated on BBI.
Wait you didn't hear? It doesn't matter whether an all pro caliber RB plays or not. And if the Giants win, I told you all so...if they lose...well they suck anyway.
It means the 49ers have to spend more time considering a different game plan.
Would you rather know what your opponent is going to do or have to take into account a completely different game plan?
This isn't some sort of novel theory on my part, coaches have been doing this for decades.
So your view is Daboll has indeed created a competitive advantage.
That's fine, just say it.
I don't think it's as complicated because the 9ers have likely been planning for this game for two weeks. And they should have little trouble adjusting without Barkley because of the quality of personnel they have.
I'd argue the Giants have the bigger task of adjusting their offense without Barkley.
Tiki on the radio yesterday was saying a normal ankle sprain
why wouldn’t opposing teams gameplan for good players? That player not playing doesn’t mean they are now no longer prepared.
I think this matters way more when you’ve got a hurt QB with a completely different skillset than their backup. But that’s about it.
I think the expectation might be that they would prepare differently for a Giants team with Barkley than without. It could change the run/pass ratio, or the types of running plays the Giants run (including more designed runs for DJ, for example), or the short yardage packages, whatever. On a short week, teams are probably forced to prioritize their preparation, and keeping Barkley at least nominally in the mix could force SF to dedicate some of their limited preparation time to two different scenarios.
I don't think we're talking about a monumental advantage here, but I can see at least some potential benefit in having Barkley serve as a decoy of sorts, in terms of SF's preparation.
Teams will have a totally different game plan for the Giants depending on the availability of Barkley.
Barkley is still vastly underrated on BBI.
Wait you didn't hear? It doesn't matter whether an all pro caliber RB plays or not. And if the Giants win, I told you all so...if they lose...well they suck anyway.
The whole RB NFL thing has made people nuts.
No, it matters if he plays because he's a very good player. And it matters because he represents a decent amount of cap room.
When people talk about the devaluation of RBs, the idea is that you repurpose that cap space elsewhere to benefit your team to a greater degree than a RB can. It's not that you should pay for a very good RB and then not use them because they don't matter.
They do matter. They're just not great investments, because they age quickly and get hurt often. This is actually a good example of why RB's are risky investments.
I know you're smarter than this. I just can't figure out why you pretend like you're not.
It's not just Tiki. Anyone who's played sports has done and/or seen this. Since we have no idea of Barkley's true medical status, we have really have no idea of anything other than it makes no sense to rule Barkley out at this stage.
Teams will have a totally different game plan for the Giants depending on the availability of Barkley.
Barkley is still vastly underrated on BBI.
Wait you didn't hear? It doesn't matter whether an all pro caliber RB plays or not. And if the Giants win, I told you all so...if they lose...well they suck anyway.
The whole RB NFL thing has made people nuts.
No, it matters if he plays because he's a very good player. And it matters because he represents a decent amount of cap room.
When people talk about the devaluation of RBs, the idea is that you repurpose that cap space elsewhere to benefit your team to a greater degree than a RB can. It's not that you should pay for a very good RB and then not use them because they don't matter.
They do matter. They're just not great investments, because they age quickly and get hurt often. This is actually a good example of why RB's are risky investments.
I know you're smarter than this. I just can't figure out why you pretend like you're not.
I was joking --plus the thread has nothing to do with cap economics. And also there is overpaying RBs like Miles Sanders (who I said wasn't that good) and weapons like Barkley. Barkley plays well when there is crap around him. Miles Sanders and many others get washed away with the tide because they aren't good enough to rise above it.
BArkley is worth the money. If you can predict the future of health more power to you. BArkley is not at the end. Not by a long shot, in my view.
Teams will have a totally different game plan for the Giants depending on the availability of Barkley.
Barkley is still vastly underrated on BBI.
Wait you didn't hear? It doesn't matter whether an all pro caliber RB plays or not. And if the Giants win, I told you all so...if they lose...well they suck anyway.
The whole RB NFL thing has made people nuts.
No, it matters if he plays because he's a very good player. And it matters because he represents a decent amount of cap room.
When people talk about the devaluation of RBs, the idea is that you repurpose that cap space elsewhere to benefit your team to a greater degree than a RB can. It's not that you should pay for a very good RB and then not use them because they don't matter.
They do matter. They're just not great investments, because they age quickly and get hurt often. This is actually a good example of why RB's are risky investments.
I know you're smarter than this. I just can't figure out why you pretend like you're not.
I was joking --plus the thread has nothing to do with cap economics. And also there is overpaying RBs like Miles Sanders (who I said wasn't that good) and weapons like Barkley. Barkley plays well when there is crap around him. Miles Sanders and many others get washed away with the tide because they aren't good enough to rise above it.
BArkley is worth the money. If you can predict the future of health more power to you. BArkley is not at the end. Not by a long shot, in my view.
I can predict that RBs get injured more than players at other positions. I can offer Barkley as evidence that he's not immune to the risks that accompany his position.
Also, just so I'm understanding this properly - health is impossible to predict, but avoiding age-based decline is easy to predict? I think you have that exactly backwards.
The greatest predictor of future injuries is past injuries. It's not perfect, but it's a pretty good indicator. And it definitely applies to Barkley. Not because he's fragile; entirely because he's a RB.
#Giants star RB Saquon Barkley is believed to have suffered a low-ankle sprain, sources say, an injury that likely knocks him out next week. He’ll have more tests, but he’s best characterized as week-to-week. A fast healer, Barkley will work to miss only one week. 8:28 PM · Oct 10, 2021
One of these times the mythical fast healing Barkley is bound to show up, but the last 2 ankle sprains and ACL tear resulted in just mortal healing times.
gamesmanship or whatever your phrase is, but why rule him out before it's necessary anyway.
People will say it's "Belichickian" and even if Belichick epitomizes it, it's just smart to not reveal anything other than is required by the league at the time it is required.
I don't know the 49ers will do much different with or without Barkley from a game plan standpoint because like the Giants they don't have much time to practice this week either, but I'm not volunteering anything information about anything until I have to if I am a coach.
I agree with him. I find it odd the term "normal sprain" was specifically used (as good news), yet Barkley's reactions indicated worse and, up until Daboll's comments, everything else being done or said seemed to point to high ankle sprain.
If it is, indeed, "normal", I would expect him to play.
Teams will have a totally different game plan for the Giants depending on the availability of Barkley.
Barkley is still vastly underrated on BBI.
Wait you didn't hear? It doesn't matter whether an all pro caliber RB plays or not. And if the Giants win, I told you all so...if they lose...well they suck anyway.
The whole RB NFL thing has made people nuts.
No, it matters if he plays because he's a very good player. And it matters because he represents a decent amount of cap room.
When people talk about the devaluation of RBs, the idea is that you repurpose that cap space elsewhere to benefit your team to a greater degree than a RB can. It's not that you should pay for a very good RB and then not use them because they don't matter.
They do matter. They're just not great investments, because they age quickly and get hurt often. This is actually a good example of why RB's are risky investments.
I know you're smarter than this. I just can't figure out why you pretend like you're not.
I was joking --plus the thread has nothing to do with cap economics. And also there is overpaying RBs like Miles Sanders (who I said wasn't that good) and weapons like Barkley. Barkley plays well when there is crap around him. Miles Sanders and many others get washed away with the tide because they aren't good enough to rise above it.
BArkley is worth the money. If you can predict the future of health more power to you. BArkley is not at the end. Not by a long shot, in my view.
I can predict that RBs get injured more than players at other positions. I can offer Barkley as evidence that he's not immune to the risks that accompany his position.
Also, just so I'm understanding this properly - health is impossible to predict, but avoiding age-based decline is easy to predict? I think you have that exactly backwards.
The greatest predictor of future injuries is past injuries. It's not perfect, but it's a pretty good indicator. And it definitely applies to Barkley. Not because he's fragile; entirely because he's a RB.
Not really disagreeing with any of this but he's still worth the 11-12 million especially on these shorter deals. Barkley brings more than the 12 million dollar vet FA WR.
And while it's obvious that RBs face a more troublesome injury path it's not that definitive or clear cut. DEs get hurt. OL get hurt. If Barkley doesn't get his ankle and body split into a pretzel maybe he does in fact play every game this season, just like last season.
This wasn't even the point I was trying to make...I was merely pointing out how stupid it is to imply that Barkley won't be missed.
@charlottecrrll
·
25m
Interesting from Brian Daboll on Saquon Barkley when asked if he's going to be out some time: "I wouldn't count on that."
Followed up on TNF: "I'm not saying that he's out yet. ... He's a quick healer. we're going to take it all the way up to Thursday with him."
This might alter SF’s prep a bit. And Seattle will likely prepare as if Saquon is playing - even though he might need another week.
Because the head coach just said it.
I think this matters way more when you’ve got a hurt QB with a completely different skillset than their backup. But that’s about it.
With or without Barkley, we aren't running on the 9ers.
You beat them with a mobile QB and attacking their secondary.
With or without Barkley, we aren't running on the 9ers.
You beat them with a mobile QB and attacking their secondary.
Exactly. Unleash the second half gameplan from Sunday and watch the tape of what the Rams (who aren't any more talented than NYG) did to the Niners. Run just enough to keep them honest.
"You never know."
Quote:
Why is this even news.......
Because the head coach just said it.
When has Daboll given out information other than generalities that you or I could have said? It's like the knight in Monty Python.
Teams will have a totally different game plan for the Giants depending on the availability of Barkley.
Barkley is still vastly underrated on BBI.
Teams will have a totally different game plan for the Giants depending on the availability of Barkley.
Barkley is still vastly underrated on BBI.
I mean, I totally get it Eric. 🙋🏻♂️
It depends how important the open slot for depth is.
Could keep SF guessing.
Teams will have a totally different game plan for the Giants depending on the availability of Barkley.
Barkley is still vastly underrated on BBI.
This has nothing to do with Barkley's impact on the offense.
This has to do with Daboll. He can say whatever he wants. The 9ers will prepare for the Giants with and without SB.
Then when we show up (without Barkley) and a full 11-player unit, SF is gonna be like "Uh oh"...
Teams will have a totally different game plan for the Giants depending on the availability of Barkley.
Barkley is still vastly underrated on BBI.
Barkley is not only player underrated by some here
So dumb.
So dumb.
Exactly.
Here's there gameplan for Barkley - let him run or catch the ball and be sure to tackle or hit him below the knee on the bad leg.
There are only three practices in a regular week.
There are only two walk-throughs this week.
The more you have to prepare for, the harder your job.
The 49ers know they will face a different offense if Barkley plays or doesn't play.
There are only three practices in a regular week.
There are only two walk-throughs this week.
The more you have to prepare for, the harder your job.
The 49ers know they will face a different offense if Barkley plays or doesn't play.
Right.
And it's the time the opponent wastes preparing for one scenario and not enough for what becomes the true scenario.
There are only three practices in a regular week.
There are only two walk-throughs this week.
The more you have to prepare for, the harder your job.
The 49ers know they will face a different offense if Barkley plays or doesn't play.
Are you suggesting this creates some kind of competitive advantage for NYG?
Trend your salaries back in the right direction, RB's! - ( New Window )
Would you rather know what your opponent is going to do or have to take into account a completely different game plan?
This isn't some sort of novel theory on my part, coaches have been doing this for decades.
"You never know."
I heard he's going to play riding a Hoveround.
Then when we show up (without Barkley) and a full 11-player unit, SF is gonna be like "Uh oh"...
When Jones comes out on the field, 10 feet tall and farting fire, they'll be running back to their locker room.
Would you rather know what your opponent is going to do or have to take into account a completely different game plan?
This isn't some sort of novel theory on my part, coaches have been doing this for decades.
In theory this makes sense, but the game plan changing is a good thing for the 49ers. The NFL is all about matchups and accounting for but not having to deal with a plus player on the field is a win.
I bet if you ask Shanahan privately if he’d rather prep for Barkley and have him not plan or prep and have him play, he’d choose the former.
Teams will have a totally different game plan for the Giants depending on the availability of Barkley.
Barkley is still vastly underrated on BBI.
Wait you didn't hear? It doesn't matter whether an all pro caliber RB plays or not. And if the Giants win, I told you all so...if they lose...well they suck anyway.
The whole RB NFL thing has made people nuts.
Put yourself in a defenders shoes. You would rather face a NYG team without Barkley. It's that simple.
Would you rather know what your opponent is going to do or have to take into account a completely different game plan?
This isn't some sort of novel theory on my part, coaches have been doing this for decades.
So your view is Daboll has indeed created a competitive advantage.
That's fine, just say it.
I don't think it's as complicated because the 9ers have likely been planning for this game for two weeks. And they should have little trouble adjusting without Barkley because of the quality of personnel they have.
I'd argue the Giants have the bigger task of adjusting their offense without Barkley.
Don't shoot the messenger.
That will show em!
I think this matters way more when you’ve got a hurt QB with a completely different skillset than their backup. But that’s about it.
I think the expectation might be that they would prepare differently for a Giants team with Barkley than without. It could change the run/pass ratio, or the types of running plays the Giants run (including more designed runs for DJ, for example), or the short yardage packages, whatever. On a short week, teams are probably forced to prioritize their preparation, and keeping Barkley at least nominally in the mix could force SF to dedicate some of their limited preparation time to two different scenarios.
I don't think we're talking about a monumental advantage here, but I can see at least some potential benefit in having Barkley serve as a decoy of sorts, in terms of SF's preparation.
Quote:
not sure why this is confusing to some.
Teams will have a totally different game plan for the Giants depending on the availability of Barkley.
Barkley is still vastly underrated on BBI.
Wait you didn't hear? It doesn't matter whether an all pro caliber RB plays or not. And if the Giants win, I told you all so...if they lose...well they suck anyway.
The whole RB NFL thing has made people nuts.
No, it matters if he plays because he's a very good player. And it matters because he represents a decent amount of cap room.
When people talk about the devaluation of RBs, the idea is that you repurpose that cap space elsewhere to benefit your team to a greater degree than a RB can. It's not that you should pay for a very good RB and then not use them because they don't matter.
They do matter. They're just not great investments, because they age quickly and get hurt often. This is actually a good example of why RB's are risky investments.
I know you're smarter than this. I just can't figure out why you pretend like you're not.
Put yourself in a defenders shoes. You would rather face a NYG team without Barkley. It's that simple.
Who is arguing against that?
Don't shoot the messenger.
It's not just Tiki. Anyone who's played sports has done and/or seen this. Since we have no idea of Barkley's true medical status, we have really have no idea of anything other than it makes no sense to rule Barkley out at this stage.
Quote:
In comment 16212954 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
not sure why this is confusing to some.
Teams will have a totally different game plan for the Giants depending on the availability of Barkley.
Barkley is still vastly underrated on BBI.
Wait you didn't hear? It doesn't matter whether an all pro caliber RB plays or not. And if the Giants win, I told you all so...if they lose...well they suck anyway.
The whole RB NFL thing has made people nuts.
No, it matters if he plays because he's a very good player. And it matters because he represents a decent amount of cap room.
When people talk about the devaluation of RBs, the idea is that you repurpose that cap space elsewhere to benefit your team to a greater degree than a RB can. It's not that you should pay for a very good RB and then not use them because they don't matter.
They do matter. They're just not great investments, because they age quickly and get hurt often. This is actually a good example of why RB's are risky investments.
I know you're smarter than this. I just can't figure out why you pretend like you're not.
I was joking --plus the thread has nothing to do with cap economics. And also there is overpaying RBs like Miles Sanders (who I said wasn't that good) and weapons like Barkley. Barkley plays well when there is crap around him. Miles Sanders and many others get washed away with the tide because they aren't good enough to rise above it.
BArkley is worth the money. If you can predict the future of health more power to you. BArkley is not at the end. Not by a long shot, in my view.
Quote:
In comment 16213069 djm said:
Quote:
In comment 16212954 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
not sure why this is confusing to some.
Teams will have a totally different game plan for the Giants depending on the availability of Barkley.
Barkley is still vastly underrated on BBI.
Wait you didn't hear? It doesn't matter whether an all pro caliber RB plays or not. And if the Giants win, I told you all so...if they lose...well they suck anyway.
The whole RB NFL thing has made people nuts.
No, it matters if he plays because he's a very good player. And it matters because he represents a decent amount of cap room.
When people talk about the devaluation of RBs, the idea is that you repurpose that cap space elsewhere to benefit your team to a greater degree than a RB can. It's not that you should pay for a very good RB and then not use them because they don't matter.
They do matter. They're just not great investments, because they age quickly and get hurt often. This is actually a good example of why RB's are risky investments.
I know you're smarter than this. I just can't figure out why you pretend like you're not.
I was joking --plus the thread has nothing to do with cap economics. And also there is overpaying RBs like Miles Sanders (who I said wasn't that good) and weapons like Barkley. Barkley plays well when there is crap around him. Miles Sanders and many others get washed away with the tide because they aren't good enough to rise above it.
BArkley is worth the money. If you can predict the future of health more power to you. BArkley is not at the end. Not by a long shot, in my view.
I can predict that RBs get injured more than players at other positions. I can offer Barkley as evidence that he's not immune to the risks that accompany his position.
Also, just so I'm understanding this properly - health is impossible to predict, but avoiding age-based decline is easy to predict? I think you have that exactly backwards.
The greatest predictor of future injuries is past injuries. It's not perfect, but it's a pretty good indicator. And it definitely applies to Barkley. Not because he's fragile; entirely because he's a RB.
One of these times the mythical fast healing Barkley is bound to show up, but the last 2 ankle sprains and ACL tear resulted in just mortal healing times.
People will say it's "Belichickian" and even if Belichick epitomizes it, it's just smart to not reveal anything other than is required by the league at the time it is required.
I don't know the 49ers will do much different with or without Barkley from a game plan standpoint because like the Giants they don't have much time to practice this week either, but I'm not volunteering anything information about anything until I have to if I am a coach.
Barkley: “I ain’t got time for swelling”
Would you rather know what your opponent is going to do or have to take into account a completely different game plan?
This isn't some sort of novel theory on my part, coaches have been doing this for decades.
At the same time, why discount the fact that the 49ers have to take into account that it’s highly likely this is complete bullshit?
Don't shoot the messenger.
If it is, indeed, "normal", I would expect him to play.
Even if he plays, he's not 100%, and will be on a snap count. Giants still have a bit of a run game sans Barkley, so they still have to plan for that.
Any way you look at it, SF has to have a balanced approach. With or without Barkley, SF can't abandon playing the run, or short yardage passing.
Quote:
In comment 16213102 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 16213069 djm said:
Quote:
In comment 16212954 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
not sure why this is confusing to some.
Teams will have a totally different game plan for the Giants depending on the availability of Barkley.
Barkley is still vastly underrated on BBI.
Wait you didn't hear? It doesn't matter whether an all pro caliber RB plays or not. And if the Giants win, I told you all so...if they lose...well they suck anyway.
The whole RB NFL thing has made people nuts.
No, it matters if he plays because he's a very good player. And it matters because he represents a decent amount of cap room.
When people talk about the devaluation of RBs, the idea is that you repurpose that cap space elsewhere to benefit your team to a greater degree than a RB can. It's not that you should pay for a very good RB and then not use them because they don't matter.
They do matter. They're just not great investments, because they age quickly and get hurt often. This is actually a good example of why RB's are risky investments.
I know you're smarter than this. I just can't figure out why you pretend like you're not.
I was joking --plus the thread has nothing to do with cap economics. And also there is overpaying RBs like Miles Sanders (who I said wasn't that good) and weapons like Barkley. Barkley plays well when there is crap around him. Miles Sanders and many others get washed away with the tide because they aren't good enough to rise above it.
BArkley is worth the money. If you can predict the future of health more power to you. BArkley is not at the end. Not by a long shot, in my view.
I can predict that RBs get injured more than players at other positions. I can offer Barkley as evidence that he's not immune to the risks that accompany his position.
Also, just so I'm understanding this properly - health is impossible to predict, but avoiding age-based decline is easy to predict? I think you have that exactly backwards.
The greatest predictor of future injuries is past injuries. It's not perfect, but it's a pretty good indicator. And it definitely applies to Barkley. Not because he's fragile; entirely because he's a RB.
Not really disagreeing with any of this but he's still worth the 11-12 million especially on these shorter deals. Barkley brings more than the 12 million dollar vet FA WR.
And while it's obvious that RBs face a more troublesome injury path it's not that definitive or clear cut. DEs get hurt. OL get hurt. If Barkley doesn't get his ankle and body split into a pretzel maybe he does in fact play every game this season, just like last season.
This wasn't even the point I was trying to make...I was merely pointing out how stupid it is to imply that Barkley won't be missed.
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )