Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Saquan Barkley Would Be A HUGE Mistake

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by JJC7301 View Post
    I just don't see the point in taking a RB with the overall # 2 pick. If we had a good o-line then maybe -- maybe -- I'd think about it, but not much even then.

    No knock against Barkley who I'm sure will be awesome.
    We don't know how the line will produce this year but getting rid of Hart and hopefully Flowers will be an improvement alone from last year.If we kept Mac and Reese, I wouldn't touch a RB at all this year including Barkley. But with DG addressing the line hopefully they will improve and adding a weapon like Barkley in the backfield we can finally score 30 points. The last two years everyone here were harping on the offense not able to score. Now we have a chance at a RB who has the potential to be the best in the NFL, who will help the team score points which we were lacking for 2 years but the same people want a QB who won't play this year.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Morehead State View Post

      Why spend the 2nd pick in the draft on a RB, when you can draft a guy like Michel at 34? You can have our QB of the future AND our RB.

      I get that you disagree but can you cite examples of great RB's winning championships in today's NFL. I can cite plenty of great QB's who have.

      I'll give you Marshon on a team that held Peyton Manning to single digits. Now who else?
      I don't buy that that argument only works for RBs. That argument either works for all positions, or it does not.

      Why spend you 2nd pick of the draft on Chubb, when you can trade down get a bunch of picks and get Landry or Davenport?

      Why spend your 2nd pick of the draft on Nelson when you can trade down and get will hernandez?

      Why spend your second pick of the draft on Sam Darnold, Josh Rosen or Josh allen when you can trade down and get baker mayfield, Mason Rudolph or Lamar Jackson?

      why spend your second pick of the draft on any player, period?

      The funny part is that i personally happen to think Barkley Is THAT much better than michel and the other guys that can be had later in the draft. Dude is special IMO.

      But history has shown that teams usually get it wrong in drafting.

      So the probability based on history, is that trading down would be the wiser move, NO MATTER WHAT THE POSITION, EXCEPT PERHAPS QB. Top 5 overall QBs have a significantly higher hit rate than later taken Qbs.

      BUT RB? Nope. Same as all the other positions. It isn't just RB.

      Just saying. I'm sick of hearing that argument only for the RB position.

      As Eddie Murphy would say:

      If you are going to believe those myths, believe all of those myths!
      Last edited by bigpoppy; 04-11-2018, 11:38 AM.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Sundown View Post
        I look at it a little differently. Teams that usually have a RB who leads the league in rushing usually are very deficient in other areas, QB, WR etc. If the offense is balanced its very unlikely the RB has a ton of carries. Personally I think there's enough touches to go around. If the offense is clicking right, YAC is really the stat id look at. If the WRs are getting 70-80 yards and touched the ball 5 times and the RB is getting 15-20 carries for 80-100yds then youre going to win a lot of games. Get a good lead, wear out their D running the rock is the ideal plan. Barkleys ability to tote the rock, block and catch is lethal and thus I have no problem if the Giants take him at 2. If they trade back cool. If they take Darnold cool so long the offense is predicated on YAC and ball control I'm cool with it
        Exactly. The notion that a top versatile RB "steals" touches from the other "weapons" is ridiculous. When you get first downs and control T.O.P., the other players will actually get more touches, with less pressure to perform miracles on each attempt. And your team's defense then doesn't get worn down, gains confidence, and can be geared up for making the plays that make the difference in games and winning in the post season.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Morehead State View Post

          That's right. "Who was his QB"?

          You need a QB. It's a QB's league.

          And are you suggesting that the last 14 years is a "small data set"? I even looked down the lists of rushing leaders. Even among the top 5 every year almost none went to a SB.
          And I went back 14 years only. I'll bet if you went further you'd see the same thing. But ultimately what matters is what's going on in today's NFL. With today's rules. rules that favor the passing game.
          Having a good running game is very helpful to win. But having a "great" running back isn't. There are too many temptations to feed that back and make them the centerpiece of the offense.
          It rarely works. I will say that Marshon Lynch was important to the Seattle SB win. But that defense was going to win that championship regardless of who the RB was.

          but Marshon seems to be the rare exception.
          If you are making the case QB is more important than RB then you are 100% correct, no one in their right mind would argue that. The question here is whether one of THESE QBs will be more beneficial to a team than Barkley. We don't know that answer. Fact is if we take Barkley we are operating under the assumption our guys didn't like any of the QBs, if they like a QB they will take him. Barkley, Chubb, Nelson or anyone else won't change that fact. So the real question becomes is Barkley a better option than Nelson, Chubb or some other non-QB.

          Not only is 14 years of one RB a small data set, it is the incorrect data set. You are simply looking at the league leaders is rushing yards, instead of looking at specifically how teams won. For instance the Pats with the Tom Brady throwing 50 TDs lost the SB, but with TB throwing 28 TDs and Blount rushing for 18 they won the SB. Rushing was important to them. Being balanced is key, simply being able to pass does not win Super Bowls. If you are going to be great in one dimension it has to be defense, that is the only 1 dimensional way to win the Super Bowl.

          How many league leading passers have won the Super Bowl? ZERO. That is going back to 1966. Does that mean having a QB that can throw the ball is bad? No of course not.

          How many league leading WRs have won the Super Bowl? Two. That is also going back to 1966. Drew Pearson in '77 and Jerry Rice twice '89 and '94.

          Like I said, being the league leader doesn't mean anything, because it takes balance to win. Always has, always will. You claim taking Barkley would be a huge mistake and then base that claim on "QBs are more important". The assumption is we would pass on a QB we think is great for Barkley, which simply won't happen. Taking the wrong QB would be even worse than taking Barkley.
          LT (132.5) -> Strahan (141.5) -> Osi (65) -> Tuck (60.5) -> JPP (50) -> ???
          "Next man up"

          "I am a nasty football player, I get after people. That is something that I am very proud of. I am out there and I am physical every play, making sure that the guy across from me wants to quit." - Adam Bisnowaty

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Morehead State View Post

            Why spend the 2nd pick in the draft on a RB, when you can draft a guy like Michel at 34? You can have our QB of the future AND our RB.

            I get that you disagree but can you cite examples of great RB's winning championships in today's NFL. I can cite plenty of great QB's who have.

            I'll give you Marshon on a team that held Peyton Manning to single digits. Now who else?
            What QB in this draft is going to be great though? If you know that QB WILL be great, than by all means take him. But its a sure thing Barkley would have a huge and immediate impact on this team.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by jimmie ray View Post

              Exactly. The notion that a top versatile RB "steals" touches from the other "weapons" is ridiculous. When you get first downs and control T.O.P., the other players will actually get more touches, with less pressure to perform miracles on each attempt. And your team's defense then doesn't get worn down, gains confidence, and can be geared up for making the plays that make the difference in games and winning in the post season.
              The better question though, is who gives you a better offense, Quentin Nelson plus later round RB or Saquon barkley, plus later round Guard.

              I'm not sure anyone can answer that question. I'd probably pick Nelson because I'd expect him to be around at least 10 years and less risk of injury at the guard position. I'd also think that any RB can run behind a good line, but every RB will struggle behind a bad line.

              On the other side of the argument, Barkely is a home un threat and passing threat which can be the difference betwene winning and losing. It is not an easy thing to quantify and it is anybody's guess i suppose.

              Personally I'd probably flip a coin and pick Nelson anyway LOL


              2 cents

              Comment


              • #52
                I'm going to ask everybody...and I'm really interested in the answer.
                Show me any kind of trend where top RB's win SB's in today's NFL with today's rules.

                I can't find it. the one exception would be Lynch but that was an all time great defense with a great QB. The QB is the thing.

                And it's not a "causation v. correlation" thing either. there is a specific reason they don't win. It's a QB driven league. You need a QB to win. A great RB and a great QB rarely coexist. Once you have a great QB, the passing games takes precedence. Making a great RB expendable. When you have a great RB, he needs to be fed the ball, taking away the importance of the QB.

                It's really a catch 22 type thing. Almost every SB team over the past 15 years or so have had RB that share carries. It doesn't mean a running game isn't a great asset, but a great RB can detract from a balanced, dynamic offense.

                The ability of Saquan Barkley to help us win, is no greater than another back taken later. It's about who will help us WIN.

                The ONLY criteria is winning.
                Deny everything. Admit nothing. Make counter accusations.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Morehead State View Post
                  I'm going to ask everybody...and I'm really interested in the answer.
                  Show me any kind of trend where top RB's win SB's in today's NFL with today's rules.

                  I can't find it. the one exception would be Lynch but that was an all time great defense with a great QB. The QB is the thing.

                  And it's not a "causation v. correlation" thing either. there is a specific reason they don't win. It's a QB driven league. You need a QB to win. A great RB and a great QB rarely coexist. Once you have a great QB, the passing games takes precedence. Making a great RB expendable. When you have a great RB, he needs to be fed the ball, taking away the importance of the QB.

                  It's really a catch 22 type thing. Almost every SB team over the past 15 years or so have had RB that share carries. It doesn't mean a running game isn't a great asset, but a great RB can detract from a balanced, dynamic offense.

                  The ability of Saquan Barkley to help us win, is no greater than another back taken later. It's about who will help us WIN.

                  The ONLY criteria is winning.
                  That is what you think. other folks firmly believe the opposite. Plus you have an i hate eli, do anything to get rid of eli agenda working in your subconscious, making you biased!

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by bigpoppy View Post

                    The better question though, is who gives you a better offense, Quentin Nelson plus later round RB or Saquon barkley, plus later round Guard.

                    I'm not sure anyone can answer that question. I'd probably pick Nelson because I'd expect him to be around at least 10 years and less risk of injury at the guard position. I'd also think that any RB can run behind a good line, but every RB will struggle behind a bad line.

                    On the other side of the argument, Barkely is a home un threat and passing threat which can be the difference betwene winning and losing. It is not an easy thing to quantify and it is anybody's guess i suppose.

                    Personally I'd probably flip a coin and pick Nelson anyway LOL


                    2 cents
                    I'd be very happy seeing a road grader type lineman drafted, especially hearing that he too is deemed NFL ready. But there will be continued wheeling and dealing, and who says we can't possibly wind up with both, or another decent guard in FA? One of the biggest knocks on investing too much in a top RB is how many miles they have will left upon entering FA - so doesn't it make sense to acquire one fresh from college, if he doesn't look to need any development time?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Morehead State View Post
                      Show me any kind of trend where top RB's win SB's in today's NFL with today's rules.

                      The ability of Saquan Barkley to help us win, is no greater than another back taken later. It's about who will help us WIN.

                      The ONLY criteria is winning.
                      How do you define "top RB"? I guess the league leader in rushing TDs doesn't count so I'll need more info from you.
                      Can you show me the same trend with top WRs? I'll do one better 1 of the last 5 SBs were won by a 1st round QB and he needed an amazing Defense to do it.

                      That's a nice opinion on Barkley but I disagree. Having a back that can run, catch and block is extremely important, especially in today's pass first world. I agree winning is everything.
                      LT (132.5) -> Strahan (141.5) -> Osi (65) -> Tuck (60.5) -> JPP (50) -> ???
                      "Next man up"

                      "I am a nasty football player, I get after people. That is something that I am very proud of. I am out there and I am physical every play, making sure that the guy across from me wants to quit." - Adam Bisnowaty

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Morehead State View Post
                        I'm going to ask everybody...and I'm really interested in the answer.
                        Show me any kind of trend where top RB's win SB's in today's NFL with today's rules.

                        I can't find it. the one exception would be Lynch but that was an all time great defense with a great QB. The QB is the thing.

                        And it's not a "causation v. correlation" thing either. there is a specific reason they don't win. It's a QB driven league. You need a QB to win. A great RB and a great QB rarely coexist. Once you have a great QB, the passing games takes precedence. Making a great RB expendable. When you have a great RB, he needs to be fed the ball, taking away the importance of the QB.

                        It's really a catch 22 type thing. Almost every SB team over the past 15 years or so have had RB that share carries. It doesn't mean a running game isn't a great asset, but a great RB can detract from a balanced, dynamic offense.

                        The ability of Saquan Barkley to help us win, is no greater than another back taken later. It's about who will help us WIN.

                        The ONLY criteria is winning.
                        I'm a little confused. Are you arguing taking Barkley at 2 is a mistake or taking Barkley vs a QB is a mistake?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by TCHOF View Post

                          So we go from 3-13 to 7-9 with Barkley and then what do we do for a QB in 2 years?

                          Wait ... let me guess ... Davis Webb?
                          He could be a sleeper.
                          Because of all of the effort and examination being poured into these predictions, the draft is a robust market that, in the aggregate, does a good job of sorting prospects from top to bottom.1 Yet despite so many people trying to “beat the market,” no single actor can do it consistently. Abnormal returns are likely due to luck, not skill. But that hasn’t stopped NFL executives from behaving with the confidence of traders.

                          http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...eat-the-draft/

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Ill be honest, Id rather draft Nelson at #2 over Barkley. Id rather attempt to build the OLine to help our offense over getting a RB.

                            These games are mostly decided in the trenches which is why having Odell isnt equaling wins.

                            Of course I hope we go QB though because the QB is the number 1 priority for this team with a 37 year old aging QB coming off a 3-13 season. .
                            Last edited by TheAnalyst; 04-11-2018, 12:13 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Sundown View Post

                              I'm a little confused. Are you arguing taking Barkley at 2 is a mistake or taking Barkley vs a QB is a mistake?
                              I'm saying taking Barkley at #2 is a mistake. If they aren't taking a QB I would want them to draft Chubb or trade out.
                              Deny everything. Admit nothing. Make counter accusations.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by IrishMike357 View Post
                                How do you define "top RB"? I guess the league leader in rushing TDs doesn't count so I'll need more info from you.
                                Can you show me the same trend with top WRs? I'll do one better 1 of the last 5 SBs were won by a 1st round QB and he needed an amazing Defense to do it.

                                That's a nice opinion on Barkley but I disagree. Having a back that can run, catch and block is extremely important, especially in today's pass first world. I agree winning is everything.
                                Everyone is telling us here that Barkley is some kind of "transformative" talent. So I'm talking about the best of the best. Top three RB's in the league.

                                I can't find any that have even been to a SB since 2005. I can give you a long list of top 3 QB's that have.
                                Deny everything. Admit nothing. Make counter accusations.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X