Can the Giants ever win a SB with Barkley taking 90% of the snaps

[AZGiantFan]

Absolutely, not to get off topic but if there was a RB that was that much bigger than defensive players today then yeah Jim Brown would be a good comparison.  But since they aren't it's pointless.

Our own Brandon Jacobs is the closest size comparison I can think of, but he didn't have the speed, moves, or competitive spirit that Brown had.  That doesn't take anything away from Jacobs because very very few players can be all-time greats.

[coggs]

I am still trying to figure out the point of this thread.  Is the OP trying to say that Barkley is not as dominant a player as Jim Brown was during his day?  I don't think anyone here would disagree.

Now, let's look at the 90%.  As per profootball-reference.com, the Giants ran 1089 offensive plays last season.  Now, I can't find anything that indicates the total number of plays Barkley was on the field.  However, for him to have played NINETY PERCENT OF THE SNAPS, that means he was on the field for 980 plays.  Sorry, but that just doesn't sound right.  Barkley had 295 carries and was targeted 76 times.  So, that is a total of 371 plays were he either had the ball or the QB tried to get him the ball.  Is the OP saying that Barkley was on the field for 609 plays where he was just a decoy?  Again, that just doesn't seem possible. 

So, MAYBE JUST MAYBE, the OP meant that Barkley had 90% of the carries?  Again, doesn't seem right.  So give me a moment while I check profootball-reference.com again.  Please hold.  OK, I am back. The Giants as a team had 520 rushing attempts.  Well, that means Barkley had 56.7% of the attempts. 

Well, MAYBE JUST MAYBE, the OP meant that Barkley had 90% of the rushing attempts BY RB'S?  Well, Jones had 120 rushing attempts.  Brieda had 54 and Brightwell had 31.  Webb, Taylor, James, Robinson, Toney, Gillan, and Bellinger combined for 20.  So, the RB's had 380 attempts.  Well, 90% of 380 is 342, which is more than the amount of Barkley's carries.  For those curious, Barkley had 77.6% of the rushing attempts BY RB's.

[PSUBeirut]

I am still trying to figure out the point of this thread.  Is the OP trying to say that Barkley is not as dominant a player as Jim Brown was during his day?  I don't think anyone here would disagree.

Now, let's look at the 90%.  As per profootball-reference.com, the Giants ran 1089 offensive plays last season.  Now, I can't find anything that indicates the total number of plays Barkley was on the field.  However, for him to have played NINETY PERCENT OF THE SNAPS, that means he was on the field for 980 plays.  Sorry, but that just doesn't sound right.  Barkley had 295 carries and was targeted 76 times.  So, that is a total of 371 plays were he either had the ball or the QB tried to get him the ball.  Is the OP saying that Barkley was on the field for 609 plays where he was just a decoy?  Again, that just doesn't seem possible. 

So, MAYBE JUST MAYBE, the OP meant that Barkley had 90% of the carries?  Again, doesn't seem right.  So give me a moment while I check profootball-reference.com again.  Please hold.  OK, I am back. The Giants as a team had 520 rushing attempts.  Well, that means Barkley had 56.7% of the attempts. 

Well, MAYBE JUST MAYBE, the OP meant that Barkley had 90% of the rushing attempts BY RB'S?  Well, Jones had 120 rushing attempts.  Brieda had 54 and Brightwell had 31.  Webb, Taylor, James, Robinson, Toney, Gillan, and Bellinger combined for 20.  So, the RB's had 380 attempts.  Well, 90% of 380 is 342, which is more than the amount of Barkley's carries.  For those curious, Barkley had 77.6% of the rushing attempts BY RB's.

I decided not to engage, but if you really want to go down a rabbit hole- look up the guy he is holding up as the example of a bellcow RB, doing it all on his own- Jim Brown.  His percentages are actually strikingly similar to what you just looked up about Barkley.  That was the actual point of the thread, before it slid into chaos.   

[BluesCruz]

Never mind

Pointless to critique our use of Barkley. It's pointless

To those who never witnessed Brown, describing him seems pointless too.
Picture Brandon Jacobs with the moves of Barry Sanders.   

Actually there was one guy who could be compared somewhat to Brown.   Eric Dickerson

To be honest with the pass weapons we now have our offense hopefully becomes much more pass oriented. One can only hope

[uconnjack8]

Snap counts and percentage. 

[kartanoman]

Eras matter. 

Jim Brown was the size of the average linemen in his day.  Today that would be a guy that could move like him at 300lbs.

From the looks of the chart, LBs got bigger towards the middle to end of his career, which I am sure is not a coincidence. He was literally bigger than almost all the players on the field and today he would be a slightly above average size RB.

I am sure he would have been good today, but I highly doubt he would have been dominating in the way he was then. 

I never saw Babe Ruth but I doubt he would have gotten a 38-42 oz bat around on a 95 MPH pitch.

I know we all love to be nostalgic about great players from our youth but there is a reality to the size and speed of the players in today's game that is remarkably different than that of 70 years ago.

Forget Jim Brown. I would love to know how Marion Motley would have stacked up in today's game. He might be the only one, other than Jim Brown, who would put fear in the opponent and force you to buckle your chinstrap and check it twice.

Both these runners had great vision and ability to literally stay a step ahead of the defenders. Joe "The Jet" Perry might be considered another. How would they transcend today's game? It would be an amazing sight to see.

Peace!

[uconnjack8]

Goodness now they are doubting the Babe.......hilarious.   I'm still waiting for Judge to "Call his shot" LOL

Yes doubting he would have been successful against today's pitching....or evennlate 60's pitching.  Guy swung a bay that's like a half pound heavier than today's, but I guess in your mind he was so good that he could avoid the laws of physics

[Rambo89]

Never mind

Pointless to critique our use of Barkley. It's pointless

To those who never witnessed Brown, describing him seems pointless too.
Picture Brandon Jacobs with the moves of Barry Sanders.   

Actually there was one guy who could be compared somewhat to Brown.   Eric Dickerson

To be honest with the pass weapons we now have our offense hopefully becomes much more pass oriented. One can only hope

Not even Brandon Jacobs had the size advantage Brown did.  So yes era's matter.  The athletes players are competing against matter.  The rules of the game at the time matter.  You could say that Brown had a size and skill advantage over his competition that no player has ever had but you can't say that he would be just as dominant in this era when the players are significantly bigger and more skilled and the rules are different than they were in his era.

[BluesCruz]

Not even Brandon Jacobs had the size advantage Brown did.  So yes era's matter.  The athletes players are competing against matter.  The rules of the game at the time matter.  You could say that Brown had a size and skill advantage over his competition that no player has ever had but you can't say that he would be just as dominant in this era when the players are significantly bigger and more skilled and the rules are different than they were in his era.

tell that to 230 lbs Sam Huff, 285 lb 6 foot 5 Rosie Greer, Ray Nitsche, Jack Stroud, Rosie Brown

on average they might not have been bigger (many were though) but they were leaner, meaner, and didnt spend alot of time in the trainers room

most didnt lift a lot of weights, so they were not as muscule bound.  Tight muscule rips easier.

you didnt see the sloppy overhanging bellies you see today on lineman- they moved faster, hit harder

Larry Wilson weighed 170 lbs and regularly knocked guys out with his patented shoulder punch

The league was much smaller (less teams) then and the result was only the creme of the crop got on rosters

Having present day bias is understandable but its not realistic.    There were huge players back in the day like Deacon Jones, Jerry Kramer, Bob Lilly etc    the difference was the old timers were generally in better shape, more flexible in their movements  and in many instances more talented.....they played a much rougher game

Modern rules have tried to take away the visciousness the old timers played with.  NightTrain Lane screwing someones head off by the face guard just would not be televised nowadays.....

the player pool is huge today with 32 teams and thus diluted

Id guess the 1972 Green Bay Packers would still win the league championship today and it might not be close
But you would have to play by the 1972 rule book.

What about the 1985 Bears?   Playing in the 2000's does not mean they are better players than the old timers

You want to talk speed both Bob Hayes and Homer Jones ran a sub 10 second 100 yd dash.  Im not sure any players today have that kind of speed

Tough?  Those old guys played incredibly rough.  I remember Chuck Bednarick almost killed Frank Gifford on a perfectly legal hit. 

Todays players are good, but saying they would have survived back then- I'm not sure.

As for Babe Ruth not being able to hit todays pitching.....guy used to clock spitballs all day long.
He once hit a ball 660 ft in a Grapefruit League game.  And that was the dead ball era

Who today could hit a ball that far?   How about no one

[BluesCruz]

Not even Brandon Jacobs had the size advantage Brown did.  So yes era's matter.  The athletes players are competing against matter.  The rules of the game at the time matter.  You could say that Brown had a size and skill advantage over his competition that no player has ever had but you can't say that he would be just as dominant in this era when the players are significantly bigger and more skilled and the rules are different than they were in his era.

Bigger yes on average not individually
More Skilled??  Duhh, why would todays players be more skilled?  Were the old guys just not capable?
Makes no sense that argument.

Do today's QBs have more skill than Unitas?  Joe Montana?  Roger Staubach?

Name on "skilled" player today that just blows away the Hall of Famers?  Does not compute

I'll ask Chat GPT

[coggs]

Snap counts and percentage. 

cool, thank you.  Where did you find this?

[uconnjack8]

cool, thank you.  Where did you find this?

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nyg/2022-snap-counts.htm

[Painter]

This is about Saquon Barkley, his workload and production, in what has been 3 healthy seasons of 5 amounting to 60 of 80 regular season games- he did not play at all in Game 17 against the Eagles. It has nothing to with Jim Brown or Walter Payton, or even Emmitt Smith for that matter.

The issues are whether he was given too heavy a workload, last season which adversely affected his performance as the season wore on and, if so, whether we will see changes due to shared/lesser responsibility whether or not with changes in the nature and style of Offense.

Quite remarkably, Saquon Barkley had an identical number of touches 352-from 261 rushes + 91 receptions in his first season 2018 as he did last season 5 years later when he rushed  295 times but caught fewer passes 57 in  16 games. He did not play in the last regular season game against Philly.

And if you like even more coincidence, how about McCaffery's 244 rushes and 108 receptions also totaling 352. Seems like a bookies' nightmare.

Some folks seem convinced that Barkley was somehow worn down as the season progressed, but the more I study not just the schedule but the games themselves, the less obvious it seems to me. While, it does seem a bit unusual that Saquon had just 9 rushing attempts in each of the 2 playoff games, it wasn't as if he looked worn out. The Offense in the PO win against the Vikings was centered heavily on Daniel Jones with 35 passes and 17 runs. As for the total butt-kicking they got from the Eagles in the Division Championship, it's hardly worth discussion.

Still, there seems little doubt that Barkley is among 3 or 4 of the most heavily worked Running Backs in the League, Whether we are talking about touches or snaps, there aren't many in which he's not involved whether he's actually carrying or catching as he's just as likely to be pass blocking, or faking, or running a route whether he's the target or not.

I suppose that leads to the questions, must that change to have continuing success- not going to talk of Super Bowls-and if so, will it, and in what way? That is, of course, assuming the parties reach a deal on a 3 or 4 year extension.

In any case, there is little doubt that, if it can stay reasonably healthy, the Receiver Corps from TE through the 3 WR slots is now much improved in depth, speed, and versatility. I can see that leading to- I won't say conventional- but a more aggressive, downfield passing Offense which if successful could result in a 25-30% reduction in Barkley's touches which at least for now could compensate for not having a legitimate rotational/ backup Running Back that we know of.

A little wordier than I'd like but those are my early thoughts on the matter. 

Cheers!

[BluesCruz]

This is about Saquon Barkley, his workload and production, in what has been 3 healthy seasons of 5 amounting to 60 of 80 regular season games- he did not play at all in Game 17 against the Eagles. It has nothing to with Jim Brown or Waler Payton, or even Emmitt Smith for that matter.

The issues are whether he was given too heavy a workload, last season which adversely affected his performance as the season wore on and, if so, whether we will see changes due to shared/lesser responsibility whether or not with changes in the nature and style of Offense.

Quite remarkably, Saquon Barkley had an identical number of touches 352-from 261 rushes + 91 receptions in his first season 2018 as he did last season 5 years later when he rushed  295 times but caught fewer passes 57 in  16 games. He did not play in the last regular season game against Philly.

And if you like even more coincidence, how about McCaffery's 244 rushes and 108 receptions also totaling 352. Seems like a bookies' nightmare.

Some folks seem convinced that Barkley was somehow worn down as the season progressed, but the more I study not just the schedule but the games themselves, the less obvious it seems to me. While, it does seem a bit unusual that Saquon had just 9 rushing attempts in each of the 2 playoff games, it wasn't as if he looked worn out. The Offense in the PO win against the Vikings was centered heavily on Daniel Jones with 35 passes and 17 runs. As for the total butt-kicking they got from the Eagles in the Division Championship, it's hardly worth discussion.

Still, there seems little doubt that Barkley is among 3 or 4 of the most heavily worked Running Backs in the League, Whether we are talking about touches or snaps, there aren't many in which he's not involved whether he's actually carrying or catching as he's just as likely to be pass blocking, or faking, or running a route whether he's the target or not.

I suppose that leads to the questions, must that change to have continuing success- not going to talk of Super Bowls-and if so, will it, and in what way? That is, of course, assuming the parties reach a deal on a 3 or 4 year extension.

In any case, there is little doubt that, if it can stay reasonably healthy, the Receiver Corps from TE through the 3 WR slots is now much improved in depth, speed, and versatility. I can see that leading to- I won't say conventional- but a more aggressive, downfield passing Offense which if successful could result in a 25-30% reduction in Barkley's touches which at least for now could compensate for not having a legitimate rotational/ backup Running Back that we know of.

A little wordier than I'd like but those are my early thoughts on the matter. 

Cheers!

You know Barkley actually looked good running out of the shotgun.
His biggest issue is slow off the mark and too much indecision

From the shotgun he could see the field and gained a few micro seconds free from worrying about the hand off

Th defense had no time to react and that played into Barkley's game

As the season wore on the unorthodox plays went bye-bye.  I hope they bring them back.

Now if Barkley could actually throw an occasional pass out of that shotgun formation, that would be cool.

[Jclayton92]

This is about Saquon Barkley, his workload and production, in what has been 3 healthy seasons of 5 amounting to 60 of 80 regular season games- he did not play at all in Game 17 against the Eagles. It has nothing to with Jim Brown or Waler Payton, or even Emmitt Smith for that matter.

The issues are whether he was given too heavy a workload, last season which adversely affected his performance as the season wore on and, if so, whether we will see changes due to shared/lesser responsibility whether or not with changes in the nature and style of Offense.

Quite remarkably, Saquon Barkley had an identical number of touches 352-from 261 rushes + 91 receptions in his first season 2018 as he did last season 5 years later when he rushed  295 times but caught fewer passes 57 in  16 games. He did not play in the last regular season game against Philly.

And if you like even more coincidence, how about McCaffery's 244 rushes and 108 receptions also totaling 352. Seems like a bookies' nightmare.

Some folks seem convinced that Barkley was somehow worn down as the season progressed, but the more I study not just the schedule but the games themselves, the less obvious it seems to me. While, it does seem a bit unusual that Saquon had just 9 rushing attempts in each of the 2 playoff games, it wasn't as if he looked worn out. The Offense in the PO win against the Vikings was centered heavily on Daniel Jones with 35 passes and 17 runs. As for the total butt-kicking they got from the Eagles in the Division Championship, it's hardly worth discussion.

Still, there seems little doubt that Barkley is among 3 or 4 of the most heavily worked Running Backs in the League, Whether we are talking about touches or snaps, there aren't many in which he's not involved whether he's actually carrying or catching as he's just as likely to be pass blocking, or faking, or running a route whether he's the target or not.

I suppose that leads to the questions, must that change to have continuing success- not going to talk of Super Bowls-and if so, will it, and in what way? That is, of course, assuming the parties reach a deal on a 3 or 4 year extension.

In any case, there is little doubt that, if it can stay reasonably healthy, the Receiver Corps from TE through the 3 WR slots is now much improved in depth, speed, and versatility. I can see that leading to- I won't say conventional- but a more aggressive, downfield passing Offense which if successful could result in a 25-30% reduction in Barkley's touches which at least for now could compensate for not having a legitimate rotational/ backup Running Back that we know of.

A little wordier than I'd like but those are my early thoughts on the matter. 

Cheers!

I think he had a few nagging injuries from the Texans game until the end of the season that gave the perception he was gassed. He did have a heavy workload, so here's hoping with the Rookie Barkley stays fresh enough to be an impact throughout. Plus it doesn't hurt that we have actual weapons other than him now to gameplan against.