DONT hand it to Barkley

[DaveBrown74]

Putting the specific example of Barkley aside for a moment and simply speaking more generally, I strongly believe we need to get with the times in terms of how we view and manage the RB position on this team. RB in today's NFL is not only a young man's game (26 and younger), but it is more about having real depth at the position and constantly continuing to replenish it with young, cheap, fresh, healthy players. It's also about having different RBs in the room who have different styles that suit different game situations.

We have all heard the now tired phrase "running back by committee." It may be tired, but it is very clearly how successful teams in the modern NFL approach the position, and there is a reason for that. We talk about Barkley being injury-prone, and he is, but the whole position is frankly injury-prone. It is also a highly fungible position, where you can reliably get very good to great players in the second round almost every year and at least solid (and not infrequently great) players in the mid rounds every year. So why would you ever invest hugely in one single RB, especially one who is getting older and who is constantly getting hurt? Where is the logic in that?

If the Giants keep Barkley rather than using one or more of their non-first round picks to get younger and cheaper (and possibly even better) at the position, and he either plays for $12mm on the tag or is given some contract where they're tied to him for at least two years, I think emotion, not reason, will be the primary driver of that decision. This idea that the offense can't operate without him is pure hogwash. 31 offenses in the NFL operate without him, and we're the 32nd best offense (ie the absolute worst). So I'm pretty sure we can manage without him if we make the necessary changes and upgrades where they are most needed.

[kartanoman]

I like Barkley as a player as well as a person.

Having said that, referring back to the missed 4th and two (2) run, it makes me long for the days of having a Brandon Jacobs on the team again. Who can forget the 2007 Divisional Playoff when, near the goal line, the whole Texas Stadium knew Brandon was getting the ball and the Cowboys weren't stopping him. The big guy plowed over them for the winning points then smashed the play clock with the football, taking out a few lights while the entire Chicken Fried Nation (to borrow Mr. Larry's great descriptor of them) gasped then went silent.

Granted, with the offensive line in its current condition, a Jacobs might not get that two yards either. But he sure got the yards when they counted most (see Super Bowl XLII final drive).

Fix the damn line, once and for all! Get the best coaching in the land, the best talent without constraining your salary cap and figure out what your philosophy on offense is going to be, Coach Daboll. Then, figure out your QB situation and find yourself a Brandon Jacobs clone!

Peace!

[PSUBeirut]

Putting the specific example of Barkley aside for a moment and simply speaking more generally, I strongly believe we need to get with the times in terms of how we view and manage the RB position on this team. RB in today's NFL is not only a young man's game (26 and younger), but it is more about having real depth at the position and constantly continuing to replenish it with young, cheap, fresh, healthy players. It's also about having different RBs in the room who have different styles that suit different game situations.

We have all heard the now tired phrase "running back by committee." It may be tired, but it is very clearly how successful teams in the modern NFL approach the position, and there is a reason for that. We talk about Barkley being injury-prone, and he is, but the whole position is frankly injury-prone. It is also a highly fungible position, where you can reliably get very good to great players in the second round almost every year and at least solid (and not infrequently great) players in the mid rounds every year. So why would you ever invest hugely in one single RB, especially one who is getting older and who is constantly getting hurt? Where is the logic in that?

Let's take a less general approach then and look league wide.  Would you consider any of these teams "successful in the modern NFL"?

Cincinnati Bengals - Joe Mixon as clear lead back (163 touches, next RB 15)
Dallas Cowboys - Tony Pollard clear lead back (164 touches, next RB 54 and gathered many in blowouts of the Giants...)
San Francisco 49ers - Christian McCaffrey clear lead back (191 touches, next RB 33)
Kansas City Chiefs - much less of a committee approach this year.  Pacheco has 148 touches and next RB has 39
Philadelphia Eagles - Swift has 165 touches and Gainwell has 69. 
Jacksonville Jaguars - Etienne 189(!!) touches and next guy up 27

So, I guess I'd question your entire premise.  It very much seems that most if not all successful teams this year prefer a clear lead back instead of any kind of RB by committee approach.  Detroit is the only very good team I can think of that is more of a pure committee approach- and honestly I think they came to it grudgingly when Montgomery got hurt and Gibbs was able to shine.  Before that it was pretty clear that Campbell wanted to primarily ride with Montgomery.  Miami might be another potential example but it's hard to tell with Achane being injured.

[DaveBrown74]

Let's take a less general approach then and look league wide.  Would you consider any of these teams "successful in the modern NFL"?

Cincinnati Bengals - Joe Mixon as clear lead back (163 touches, next RB 15)
Dallas Cowboys - Tony Pollard clear lead back (164 touches, next RB 54 and gathered many in blowouts of the Giants...)
San Francisco 49ers - Christian McCaffrey clear lead back (191 touches, next RB 33)
Kansas City Chiefs - much less of a committee approach this year.  Pacheco has 148 touches and next RB has 39
Philadelphia Eagles - Swift has 165 touches and Gainwell has 69. 
Jacksonville Jaguars - Etienne 189(!!) touches and next guy up 27

So, I guess I'd question your entire premise.  It very much seems that most if not all successful teams this year prefer a clear lead back instead of any kind of RB by committee approach.  Detroit is the only very good team I can think of that is more of a pure committee approach- and honestly I think they came to it grudgingly when Montgomery got hurt and Gibbs was able to shine.  Before that it was pretty clear that Campbell wanted to primarily ride with Montgomery.  Miami might be another potential example but it's hard to tell with Achane being injured.

Cost is a big part of the equation that you're ignoring in the above examples, and that was really the main part of my point. How much is Pacheco making? How much of McCaffrey's contract did the 9ers have to pick up themselves? D'Andre Swift makes less than $2mm. Etienne is on a rookie deal. Pollard is on the tag, and they cut Zeke, and I think any Cowboys fan would tell you the Zeke contract was a disaster. Mixon is really the only one that remotely suits the point I think you're trying to make, and he makes like $5.5mm ish, which is a lot less than what you were advocating paying Barkley last spring.

How teams distribute carries is one thing, but the point is that a lot of these teams avoid getting trapped into big second contracts with guys. It's just not something you see the leading franchises do much of anymore.

[PSUBeirut]

Cost is a big part of the equation that you're ignoring in the above examples, and that was really the main part of my point. How much is Pacheco making? How much of McCaffrey's contract did the 9ers have to pick up themselves? D'Andre Swift makes less than $2mm. Etienne is on a rookie deal. Pollard is on the tag, and they cut Zeke, and I think any Cowboys fan would tell you the Zeke contract was a disaster. Mixon is really the only one that remotely suits the point I think you're trying to make, and he makes like $5.5mm ish, which is a lot less than what you were advocating paying Barkley last spring.

How teams distribute carries is one thing, but the point is that a lot of these teams avoid getting trapped into big second contracts with guys. It's just not something you see the leading franchises do much of anymore.

I actually agree with you here about resources and spending.  I guess what I'm questioning, again, is your premise that successful teams run a RB by committee approach.  I think that's an easy thing to say and seems to be common thinking around here when discussing Barkley- but I just don't think it's actually true. Successful teams listed above clearly lean toward having a primary RB with a potential change of pace or depth pieces behind them in case of injury -  Would you not agree?  Maybe the "RB by committee" approach is more myth than reality?   

Maybe instead of thinking about a "RB by committee" the focus should be about how to most effectively find and invest in a good primary RB, with good young depth behind them.  Unique to the Giants situation, I can see the side of the argument that would say - We already have a good lead RB that is a team captain, so why dump Saquon to find either another vet to play that role or to invest draft resources that could go to a plethora of different/higher needs on this roster, when you already have the primary RB position taken care of with Barkley? 

Sure, you'd be saving money but now you're rolling the dice on a drafted RB (and I haven't researched this year's RB crop but I assume there's some good ones out there) or still paying $$$ for a good vet (although likely not as much as what you'd be paying Saquon).  So I'd say these are all the interesting layers to this and it's not as cut and dry as you and others often like to paint it.

[DaveBrown74]

I actually agree with you here about resources and spending.  I guess what I'm questioning, again, is your premise that successful teams run a RB by committee approach.  I think that's an easy thing to say and seems to be common thinking around here when discussing Barkley- but I just don't think it's actually true. Successful teams listed above clearly lean toward having a primary RB with a potential change of pace or depth pieces behind them in case of injury -  Would you not agree?  Maybe the "RB by committee" approach is more myth than reality?   

Maybe instead of thinking about a "RB by committee" the focus should be about how to most effectively find and invest in a good primary RB, with good young depth behind them.  Unique to the Giants situation, I can see the side of the argument that would say - We already have a good lead RB that is a team captain, so why dump Saquon to find either another vet to play that role or to invest draft resources that could go to a plethora of different/higher needs on this roster, when you already have the primary RB position taken care of with Barkley? 

Sure, you'd be saving money but now you're rolling the dice on a drafted RB (and I haven't researched this year's RB crop but I assume there's some good ones out there) or still paying $$$ for a good vet (although likely not as much as what you'd be paying Saquon).  So I'd say these are all the interesting layers to this and it's not as cut and dry as you and others often like to paint it.

Fair points. If you have a handful of RBs (say three), and one is clearly performing better than the others, then it's not only reasonable, but smart, to direct more/most of the touches his way. I know I did not articulate that clearly in my earlier post, but I do agree with that and am fully supportive of that. My point was more around cost-allocation and depth. I would prefer that the Giants be in a position where an injury to one RB, even the best one, while obviously not great, is not a complete disaster the way it has been since we drafted Barkley. I mean the Ravens lost Dobbins and they have continued to be functional. The Rams lost Akers that one year and it wasn't the end of the world. The Eagles constantly had Miles Sanders getting hurt and they have always had other options. Heck the Browns lost the great Nick Chubb early in the season and they had Jerome Ford waiting in the wings and have survived with him. Obviously the Pats (who I realize suck now but were elite for a long time) always had that depth/committee approach. They were the first to figure it out.

I failed to articulate that by "committee" I didn't mean that you automatically have to have an equal distribution of touches that transcends any qualitative prioritization of the players. No doubt if one is clearly better than the others it should be reflected in the distribution. I'm just not for going all-in financially on any one RB and throwing $10m-$15m a year with big guarantees at said player. I would much rather be more nimble than that at this position given the shelf life, the injury frequency, and the replaceability.

I did make the point in one of my posts that I would be fine if we used one of our second round picks this year to get a RB. The second round is where plenty of top RB talents like Breece Hall and Kenneth Walker get drafted. If we got someone who proved to be that good, great. We'll have a top RB for four years at an extremely affordable price, and we can easily afford to have some quality depth behind him in the RB room (by using lower picks to fortify). I just don't want to pay one guy $13mm/yr and then have the rest of the room be trash, which is what the rest of the room has more or less been since we drafted Saquon.

I have no idea what the Giants' plans are with Saquon. As stated a few posts ago, I'm way more concerned with what they do about the QB situation, although I obviously care about all moves they make. We'll see what happens.

[Jclayton92]

Didn't they cut Joe Mixons contract in half for him to not get cut?

Most teams either have a committee or a primary back but none are foolish enough to spend 10 million a year on one. We should be drafting one late every other year.

[PSUBeirut]

Fair points. If you have a handful of RBs (say three), and one is clearly performing better than the others, then it's not only reasonable, but smart, to direct more/most of the touches his way. I know I did not articulate that clearly in my earlier post, but I do agree with that and am fully supportive of that. My point was more around cost-allocation and depth. I would prefer that the Giants be in a position where an injury to one RB, even the best one, while obviously not great, is not a complete disaster the way it has been since we drafted Barkley. I mean the Ravens lost Dobbins and they have continued to be functional. The Rams lost Akers that one year and it wasn't the end of the world. The Eagles constantly had Miles Sanders getting hurt and they have always had other options. Heck the Browns lost the great Nick Chubb early in the season and they had Jerome Ford waiting in the wings and have survived with him. Obviously the Pats (who I realize suck now but were elite for a long time) always had that depth/committee approach. They were the first to figure it out.

I failed to articulate that by "committee" I didn't mean that you automatically have to have an equal distribution of touches that transcends any qualitative prioritization of the players. No doubt if one is clearly better than the others it should be reflected in the distribution. I'm just not for going all-in financially on any one RB and throwing $10m-$15m a year with big guarantees at said player. I would much rather be more nimble than that at this position given the shelf life, the injury frequency, and the replaceability.

I did make the point in one of my posts that I would be fine if we used one of our second round picks this year to get a RB. The second round is where plenty of top RB talents like Breece Hall and Kenneth Walker get drafted. If we got someone who proved to be that good, great. We'll have a top RB for four years at an extremely affordable price, and we can easily afford to have some quality depth behind him in the RB room (by using lower picks to fortify). I just don't want to pay one guy $13mm/yr and then have the rest of the room be trash, which is what the rest of the room has more or less been since we drafted Saquon.

I have no idea what the Giants' plans are with Saquon. As stated a few posts ago, I'm way more concerned with what they do about the QB situation, although I obviously care about all moves they make. We'll see what happens.

I think we're mostly in agreement on this- and yes the biggest mistake we've made at the RB position is not trying to find one in the mid rounds in 2019, 2020, and then missing on Brightwell and (hopefully not but potentially) Gray last year.  It puts us in the bad position we're in. 

I'm not sure I'm sold on going QB1 and then RB2 in the 2023 draft though.  There are just so many glaring needs I'm not sure RB is going to float to the top- which then puts us in that same position of either signing Saquon or bringing a vet in and then crossing fingers in the mid rounds again. 

[DaveBrown74]

I think we're mostly in agreement on this- and yes the biggest mistake we've made at the RB position is not trying to find one in the mid rounds in 2019, 2020, and then missing on Brightwell and (hopefully not but potentially) Gray last year.  It puts us in the bad position we're in. 

I'm not sure I'm sold on going QB1 and then RB2 in the 2023 draft though.  There are just so many glaring needs I'm not sure RB is going to float to the top- which then puts us in that same position of either signing Saquon or bringing a vet in and then crossing fingers in the mid rounds again. 

Fair enough. I'm not married to that idea either. In fact I'd prefer that even if they don't keep Barkley that they wait until the 3rd or 4th to take a RB. However if they took someone in the second that they were very high on I wouldn't immediately call it a terrible idea. As I think we would both agree, you can't have a fixed position plan going into the draft (other than for the first round if you're picking in the top two or three).

I haven't invested a great deal of time looking closely at the 2024 RB class. I know who the big name RBs in college are, but I haven't done a deep dive and couldn't even say if it's a good/deep class or not. I also (obviously) have no idea what their plans with Barkley are, which clearly impacts our need level at the position post this season.