Big Blue Huddle

I feel like there are a lot of fans who are really hoping Joe Schoen isn't being as candid here as he has absolutely been with every question he's been asked since becoming GM.  In other words- I'd say it seems probable that he means what he says here and is not as focused on drafting a QB high as many fans are.  It's probable he still feels DJ is the guy...because he just said he's expecting DJ to be the starter and they still believe in him. 

Which means it's also probable we're going to have another meltdown on this board on draft night.  YIPPEEE!!!

Nobody.  Keep dreaming.

I'd much rather have the conversation at the end of the year about how the players didn't quit on each other and the head coach than what we're going to do with the #1 or #2 pick if it comes at the expense of the team quitting on the coach.  If that results in a nominally worse draft position, so be it. 

I wonder if it's time to start having the conversation around QB's and longevity similar to how we've been discussing RBs/injuries/longevity?  With defenses being so much bigger and faster I guess it was inevitable that more QBs would be getting hurt similar to RBs.  How does that change the dynamics of $$$$ allocation, etc.?  I mean, the 2 highest paid QBs in the league just went down for the season....talk about a financial hell situation.

1000% yes, no doubt. It will never happen though. Not a chance.

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on November 16, 2023, 11:53:39 AMFair 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. 

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on November 16, 2023, 11:21:12 AMCost 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.

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on November 16, 2023, 06:55:45 AMPutting 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.

Quote from: Brooklyn Dave on November 15, 2023, 10:00:31 AMI am sure that I am in the minority here, but in my opinion the Giants must resign Barkley . He is a captain, the face of the franchise, well loved and respected by his teamates, their best offensive player by far, he wants to be here and plus the fact he is damn good!!!. Could imagine if the Giants do not resign him and he signs with the Cowboys , the Eagles or even The Jets ?

You are in the minority here for sure.  I tend to agree with you, as if we're bringing a new QB into the fold it would be helpful to have Saquon there not just for running/making plays but also as a pass protector, which he's gotten much more reliable with this year. 

That being said, if he can't sign a reasonable deal (8-10 per year....max of 2 years guaranteed IMO) then I'd understand Schoen going a different direction (bringing a vet or 2 in + drafting another RB...as Gray has not yet shown he could be anything close to a replacement for Saquon). 

Desperation breeds stupidity.

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 13, 2023, 11:10:58 AMJeff,

I appreciate your point about the Giants' "mays", but I think you need to give the Jets a big "may" for the effective return of a 40-year-old Rodgers coming off a major injury.

Agreed.  This year was supposed to be the Jets run at a title.  Next year's team is going to look different.  Rodgers being over 40 and coming off a major injury is not a place you want to be.  But it's hard to argue any team in the league is in a worse spot than our Giants so the Jets may get the nod just by default.

Gluttons!!!  It's all good, I'm here for the next 40 years, if I'm lucky.  Hopefully we can see a couple more championships.

Yeah it's always interesting to look at...especially when you consider Joe Burrow was at OSU too....and he's not all that shabby. 

Quote from: JT39 on November 07, 2023, 01:39:00 PMNever get too high or too low based off one performance. He will do good things and probably struggle at times cause Penn State's defense is legit. Michigans weakness offensively are their tackles and they have struggled to run the ball like they have the last two years. Chop Robinson can have a big deal, especially if Penn State can get the lead.

Michigans schedule may rue them on this day.

Looks like Chop might be back, which would be awesome.  But the other DEs are serious problems also, Adissa Isaac and Dani Dennis-Sutton, plus our D Coordinator sends a ton of different guys off the edges, with Abdul Carter being one of the guys that wreaks havoc.  I feel better about this UM game than I did about the OSU game...I think PSU matches up better vs. UM than they did vs. OSU.  Should be a great game, anyways.

I assume (maybe I shouldn't) that you guys have seen the movie Yesterday, that came out a few years back?  With the unusual and very cool premise that a struggling musician gets hit on his bike and when he comes to he's the only person left in the world that knew the Beatles (as in, they never existed)?  I really loved that movie for lots of reasons and recommend it to any Beatles fan (or really anyone of that generation or lover of music).