Big Blue Huddle

Quote from: Jolly Blue Giant on September 13, 2024, 10:12:02 AMDefinitely a need, not really a luxury. The problem is though, that RBs have a short shelf life and are easily replaceable with a RB by committee. What is the average "shelf life" of a running back compared to other positions? It's not that much different. A good one is involved in many more plays than a WR. They can run 20 or more plays a game and block in many others. A good WR is targeted 10-15 times and rarely blocks.

I criticize Jerruh a lot (and rightfully so, I might add), but I give him credit for having the balls to cut Zeke and his outrageous contract (6 yrs / 90M), then resign him a year later for a 1-yr contract of 2M (1.6M guaranteed). That's chump change in this league Zeke was washed up when they dumped him.

RBs are a necessity and much of their success is tied to the offensive line, but spending over 10 million a year on a back that will probably be injured throughout the season if given a heavy load, is a luxury Are you talking all running backs or just Barkley?

I've been a proponent of the "running back by committee" for the last decade or so. You can throw a variety of running styles at your opponents, while somewhat saving their bodies. The NFL is a passing league now, but you MUST have the ability to move the ball on the ground to keep defenses honest in order for the passing game to flourish Why should it matter if most teams primarily pass? Just because other teams throw more than others doesn't mean your team needs to pass. Sure, if a team's behind, it needs to throw for bigger plays and stop the clock, but a team is ahead with a decent lead, it needs to run to keep the clock going. The game situation and player personal dictate the plays called, not what other teams call.

Before I put this out there - teams need a good running back.  They do NOT need an expensive running back.  Those don't have to be mutually exclusive but....

2022/23 - Isiah Pacheco
2021 - Sam Akers & Sony Michel
2020 - Leonard Fournette
2019 - Damien Williams
2018 - Sony Michel
2017 - Legarette Blount

I can keep going but I think you get the point.  Those are the leading rushers from the Superbowl team that year.  Without a quarterback, a running back won't get you to the top.  With a quarterback, you don't need an expensive running back.

Quote from: zephirus on September 13, 2024, 12:50:53 PMBefore I put this out there - teams need a good running back.  They do NOT need an expensive running back.  Those don't have to be mutually exclusive but....

2022/23 - Isiah Pacheco
2021 - Sam Akers & Sony Michel
2020 - Leonard Fournette
2019 - Damien Williams
2018 - Sony Michel
2017 - Legarette Blount

I can keep going but I think you get the point.  Those are the leading rushers from the Superbowl team that year.  Without a quarterback, a running back won't get you to the top.  With a quarterback, you don't need an expensive running back.

Incredibly effective way to illustrate your point!  In the modern era, the path to the SB is no longer via a superior running game.  The last true running team to win a SB occurred more than decade ago, and even that's debatable as Seattle was also a highly effective passing team.

So does this poll show over 80% of Giants fans can't admit when we made a bad decision ?

Quote from: Leek21 on September 13, 2024, 04:04:50 PMSo does this poll show over 80% of Giants fans can't admit when we made a bad decision ?

I think it indicates that 80% of this forum is way too focused on player salary at the detriment of on field success. I'd be curious at the results of this poll among a wider range of Giants fan. We are only polling 23 fans so far.

I think at this point it is unquestionable that, in hindsight, Schoen picked the wrong player to franchise vs. who to sign long-term.  That was the decision at the time- bend a little on your topline number (and by a little I mean very little...as in maybe 1-1.5 million per year) to sign Saquon and put the tag on Jones --OR-- give Jones his big contract and tag Saquon. 

At the time I advocated for the former.  In hindsight, I can't imagine many Giants fans wouldn't now agree that this would have been the more prudent course of action, what with all the tons of uncertainty surrounding Jones' tenure in NY and Barkley set to rip it up for our division rivals.

Of course, there were tons of fans who advocated a third option that Schoen wasn't considering- don't offer Saquon a contract at all and tag Jones.  In hindsight, this also would have been a better option.

Quote from: TDToomer on September 13, 2024, 04:11:14 PMI think it indicates that 80% of this forum is way too focused on player salary at the detriment of on field success. I'd be curious at the results of this poll among a wider range of Giants fan. We are only polling 23 fans so far.

By my count they were 25-42-1 when Barkley played (ignoring games he wasn't available), that's a 36.7% winning percentage. They were 10-16 without him, good for a 38.5% winning percentage. This team wasn't very good with Barkley and wasn't very good without him. Can you explain how the Giants (or people on this board) are sacrificing "on field success" by not having Barkley on the team?

Quote from: Leek21 on September 13, 2024, 04:04:50 PMSo does this poll show over 80% of Giants fans can't admit when we made a bad decision ?

When I put this poll up, it was primarily to see if fans (that I know) changed their opinions on resigning Barkley. Most people I know, thought it was time to cut bait (many were adamant that we should have done it earlier). Many also wished they had at least gotten a draft pick in exchange, but we didn't try to trade him. Fan unhappiness about that might well be justified

Philly offered Barkley a 3-year, $37,750,000 contract, including an $11,625,000 signing bonus, $26,000,000 guaranteed, with an average annual salary of $12,583,333. Barkley is 27, and will turn 28 during the season, with a lot of wear and tear on his body. There was no way that the Giants were going to match or beat that, as rebuilding the team was first and foremost on Schoen's/Daboll's mind, and considering our cap restrictions. For what it's worth, I think it's pretty risky of the Eagles to commit that kind of money on a RB. Time will tell

Regardless, I just wondered how many people changed their minds once Barkley went to the hated Eagles, and in his first game, scored 3 TDs. I know that the talking heads are now ridiculing the Giants' front office for letting him "slip out of their fingers". But that's to be expected from the pundits who make a living critiquing team decisions. Maybe they are right, but let's see how he does for a season before lamenting that we gave up on a superstar

Obviously they didn't think that in 2024 the team would absolutely stink with still a ton of needs across the board. 

I admit I'm contributing to this by merely posting this post, but I'll do it anyway:

It's sort of odd that this thread has generated so much back and forth when the poll (at this point in time) is 20-4.

You'd think it would be an open-and-shut subject and that thread would be over in a page or so.

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on September 13, 2024, 05:25:35 PMI admit I'm contributing to this by merely posting this post, but I'll do it anyway:

It's sort of odd that this thread has generated so much back and forth when the poll (at this point in time) is 20-4.

You'd think it would be an open-and-shut subject and that thread would be over in a page or so.

I think it's the wrong time for this question. The time to ask was in March and after the season, or at least well into the season. I didn't vote. If they kept Barkley, would they have played any better last week? Who would be the QB? The thing is, this team needs more to be a good playoff team and Barkley will be on the tail end of his career by then. They bought 2 years to better evaluate Jones and if he turned out to be very good, they'd get the next 2 years at a good pay rate for a better than average QB. If he plays like he did last week, he'll be gone and still having Barkley would be futile. It all goes back to building the team from the middle out without a plan. So basically, I don't think it mattered if they kept him or not.

Last year we needed ONE yard to beat the Bills.

Last year we needed ONE yard to beat the Jets.

Funny, I didn't see his number being called by our genius HC.

Maybe we got rid of the wrong person.

The following has pretty much summed up my opinion of Saquon:

1st. the 2nd overall pick was too high (especially with so much talent in their need areas).


2nd. when I watched him play I could tell we had something special..and though he was a RB...a player we could build around.

3rd. at the end of 2022 the FO made the wrong choice. Instead of franchising him they should've extended him and franchised Jones...and then traded down to gather more picks for the rebuild during the '22 draft and to position themselves for a QB in the '23 draft.

Many here (correctly) state that he is a luxury that we cannot afford. Thats's true NOW. But in '22 & '23 had we made the proper moves, we could be a consistent playoff team IMO by the end of '23 and he would be a prime asset on that team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

No matter how well Barkley performed when healthy and available, whether or not we view him as having been a boom or bust RB, in his 6 years, he simply did not have a meaningful/ determinant impact on the Giants success or lack thereof. That is something which is generally true in regard to RBs in today's NFL where cost/performance value is now almost exclusively in QB Passing if not also in Rushing. It just ain't the same game at RB no matter how much he contributes to or helps balance an Offense.

Gettleman's decision to Draft Barkley (or any RB) with the No.2 overall pick was unwise, indeed foolhardy, which I stated at the time. Still, we have nothing to gain in beating that dead horse.

Cheers!

Money/Cap-wise, it was the right decision.

I was closely watching Singletary and his movements last night.

I think Barkley was stutter-stepping all the time before hitting a gap, and was losing momentum and space in many occasions.

What I liked about Singletary was that he was extremely shifty and was very elusive. No stutter-stepping, ever. And I think this was an advantage for him when the gaps opened. This is probably a plus for Singletary.