Much of the criticism of NYG via Hard Knocks involves Barkley

[MightyGiants]

Yet, I can't help but feel that people are considering Barkley's reputation rather than his actual production.  The Eagles made Barkley the 4th highest-paid RB in the league as a $12.6 million AAV.

Yet, last year:

Barkley was tied for PFF's 36th-best running back

Rushing yards Barkley's 962 yards was good for 16th

Barkley's 3.9 yards per attempt was 31st in the league

His 6 TDs was tied for 19th

He was 20th in receiving yards for a RB

He was 19th in receptions

He was in a multi-way tie for third with 4 receiving TDs.

Nothing Barkley did last season suggests he is better than an average NFL RB.  So why would any team pay him such big bucks?   Reputation (Some believe the Eagles GM can do no wrong) is shielding the Eagles for the sort of scrutiny their signing of Barkley really deserves

[DaveBrown74]

I'd say on a per game basis Barkley was better than average last year, but the per game stuff holds only limited water with me because injuries are a huge part of the equation with him and can't be treated as bad luck anymore.

However one slices it, Barkley is in decline. That was on display even in 2022, and you could really see it last year. The Giants did the right thing to not be hell bent on winning a bidding war for him.

[EDjohnst1981]

I think they'll miss him but they simply couldn't afford to keep him at the number he wanted.

Which is fine for both sides. I don't think the front office should be criticised for what happened.

[MightyGiants]

I'd say on a per game basis Barkley was better than average last year, but the per game stuff holds only limited water with me because injuries are a huge part of the equation with him and can't be treated as bad luck anymore.

However one slices it, Barkley is in decline. That was on display even in 2022, and you could really see it last year. The Giants did the right thing to not be hell bent on winning a bidding war for him.

Good observations, Jeff

[andrew_nyGiants]

Respectfully:

How is this not at least in part attributed to the offensive line?

We're in constant debate over whether DJ's issues were OL related, and his contract is a much larger part of the reason that the roster is lacking.

Philly is purported to have a far superior OL this year, so I guess we'll see how much of a difference maker Barkley will be.

I don't fault our FO for not extending him this year.
I fault them for not standing up to Mara before giving DJ all that $$$ 2 yrs ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[MightyGiants]

Respectfully:

How is this not at least in part attributed to the offensive line?

We're in constant debate over whether DJ's issues were OL related, and his contract is a much larger part of the reason that the roster is lacking.

Philly is purported to have a far superior OL this year, so I guess we'll see how much of a difference maker Barkley will be.

I don't fault our FO for not extending him this year.
I fault them for not standing up to Mara before giving DJ all that $$$ 2 yrs ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Andrew, I would agree that the rushing stats were limited, to a degree, by the O-line.  I would suggest that in theory, PFF grades are more or less O-line independent.  I would also suggest that a weak O-line should have bolstered Barkley's receiving numbers, as the offense would be checking down to the RB more.

[madbadger]

To me it's far more subtle than the stats. IMHO he left yards in the field last year. After a couple significant leg injuries he's lost explosive ability to change directions and some of his top end speed that made his special. I thought there were runs last year than he would have scored on his rookie year.

He's still a very good running back, who will have an excellent season barring injury, but he wasn't right for the Giants. His value to the Giants wasn't in line with what the open market was willing to pay. I don't know why so many people who should know better can't grasp that, and insist on dragging the Giants for it.

[Trench]

I'd say on a per game basis Barkley was better than average last year, but the per game stuff holds only limited water with me because injuries are a huge part of the equation with him and can't be treated as bad luck anymore.

However one slices it, Barkley is in decline. That was on display even in 2022, and you could really see it last year. The Giants did the right thing to not be hell bent on winning a bidding war for him.

I would respectfully disagree with this (and I could be wrong) but to me there were many games where he was struggling to make plays running straight into his oline etc...and then would usually "break one" which put his stats above average.

If I'm wrong please correct me, but that's what I seem to remember off the top of my head.

[ralphpal1]

We and the Eagles are at 2 different stages
It didn't make sense for us to sign him
But for the Eagles is does
This can put them and make them win the superbowl
I think he is going to do awesome
Plus I don't think the push tush is going to be as successful this year

[PSUBeirut]

Yet, I can't help but feel that people are considering Barkley's reputation rather than his actual production.  The Eagles made Barkley the 4th highest-paid RB in the league as a $12.6 million AAV.

Yet, last year:

Barkley was tied for PFF's 36th-best running back

Rushing yards Barkley's 962 yards was good for 16th

Barkley's 3.9 yards per attempt was 31st in the league

His 6 TDs was tied for 19th

He was 20th in receiving yards for a RB

He was 19th in receptions

He was in a multi-way tie for third with 4 receiving TDs.

Nothing Barkley did last season suggests he is better than an average NFL RB.  So why would any team pay him such big bucks?   Reputation (Some believe the Eagles GM can do no wrong) is shielding the Eagles for the sort of scrutiny their signing of Barkley really deserves

Rich, I believe it's been you who has said over and over again (correctly)- that teams should pay players based on future performance, not past.  So this all seems very simple to me- The Eagles paid Saquon as the 4th best RB in the league because they believe that behind their OL, paired with Hurts, playing alongside true weapons at the wideout position, and with clearly better playcallers- that Saquon will perform as the 4th best (or better) RB in football.  I'm inclined to believe that's clearly possible.  I also believe 100% there is no way he could perform to that contract in NY so it was right to part ways. 

Also- have you ever reflected on your cognitive dissonance between your loyal defense of Daniel Jones being severely impacted by the dumpster fire that has been the Giants OL and lack of wideouts......and yet not providing that same level of defense to Barkley, who clearly has been just as impacted? 

[DaveBrown74]

I would respectfully disagree with this (and I could be wrong) but to me there were many games where he was struggling to make plays running straight into his oline etc...and then would usually "break one" which put his stats above average.

If I'm wrong please correct me, but that's what I seem to remember off the top of my head.

Hey Trench,

I won't push back on what you have said because I don't remember his season in as granular detail as you seem to, but I think we can certainly agree on the broader point, which is that Barkley has exhibited signs of decline versus what he was as a younger player before all the injuries.

[jgrangers2]

The odds that Barkley looks significantly better in Philly (largely due to them having a much better O-line) are pretty high. And the Eagles are one of the few teams in a position to actually pay a running back. They see a championship window and their QB's cap hit is relatively small over the next few years.

To many people worried about what the Giants offense will look like without Barkley. There's a hard ceiling on any offense that depends on a running back that much. If the difference between Barkley and no Barkley is a bottom quartile offense vs. a third quartile offense then who cares.

[Gmo11]

Rich, I believe it's been you who has said over and over again (correctly)- that teams should pay players based on future performance, not past.  So this all seems very simple to me- The Eagles paid Saquon as the 4th best RB in the league because they believe that behind their OL, paired with Hurts, playing alongside true weapons at the wideout position, and with clearly better playcallers- that Saquon will perform as the 4th best (or better) RB in football.  I'm inclined to believe that's clearly possible.  I also believe 100% there is no way he could perform to that contract in NY so it was right to part ways. 

Also- have you ever reflected on your cognitive dissonance between your loyal defense of Daniel Jones being severely impacted by the dumpster fire that has been the Giants OL and lack of wideouts......and yet not providing that same level of defense to Barkley, who clearly has been just as impacted? 

This is exactly right.  Both sides did exactly the right thing in this situation.  The Eagles are a Super Bowl contender right now.  They have money to spare because their GM has been near the top of the game for years now, and so they can afford to splurge on a RB believing they have 2 extremely high caliber WRs, a good TE, and an elite OL already locked up.  Their offense when Barkley is on the field is going to be extremely difficult to defend. 

The Giants have stunk for the better part of a decade.  They are getting better and getting closer but nobody would be crazy enough to suggest they are going to contend for a title this year.  It'd be great but it's just not realistic.  So you can't spend that much money on a RB that's going to be even older and even more broken by the time you actually can contend.  I don't get the criticism either way to be honest.  Giants made the right choice and so did the Eagles and so did Barkley frankly.

[MightyGiants]

Rich, I believe it's been you who has said over and over again (correctly)- that teams should pay players based on future performance, not past.  So this all seems very simple to me- The Eagles paid Saquon as the 4th best RB in the league because they believe that behind their OL, paired with Hurts, playing alongside true weapons at the wideout position, and with clearly better playcallers- that Saquon will perform as the 4th best (or better) RB in football.  I'm inclined to believe that's clearly possible.  I also believe 100% there is no way he could perform to that contract in NY so it was right to part ways. 

Also- have you ever reflected on your cognitive dissonance between your loyal defense of Daniel Jones being severely impacted by the dumpster fire that has been the Giants OL and lack of wideouts......and yet not providing that same level of defense to Barkley, who clearly has been just as impacted? 

Instead of presuming that I suffer from "cognitive dissonance," you could have just respectfully asked me about the blocking.

NFL Next Gen Stats' Rush Yards Over Expected (RYOE) metric paints a similar picture. The purpose of RYOE is to differentiate between the yardage a running back was expected to pick up given his blocking and the leverage of the defense when he first received the ball compared to the yardage he actually gained. The Giants back ranked 16th in RYOE per rush with +0.396. While it's an encouraging sign that the number is positive, signaling that he did add some surplus value over his blocking, it is hard to say that he is irreplaceable.

https://www.bigblueview.com/2023/6/25/23772885/ny-giants-saquon-barkley-irreplaceable-as-he-appears-stats-analytics


As for the rest of your assertion, I am not sure it's a sound position. Essentially, you are saying if they put Barkley in an ideal situation for an RB, he will produce.  The issue is that there are cheaper QBs that the same thing could be said.  Sadly, because I liked watching Barkley run in his prime, Barkley is not the same RB that Gettleman said was touched by the "hand of God"

[Fletch]

The Igles paid Barkley as the 4th best running back in the NFL because guess what? He is pretty much the 4th best RB in the NFL

I have no idea why everyone thinks Shooen is this great GM who is batting 1000. So far he's been worse than Gettleman.

His "you paid a guy 40 million dollars to hand off to a 12 million dollar running back" says it all. The fact is Jones is not a 40 mil a year player; so with that out of the way; then what does one thing have to do with the other? You want to tell me you are not paying Barkley because you paid Jones?  And by the looks of things it will take a small miracle, cinderalla story for him to be one. No one should get any credit for this if it happens, since it will be pure dumb luck. It's not supposed to happen, and as a GM you should not be banking on pure dumb luck.



Also the fact that this is the only run first team in football left -- does that not help or hinder those numbers? The fact that every DC in the league only cares about him -- does that not matter? THe fact that players are outright saying they don't fear Jones as a passer does that not say anything ? He played 14 games last year. Are you sure you are not comparing him with others who played more games? No matter maybe he had a bad year but, I didn't seem like that to me. When you needed him -- he came through .