|
Post by FundamentallySoundJones on Sept 21, 2020 9:02:40 GMT -5
Fans all week: "Barkley is the problem!" Fans today: "We need Barkley!" Fans all week "Barkley is the best player we have" Fans today " Barkley was not a good pick for us at #2"
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasman on Sept 21, 2020 9:14:44 GMT -5
Yeah, they should have known that was gonna happen. Well, if you look at the injury history of RBs and their general useful life in the NFL. They did know this was going to happen. Exactly. Which is the same as not knowing. I knew Drew Lock was gonna get hurt. You probably did too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2020 9:17:30 GMT -5
Well, if you look at the injury history of RBs and their general useful life in the NFL. They did know this was going to happen. Exactly. Which is the same as not knowing. I knew Drew Lock was gonna get hurt. You probably did too. Bosa, Jimmy G, Mccaffrey and Kittle too. It was so obvious 🤪
|
|
|
Post by jmike on Sept 21, 2020 9:33:51 GMT -5
Well, if you look at the injury history of RBs and their general useful life in the NFL. They did know this was going to happen. Exactly. Which is the same as not knowing. I knew Drew Lock was gonna get hurt. You probably did too. QBs get injured at a lower frequency than RBs and have a generally longer useful life. So not a good comparison. The point I was making is the Giants knew that taking a RB #2 overall was risky due to these factors. So this was not a surprise to anyone in the organization. Unless you think they are all blithering idiots. It is the risk you take when making picks, and they knew this was the one they were taking with Barkley. I still don't think taking him was a bad idea, it just hasn't worked out very well for the team so far. Though neither has anything else. So far his career is similar to the last 1st round RB we took. Some flashes of great plays, some injury issues.
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasman on Sept 21, 2020 9:50:08 GMT -5
Exactly. Which is the same as not knowing. I knew Drew Lock was gonna get hurt. You probably did too. QBs get injured at a lower frequency than RBs and have a generally longer useful life. So not a good comparison. The point I was making is the Giants knew that taking a RB #2 overall was risky due to these factors. So this was not a surprise to anyone in the organization. Unless you think they are all blithering idiots. It is the risk you take when making picks, and they knew this was the one they were taking with Barkley. I still don't think taking him was a bad idea, it just hasn't worked out very well for the team so far. Though neither has anything else. So far his career is similar to the last 1st round RB we took. Some flashes of great plays, some injury issues. Do they? I don't have the numbers. I'd like to see them as I don't feel the difference is material but you may certainly be correct about that.
|
|
|
Post by jmike on Sept 21, 2020 10:37:15 GMT -5
QBs get injured at a lower frequency than RBs and have a generally longer useful life. So not a good comparison. The point I was making is the Giants knew that taking a RB #2 overall was risky due to these factors. So this was not a surprise to anyone in the organization. Unless you think they are all blithering idiots. It is the risk you take when making picks, and they knew this was the one they were taking with Barkley. I still don't think taking him was a bad idea, it just hasn't worked out very well for the team so far. Though neither has anything else. So far his career is similar to the last 1st round RB we took. Some flashes of great plays, some injury issues. Do they? I don't have the numbers. I'd like to see them as I don't feel the difference is material but you may certainly be correct about that. So look them up. Different positional groups carry different risks. RBs have a higher success rate than QBs, but QBs that are successful have a longer impact. Ultimately there is no clear advantage of one position over another, the risks are just from different areas. For RB, it is career longevity. Which is why many questioned taking a RB before a QB was in place or the OL was in a good position. Look, IDK if Barkley was the best possible pick in that situation. But looking at the whole thing without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Barkley was a good pick. There were other good decisions there as well, but you can only make one. My basic philosophy with football has always been to build from the trenches. Particularly on offense. If the OL is not adequate, it really matters little who else is playing offense. Barkley to date has faced the brunt of not addressing that line first. Now his struggles are not all the OL's fault; but they do seem to be a significant portion of it.
|
|
|
Post by krappdetector on Sept 21, 2020 11:37:21 GMT -5
Yeah, they should have known that was gonna happen. It is neither possible or necessary to KNOW when injuries will happen. But it is possible to know that RB injuries will happen more often than others and essential to factor those probabilities into the player selection process.
|
|
|
Post by jmike on Sept 21, 2020 12:00:17 GMT -5
Yeah, they should have known that was gonna happen. It is neither possible or necessary to KNOW when injuries will happen. But it is possible to know that RB injuries will happen more often than others and essential to factor those probabilities into the player selection process. Look, everything factors into player selection. There is no "right" position to take. Every player is a calculated risk. This is why you draft a player, not a position.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Hulk on Sept 21, 2020 14:18:31 GMT -5
Saying that the team couldn't know he'd get injured is not accurate. The history of running backs is that they break down after 4-5 seasons. Look at Todd Gurley, the last highly drafted RB...Look at David Wilson, our last #1 RB
HOW COULD YOU NOT SEE IT COMING..... Even work horses like Hershcel Walker, AP and Bo Jackson have gotten hurt. I guess guys thought Saquon was bullet proof, leaping over people like Larry Donnell.
RB's and LB's are not longevity positions.
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasman on Sept 21, 2020 14:27:30 GMT -5
Do they? I don't have the numbers. I'd like to see them as I don't feel the difference is material but you may certainly be correct about that. So look them up. Different positional groups carry different risks. RBs have a higher success rate than QBs, but QBs that are successful have a longer impact. Ultimately there is no clear advantage of one position over another, the risks are just from different areas. For RB, it is career longevity. Which is why many questioned taking a RB before a QB was in place or the OL was in a good position. Look, IDK if Barkley was the best possible pick in that situation. But looking at the whole thing without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Barkley was a good pick. There were other good decisions there as well, but you can only make one. My basic philosophy with football has always been to build from the trenches. Particularly on offense. If the OL is not adequate, it really matters little who else is playing offense. Barkley to date has faced the brunt of not addressing that line first. Now his struggles are not all the OL's fault; but they do seem to be a significant portion of it. Why would I look them up? You posited that theory, not me. It's interesting but not terribly so. I'll be fine not knowing if there is data that supports your theory but I honestly don't care very much. I agree with the rest of your post. We don't need to look any further than the trenches to understand why this team has sucked for the last eight years or so.
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasman on Sept 21, 2020 14:29:26 GMT -5
Yeah, they should have known that was gonna happen. It is neither possible or necessary to KNOW when injuries will happen. But it is possible to know that RB injuries will happen more often than others and essential to factor those probabilities into the player selection process. Agreed. Of course we don't know the results of that analysis nor if it even took place at all.
|
|
|
Post by thetruth on Sept 21, 2020 14:31:21 GMT -5
It is neither possible or necessary to KNOW when injuries will happen. But it is possible to know that RB injuries will happen more often than others and essential to factor those probabilities into the player selection process. Agreed. Of course we don't know the results of that analysis nor if it even took place at all. Contracts tell all. Positional value existed in 2018 and it still does today. Thats just about all the analysis you need.
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasman on Sept 21, 2020 14:36:13 GMT -5
Saying that the team couldn't know he'd get injured is not accurate. The history of running backs is that they break down after 4-5 seasons. Look at Todd Gurley, the last highly drafted RB...Look at David Wilson, our last #1 RB HOW COULD YOU NOT SEE IT COMING..... Even work horses like Hershcel Walker, AP and Bo Jackson have gotten hurt. I guess guys thought Saquon was bullet proof, leaping over people like Larry Donnell. RB's and LB's are not longevity positions. I wasn't convinced until the capital letters started. That's what made me remember it was football and players get hurt. Like Andrew Luck. And Drew Lock. Which I knew was gonna happen. Because of course, we all did.
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasman on Sept 21, 2020 14:38:10 GMT -5
Agreed. Of course we don't know the results of that analysis nor if it even took place at all. Contracts tell all. Positional value existed in 2018 and it still does today. Thats just about all the analysis you need. You're on a different page of the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by jmike on Sept 21, 2020 14:40:43 GMT -5
So look them up. Different positional groups carry different risks. RBs have a higher success rate than QBs, but QBs that are successful have a longer impact. Ultimately there is no clear advantage of one position over another, the risks are just from different areas. For RB, it is career longevity. Which is why many questioned taking a RB before a QB was in place or the OL was in a good position. Look, IDK if Barkley was the best possible pick in that situation. But looking at the whole thing without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Barkley was a good pick. There were other good decisions there as well, but you can only make one. My basic philosophy with football has always been to build from the trenches. Particularly on offense. If the OL is not adequate, it really matters little who else is playing offense. Barkley to date has faced the brunt of not addressing that line first. Now his struggles are not all the OL's fault; but they do seem to be a significant portion of it. Why would I look them up? You posited that theory, not me. It's interesting but not terribly so. I'll be fine not knowing if there is data that supports your theory but I honestly don't care very much. I agree with the rest of your post. We don't need to look any further than the trenches to understand why this team has sucked for the last eight years or so. So then why did you lie the first time when you said you'd like to see them. If you were genuinely curious, you'd look for it yourself. I am neither interested in nor responsible for doing the information gathering for other people.
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasman on Sept 21, 2020 14:44:48 GMT -5
Why would I look them up? You posited that theory, not me. It's interesting but not terribly so. I'll be fine not knowing if there is data that supports your theory but I honestly don't care very much. I agree with the rest of your post. We don't need to look any further than the trenches to understand why this team has sucked for the last eight years or so. So then why did you lie the first time when you said you'd like to see them. If you were genuinely curious, you'd look for it yourself. I am neither interested in nor responsible for doing the information gathering for other people. I would like to see them if someone wants to do that work. That's the mild interest I expressed. My interest is not so great that I'm willing to do it. And like I said, it's your unsupported theory, not mine; I'm perfectly happy leaving it as such.
|
|
|
Post by jmike on Sept 21, 2020 14:48:03 GMT -5
So then why did you lie the first time when you said you'd like to see them. If you were genuinely curious, you'd look for it yourself. I am neither interested in nor responsible for doing the information gathering for other people. I would like to see them if someone wants to do that work. That's the mild interest I expressed. My interest is not so great that I'm willing to do it. And like I said, it's your unsupported theory, not mine; I'm perfectly happy leaving it as such. It isn't a theory. But if you don't think it's true, fine, you want to see the research. Do it and show me it isn't true. If you genuinely think it is even possible that QBs and RBs have the same type of longevity in the NFL, I don't know what to tell you. Sounds like you are asking me to provide proof that water is wet....no sorry, not worth my effort.
|
|
|
Post by bluebuddha on Sept 21, 2020 15:06:57 GMT -5
I would like to see them if someone wants to do that work. That's the mild interest I expressed. My interest is not so great that I'm willing to do it. And like I said, it's your unsupported theory, not mine; I'm perfectly happy leaving it as such. It isn't a theory. But if you don't think it's true, fine, you want to see the research. Do it and show me it isn't true. If you genuinely think it is even possible that QBs and RBs have the same type of longevity in the NFL, I don't know what to tell you. Sounds like you are asking me to provide proof that water is wet....no sorry, not worth my effort. If we are talking longevity. Could it also be that starting NFL qbs are harder to find and involves more investment than rbs? I think it plays a part. RBs are a commodity in the nfl hence multiple backs get used, dumped and rotated. NFL Qbs are more scarce and they are given a longer chance on the roster because they need more time to develop. Look how long an injury prone QB like Bradford lasted. If he was a rb he would have never made it past his 5th year in the NFL. Also NFL rules do protect the QB better than other positions.
|
|
|
Post by jmike on Sept 21, 2020 15:22:18 GMT -5
It isn't a theory. But if you don't think it's true, fine, you want to see the research. Do it and show me it isn't true. If you genuinely think it is even possible that QBs and RBs have the same type of longevity in the NFL, I don't know what to tell you. Sounds like you are asking me to provide proof that water is wet....no sorry, not worth my effort. If we are talking longevity. Could it also be that starting NFL qbs are harder to find and involves more investment than rbs? I think it plays a part. RBs are a commodity in the nfl hence multiple backs get used, dumped and rotated. NFL Qbs are more scarce and they are given a longer chance on the roster because they need more time to develop. Look how long an injury prone QB like Bradford lasted. If he was a rb he would have never made it past his 5th year in the NFL. Also NFL rules do protect the QB better than other positions. Sorry, I was only talking about players with NFL success. If you draft a good QB or a good RB, you can expect to get more effective seasons out of a good QB than you will from a good RB.
|
|
|
Post by bluebuddha on Sept 21, 2020 15:59:58 GMT -5
If we are talking longevity. Could it also be that starting NFL qbs are harder to find and involves more investment than rbs? I think it plays a part. RBs are a commodity in the nfl hence multiple backs get used, dumped and rotated. NFL Qbs are more scarce and they are given a longer chance on the roster because they need more time to develop. Look how long an injury prone QB like Bradford lasted. If he was a rb he would have never made it past his 5th year in the NFL. Also NFL rules do protect the QB better than other positions. Sorry, I was only talking about players with NFL success. If you draft a good QB or a good RB, you can expect to get more effective seasons out of a good QB than you will from a good RB. I will agree to that. A successful qb is kept past his deterioting physical abilities because of experience regardless of age. A successful rb rarely sees a contract past age 30 because of physical deterioration.
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasman on Sept 21, 2020 17:03:07 GMT -5
I would like to see them if someone wants to do that work. That's the mild interest I expressed. My interest is not so great that I'm willing to do it. And like I said, it's your unsupported theory, not mine; I'm perfectly happy leaving it as such. It isn't a theory. But if you don't think it's true, fine, you want to see the research. Do it and show me it isn't true. If you genuinely think it is even possible that QBs and RBs have the same type of longevity in the NFL, I don't know what to tell you. Sounds like you are asking me to provide proof that water is wet....no sorry, not worth my effort. I never disputed longevity, I'm aware of the longevity difference; I questioned injury percentage. And again, I never said you were wrong, I believe I said you may be right about it and that I do not have the data.
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Sept 21, 2020 17:40:43 GMT -5
It isn't a theory. But if you don't think it's true, fine, you want to see the research. Do it and show me it isn't true. If you genuinely think it is even possible that QBs and RBs have the same type of longevity in the NFL, I don't know what to tell you. Sounds like you are asking me to provide proof that water is wet....no sorry, not worth my effort. I never disputed longevity, I'm aware of the longevity difference; I questioned injury percentage. And again, I never said you were wrong, I believe I said you may be right about it and that I do not have the data. Frank Gore 16 years + ( still playing ) Emmit Smith 15 years Walter Payton 15 years AP 14 years + (still playing) Curtis Martin 11 years LaDainian Tomlinson 10 years Jerome Bettis 13 years Eric Dickerson 11 years Tony Dorsett 12 years Marshall Faulk 11 years Edgerrin James 10 years Marcus Allen 16 years Franco Harris 13 years Thurman Thomas 13 years Fred Taylor 13 years Steven Jackson 12 years John Riggins 15 years O.J. Simpson 11 years LeSean McCoy 12years+ (still playing) Warrick Dunn 12 years Thomas Jones 12 years Tiki Barber 10 years OJ Anderson 15 years Matt Forte 10 years Chris Johnson 10 years Ahman Green 10 years Terry Allen 11 years Ernest Byner 14 years Herschel Walker 12 years Roger Craig 11 years Gerald Riggs 12 years Priest Holmes 11 years DeAngelo Williams 11 years Larry Csonka 13 years Freeman McNeil 12 years Stephen Davis 11 years Garrison Hearst 12 years James Brooks 13 years Chris Warren 11 years Jamaal Charles 11 years This is just the first 40 on the list with 10 + seasons There is probably 30-50 more in the Super bowl era
|
|
|
Post by Martin on Sept 21, 2020 17:55:17 GMT -5
I never disputed longevity, I'm aware of the longevity difference; I questioned injury percentage. And again, I never said you were wrong, I believe I said you may be right about it and that I do not have the data. Frank Gore 16 years + ( still playing ) Emmit Smith 15 years Walter Payton 15 years AP 14 years + (still playing) Curtis Martin 11 years LaDainian Tomlinson 10 years Jerome Bettis 13 years Eric Dickerson 11 years Tony Dorsett 12 years Marshall Faulk 11 years Edgerrin James 10 years Marcus Allen 16 years Franco Harris 13 years Thurman Thomas 13 years Fred Taylor 13 years Steven Jackson 12 years John Riggins 15 years O.J. Simpson 11 years LeSean McCoy 12years+ (still playing) Warrick Dunn 12 years Thomas Jones 12 years Tiki Barber 10 years OJ Anderson 15 years Matt Forte 10 years Chris Johnson 10 years Ahman Green 10 years Terry Allen 11 years Ernest Byner 14 years Herschel Walker 12 years Roger Craig 11 years Gerald Riggs 12 years Priest Holmes 11 years DeAngelo Williams 11 years Larry Csonka 13 years Freeman McNeil 12 years Stephen Davis 11 years Garrison Hearst 12 years James Brooks 13 years Chris Warren 11 years Jamaal Charles 11 years This is just the first 40 on the list with 10 + seasons There is probably 30-50 more in the Super bowl era Its a good list but I bet I could probably come up with the opposite list. The bottom line is nobody knows what can happen. In the NFL you roll the dice. I just hope SB can make it back to a high level. I wish him the best. So much work involved in getting to the NFL.
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Sept 21, 2020 18:05:16 GMT -5
I just saw an alarming bit of information on this season. No OTAs, Limited camp, No preseason Yet there are 80 + knee injuries in the NFL, and week 2 has not finished. www.pro-football-reference.com/players/injuries.htmThis is just My Opinion : As guys get bigger and stronger and faster, Ligaments and Tendons do not.
|
|