Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
RB Saquon Barkley, PHI (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter Faust
- Start date
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Seems like you need to heed your own advice here. Traditionally the commonly held strategy has been to build around elite workhorse RBs. There was a few year gap there where people jumped on the build around WRs trend as the RB class got weak right around the same time we had a collection of really great young WRs. But the short memory is on your end.
FWIW, I always disagreed with the build around WRs fad even when it hit its peak within the last half decade. It's a great way to be a perennially mediocre team, but the teams with the stud RBs will typically be the ones at the top even if those teams are rotating in and out more often. Man I remember having Fitz, Megatron, and AJ when they were the consensus top 3 dynasty WRs and middling along. But every time I've had a couple of stud RBs I couldn't stop the championship banners from going up if I tried.
And let's be real here. Most around here aren't holding these WRs for 6-7+ years anyway. We are all tinkerers. Most OBJ/Hopkins owners here will have them for a few years and then end up selling them in a few years when they're 28-30 for 1/3rd of what they are worth right now (at which point Gurley will still only be 26-28 himself) and are no longer the sexy young name on the top of dynasty rankings lists. What percentage of people who had AJG/Demaryius/Dez when they were 25 actually still have them now?
Last edited by a moderator:
The Frankman
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
DocHolliday
Footballguy
Strange that he wasn't used in the passing game more in the first half
az_prof
Footballguy
I watched a lot of Barry Sanders and the Lion's had a horrible offensive line and supporting cast most of his career so he often faced stacked lions. I can remember many a game when my Vikings had stuffed him play after play only to watch him bust an amazing run just like this one. Great players need to be fed the ball even if they are being stuffed because sooner or later they make something special happen.
The Frankman
Footballguy
THIS. It was mentioned in the post-game but I didn't get the answer, heard it was something game plan specific.
DocHolliday
Footballguy
This is some revisionist history. They did not have a horrible O-line. It wasn't the Cowboys line for Emmitt, but it was a good OL.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
they were average at best...and the line was struck with tragedy, Mike Utley was paralyzed on the field, and I forget the dudes name (eric andolseck?) but he was killed in a car accident, or they might have had a chance.
there was another probable big play that was stopped on a really bad (dangerous) face mask by the JAX defender. Barkley wipped around to the ground. Was very surprised he didn't get hurt. If that defender didn't reach out and grab him, that was likely to be another long gain.
Last edited by a moderator:
fruity pebbles
Footballguy
tombonneau
Footballguy
If the Giants game plan is to make Barkley a PPR stud, mission accomplished; if it's to score points and win football games, not so much.
What would your brilliant strategy be to win football games behind that tissue paper offensive line? To me, you get the ball into the hands of someone who can avoid and break tackles. And considering the first tackler never seems to be able to stop Barkley, they are doing exactly what they should be doing. The league's worst offensive line plus an old, immobile QB results in a 4 win season no matter what else you do.
shadyridr
Footballguy
Looks like they are lined up for an early pick again next year. If they end up with their franchise QB next year, plus Barkley and Beckham, no one will criticize the decision to grab a once in a decade running back. For all we know, Darnold, Allen, and Rosen might all peak at only a Mariota or Winston level. Maybe the Giants didn't see anything that convinced them that any of the three were special talents. Time will tell. What isn't up for debate is the fact that unless they address that O-line, they could acquire Brady or Rodgers and they still won't be a good team.
shadyridr
Footballguy
There's no way they go 3-13 again. They look bad now but their schedule really opens up in the 2nd half. This will be a 6-10 or 7-9 team.
I guess we'll see. Dallas seems to be a 6-10 type team and they looked way better than the Giants last night. 6 sacks. This Giants line is historically bad. One of the worst I've seen.
Skeletore Eh
Footballguy
While you are right their schedule does open up in the second half, there’s a good chance they start off 0-7
-OZ-
Footballguy
Not after they draft Drew lock, Justin Hebert, Ryan Findley or whomever they like next year.
If they had drafted a QB this year he'd not be doing much better than Josh Allen. Except they do have OBJ and Engram. they help.
tombonneau
Footballguy
Trade down with a team that wants a QB and pick up a first round OL(s) and a QB over a couple drafts. Draft a few Day 2/3 RBs late in 2017.
Well, if they are admitting to a multi-year rebuild then I agree it's a good strategy. Because at this rate they surely will have a top 10 pick and can get a QB next year. It's all a coin flip at QB anyway. Certainly more-so than top-end RB.
Hankmoody
Footballguy
If they stink that bad they'll have another chance to do that. You don't get another chance at Barkley. Mahomes and Watson were picked 10 and 12 and this year Rosen 10. You don't need to go 1-15 to get a QB. Besides behind that line no rookie is going to do any better, and if they fix the line Eli is fine for another 3 years. This isn't a QB/RB problem, it's an OL problem.
DocHolliday
Footballguy
That OL is one of the worst I have seen in years. What is a rookie QB going to do behind that OL this season? Maybe the Giants were not sold on any of those QBs so they took BPA.Barkley is the stud RB of the 2018 draft and will make next year's new QB's life that much easier to mesh into the NFL.
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
As an outsider, I think the last several posts nail it. As a one year fix, drafting Barkley was silly. But if you think it's a multiple year fix, I think it makes more sense. Let's look at some scenarios:
1) They take Darnold - Have Gallman (who looks decent) instead of Barkley, still no O-Line. Darnold could have looked great behind that OLine and with no Barkley, or he could end up like David Carr. They could have gotten a RB with their second pick, but Hernandez is probably a better use of that pick. And that's assuming they played Darnold, instead of sitting him behind Manning, your 2 time SB winning QB. Lots of messy options here.
2) They take Barkley this year - Still have Manning and no O-Line - Barkley a little less likely to get killed or scared behind that line than Darnold, IMO. They don't win more games but Barkley looks pretty good when he has some room. They realize Manning is done regardless of the O-Line. So next year, they have a top 10 pick and take a QB then another OLineman with the second pick. Maybe make some better longer term signing besides that. So in 2019 maybe Manning still starts while the rookie QB sits. The OLine is better, at least a little bit. They win more games. Then they get to 2020 with Manning gone or 2nd string (less messy after giving him those two years) and you have a star (hopefully) QB with 4 years left on his rookie contract and a star (hopefully) RB with 3 years left on his rookie contract. Plus OBJ, Engram and Shepard are still young, your O-Line in 2020 is presumably better.
I guess I think that scenario 2 works out as well as scenario 1. With scenario 1, you have to hope that Darnold can beat out Manning and handle your substandard O-Line without imploding. You also have to deal with the Manning fallout if you play Darnold. With scenario 2, you hope Barkley excites people and maybe you get back to the playoffs. If not, you've got some excitement in your offensive weapons, another year to add to the O-Line for a young QB and shown the Manning camp that he just doesn't still have it.
1) They take Darnold - Have Gallman (who looks decent) instead of Barkley, still no O-Line. Darnold could have looked great behind that OLine and with no Barkley, or he could end up like David Carr. They could have gotten a RB with their second pick, but Hernandez is probably a better use of that pick. And that's assuming they played Darnold, instead of sitting him behind Manning, your 2 time SB winning QB. Lots of messy options here.
2) They take Barkley this year - Still have Manning and no O-Line - Barkley a little less likely to get killed or scared behind that line than Darnold, IMO. They don't win more games but Barkley looks pretty good when he has some room. They realize Manning is done regardless of the O-Line. So next year, they have a top 10 pick and take a QB then another OLineman with the second pick. Maybe make some better longer term signing besides that. So in 2019 maybe Manning still starts while the rookie QB sits. The OLine is better, at least a little bit. They win more games. Then they get to 2020 with Manning gone or 2nd string (less messy after giving him those two years) and you have a star (hopefully) QB with 4 years left on his rookie contract and a star (hopefully) RB with 3 years left on his rookie contract. Plus OBJ, Engram and Shepard are still young, your O-Line in 2020 is presumably better.
I guess I think that scenario 2 works out as well as scenario 1. With scenario 1, you have to hope that Darnold can beat out Manning and handle your substandard O-Line without imploding. You also have to deal with the Manning fallout if you play Darnold. With scenario 2, you hope Barkley excites people and maybe you get back to the playoffs. If not, you've got some excitement in your offensive weapons, another year to add to the O-Line for a young QB and shown the Manning camp that he just doesn't still have it.
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
Finishing my thought on this, so Pros and Cons for both scenarios:
Scenario 1 - Pros: QBs are more important than RBs; Darnold will be better by a greater amount than the 2019 QB compared to Barkley versus the 2019 RB (or Gallman)
Scenario 1 - Cons: Darnold gets killed/loses confidence behind that O-Line; Manning makes a stink about sitting; Or you sit Darnold all year; playing Darnold is certainly a rebuilding/non-playoff year
Scenario 2 - Pros: You try to make one more run; you get a RB that is clearly considered one of the best to come out college in recent years; you avoid any Manning blow back; Barkley less likely to wilt behind the O-Line than Darnold; if your one year run fails, and you suck again, you pick high in 2019 and show Manning that he's about done; you "waste" year one of a rookie contract on a RB instead of a QB; your fans like and appreciate the occasional glimpses of Barkley greatness, even if they don't lead to wins
Scenario 2 - Cons: Again, missing out if Darnold is a stud and the 2019 QB is not; you win too much and finish 8-8 or so and don't have a high enough pick to get a top 3 QB in 2019
That second Con for scenario 2 is the real driver, IMO. You don't want to "Bills" it and have a better season than you should, leading you to mortgage the future to trade up for a QB in 2019. And I say that as a Bills fan.
To me, Scenario 2 is the winner as long as Barkley doesn't suck and the Giants still get a top 10 pick next year.
Scenario 1 - Pros: QBs are more important than RBs; Darnold will be better by a greater amount than the 2019 QB compared to Barkley versus the 2019 RB (or Gallman)
Scenario 1 - Cons: Darnold gets killed/loses confidence behind that O-Line; Manning makes a stink about sitting; Or you sit Darnold all year; playing Darnold is certainly a rebuilding/non-playoff year
Scenario 2 - Pros: You try to make one more run; you get a RB that is clearly considered one of the best to come out college in recent years; you avoid any Manning blow back; Barkley less likely to wilt behind the O-Line than Darnold; if your one year run fails, and you suck again, you pick high in 2019 and show Manning that he's about done; you "waste" year one of a rookie contract on a RB instead of a QB; your fans like and appreciate the occasional glimpses of Barkley greatness, even if they don't lead to wins
Scenario 2 - Cons: Again, missing out if Darnold is a stud and the 2019 QB is not; you win too much and finish 8-8 or so and don't have a high enough pick to get a top 3 QB in 2019
That second Con for scenario 2 is the real driver, IMO. You don't want to "Bills" it and have a better season than you should, leading you to mortgage the future to trade up for a QB in 2019. And I say that as a Bills fan.
To me, Scenario 2 is the winner as long as Barkley doesn't suck and the Giants still get a top 10 pick next year.
Football Jones
Footballguy
Here's the bottom line...
The Giants decision to take Barkley over Darnold is catastrophic. You don't take a RB high in the draft for a number of reasons. That would be my first question if I were hiring a GM. If they said anything other than "hell, no", the interview would be over.
Taking Zeke over Ramsey was a huge mistake, but this one is even bigger. Literally stupid.
The Giants decision to take Barkley over Darnold is catastrophic. You don't take a RB high in the draft for a number of reasons. That would be my first question if I were hiring a GM. If they said anything other than "hell, no", the interview would be over.
Taking Zeke over Ramsey was a huge mistake, but this one is even bigger. Literally stupid.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not stupid if no one in this class turns out to be a Wentz or Goff. Maybe no one becomes any better than Winston or Mariotta. Then not only wasn't it stupid, it was brilliant. Way too soon to pretend you know more than professionals.
kittenmittens
Footballguy
Barkley looked awesome. Too bad this team is total crap. Reminding me of Barry Sanders, looking really good in spite of garbage around him.
Football Jones
Footballguy
Don't assume because someone has a front office job, they're good at it. There are good & bad barbers, doctors, etc.
We can make valid assumptions based on data & the data doesn't look good right now. People who think taking a RB high in the draft might have something if there was no salary cap. There's also a big difference in positional importance in relation to how many quality players you can find at certain positions & their value to the team. The RB position is the most natural of athletic performance in the NFL. Lots of guys can play the position & produce.
I'm quite confident in saying this was a catastrophic mistake. One of the dumbest draft picks I can remember.
Last edited by a moderator:
msudaisy26
Footballguy
Did you not read his post? When he interviews GM's if they don't answer that question right they don't get to a 2nd question. So there is no other answer pass or fail only!
Football Jones
Footballguy
az_prof
Footballguy
It's always easy to make these judgements after the fact. But if Barkley turns into this generations Barry Sanders, which is not at all absurd, then how good does Darnold have to be to make this a foolish play? It's two weeks in. Last year 49er fans thought Jimmy G was the next Joe Montana. Now, two games into year two, and the rhetoric has mollified somewhat. Let's give this a bit more time. Personally, given how bad the Giants are, it is incredible how productive Barkley has been.
Football Jones
Footballguy
I hear ya, but it's more about impact, both with the salary cap & positional importance that makes it bad.
Barkley could very well be great & from a strategy standpoint, it would still be a mistake. There's almost always a better choice in the top-5 for the overall benefit of your team in today's NFL.
Wise Old Owl
Footballguy
one think that I think get's overlooked is maybe the giants just didn't like any of the qbs this year. I'm watching Trubinsky look very mediocre right now. Mariota and Winston still haven't really established themselves as franchise guys. Missing on a QB in the first can set a franchise back years, maybe they just didn't want to go all in on Darnold
az_prof
Footballguy
I've seen so many bad QB picks in the top five in the past 10 years and those misses really hurt because the contracts are in the 100 Million plus range guaranteed. It was over ten years ago, but I still remember Jamarcus Russell getting six year contract for 68 million and he was so bad and his contract really hurt that team for a long time.
Sorry to derail, but why is everyone so sure Darnold is going to be great? He's been fine so far - basically a game manager with limited upside. He deserves credit for not face-planting at such a young age but after 2 weeks it seems like he's already been anointed.
