OT: Lamar Jackson

[Doctor DDS]

I don't assume the Pats necessarily win it last year w/o Sony. He scored a crucial TD on the 4th and 1 play late in the 4th against the Chiefs to go along with his 110+ rushing yards. In a game where one play may have changed the outcome he came up huge. Certainly possible that they could have been as successful with a different RB but we'll never know.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Hard to argue against BGCs points. They are valid. I disagree with his conclusion though because taking Saquon with the second pick is not why they are a disaster, IMO.

man interesting scenario relevant to this debate would be, how much more than Michel could Saquon have produced last season as a patriot. That would be fairly interesting to see. We will never know though

That's not my conclusion. They were bad before & bad now. They're not any worse w or w/out him.

You put Barkley behind our OL last year & he's doing serious damage but no more then a healthy Guice or Chubb etc.

 

[fightingirish595]

That's not my conclusion. They were bad before & bad now. They're not any worse w or w/out him.

You put Barkley behind our OL last year & he's doing serious damage but no more then a healthy Guice or Chubb etc.

If we put him behind our line last year, how much would he have put performed Michel though. In the passing game probably by a lot. In the run game, probably not by a lot but who really knows (on a per carry basis

what if Michel was on the giants last year. Probably gets no where close to saquons production which is interesting.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

If we put him behind our line last year, how much would he have put performed Michel though. In the passing game probably by a lot. In the run game, probably not by a lot but who really knows (on a per carry basis

what if Michel was on the giants last year. Probably gets no where close to saquons production which is interesting.

I mean Barkley is the superior player so we know he'll perform better w less around him but again I'm looking a lot deeper then that.
You don't need a peak LT, Peterson or Payton to win games or championships. We've seen this first-hand w guys like Smith, BJGE, Blount, Dillon, Woodhead, Vereen, White, Sony ... The Shanahans are famous for winning w just abt any RB. Look at how SF is doing w Breida, Coleman & Mostert.

It's just a position/production you can find anywhere. Sure who wouldn't want Barkley on their team but at what price? The #2 overall pick? Absolutely no way. That's insanity imo.

Chubb: 445/2277 - 5.2/5.1 per - 15 TD - 3 fmb - Rec - 72 targets/52 rec - 405 yards - 7.5/8.0 per - 69/74.4% catch rate -


Barkley: 415/1917 - 5.0/4.0% - 13 TD - 1 fmb - Rec - 132/1017 - 7.9/7.1 per - 75.2/68.3% catch rate

Barkley was the #2 overall pick & already a top 5-8 cap hit.

Chubb was the 35th pick making a little more than 800K.

While I didn't hate the Sony pick he wouldn't have been my choice while Jackson, Landry (I had both graded a lot higher) & others were available.

Side Note 2018 definitely had some beast.
Rd1: Alexander, Nelson, Jackson, Vea, Chubb, Smith, Davenport, Miller, Minkah, Edmunds, James, LVE,
Rd2 Leonard, Sutton, Kirk, Goedert, Chark

Definitely others I'm missing but that looks pretty good so far.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

That's not my conclusion. They were bad before & bad now. They're not any worse w or w/out him.

Seems like a conclusion by a casual fan who doesn’t understand the game. I mean, Joe Thomas is one of your prized lottery position picks and never helped the Browns win. How about DL? They went 0-16 with Miles Garrett his first year, even though he was a good pick. Year after year great players at your premium positions are drafted high, perform well, and don’t move the needle due to their supporting cast. You’re trying to make Barkley and the Giants into some loony argument to fit your agenda, now that you’ve dug yourself into a deep hole.

Using an argument that since the Giants didn’t get better, Barkley wasn’t a good pick is
something I’d expect from someone who doesn’t really understand football. So, it’s all good.

If you asked 32 GMs which RB they’d take between Barkley, Chubb, or Guice - cap hit considered - I’m sure you’d get a unanimous loud laugh before getting the door slammed on you. Cite all the stats you want; Barkley is clearly an elite player who the defense game plans around. Or maybe you aren’t aware that defenses note when there’s a highly elite player who is the whole motor of the offense, as opposed to a couple of other guys you’ve compared Barkley to?

Funny how amateurs can double down so, so much on opinions that are just common sense wrong. I don’t claim to have the knowledge of a pro scout, but clearly my common sense level exceeds yours.

Unfortunately the condescending, patronizing tone is something I have to take on when replying to you, since that’s your over the top style.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Seems like a conclusion by a casual fan who doesn’t understand the game. I mean, Joe Thomas is one of your prized lottery position picks and never helped the Browns win. How about DL? They went 0-16 with Miles Garrett his first year, even though he was a good pick. Year after year great players at your premium positions are drafted high, perform well, and don’t move the needle due to their supporting cast. You’re trying to make Barkley and the Giants into some loony argument to fit your agenda, now that you’ve dug yourself into a deep hole.

Using an argument that since the Giants didn’t get better, Barkley wasn’t a good pick is
something I’d expect from someone who doesn’t really understand football. So, it’s all good.

If you asked 32 GMs which RB they’d take between Barkley, Chubb, or Guice - cap hit considered - I’m sure you’d get a unanimous loud laugh before getting the door slammed on you. Cite all the stats you want; Barkley is clearly an elite player who the defense game plans around. Or maybe you aren’t aware that defenses note when there’s a highly elite player who is the whole motor of the offense, as opposed to a couple of other guys you’ve compared Barkley to?

Funny how amateurs can double down so, so much on opinions that are just common sense wrong. I don’t claim to have the knowledge of a pro scout, but clearly my common sense level exceeds yours.

Unfortunately the condescending, patronizing tone is something I have to take on when replying to you, since that’s your over the top style.

This is all abt value, particularly when you're drafting prospects.

It's common knowledge RBs are less valuable than QB, OL, DL, CB & you could argue other positions as well. All you have to do is watch football & you'll see guys perform at similar levels that were drafted late or not drafted at all. Like the article stated.
Do you have anything else besides your opinion? Do you really believe RBs are more valuable than the positions I stated? You're being stubborn & simply can't admit you are wrong. You're way too focused on the name Barkley & refusing to see you can get those #'s throughout the draft.

I've given you examples of late round guys performing as good. Articles to back up my claims & all you have is you're opinion.

I might be an amateur & have a ton to learn but have a record that shows I'm as good as anyone getting paid to evaluate prospects. I absolutely can get better but the results are there for anyone to measure anytime they want.

That said I'm not the one @ you asking your opinion. In fact I can't remember you breaking down plays, a players technique or writing anything insightful. So you can call me an amateur or w/e you want but again you're asking me for advice. Not the other way around. What does that make you?

"@BaconGrundleCandy are some QBs better than others in grind it out games where they need to scratch and claw for wins against tough matchups, with receivers being blanketed by good defenses, or are other factors at play? You seem to be the QB guru here"

 

[glm]

Folks are just really mad that we didn't get Lamar Jackson. Instead, we drafted Sony Michel, a RB with a potentially degenerative knee, who's running worse than LeGarrett Blount did for us.

Fact is, that the Ravens and the Chiefs, two of our recent AFC rivals, got their long-term QB who will probably be in the HOF by the end of their careers, while we don't have anyone worthwhile after Tom Brady, who's declining year-after-year. It's arguable that even the Bills with Josh Allen have a brighter future than the Patriots.

I don't know how much longer Brady will play for the Patriots, but the time is ticking and Belichick needs to find the next guy ASAP.

Blount ran good for us.

 

[203Pat]

Blount ran good for us.

We got Blount for a pack of gum we drafted a guy in the first round who doesn’t look much better.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

We got Blount for a pack of gum we drafted a guy in the first round who doesn’t look much better.

Simply abt value at that position. Why spend more when you absolutely know you can get similar production for cheaper?
I guess some haven't been paying attention to how view the position. Could you imagine Bill paying big money for a RB? Drafting a RB top 5? Of course not.

And the examples are literally there every year. Guaranteed not many knew who Carson was/is but he had another nice game today. I know reamer liked him a lot.
Just think it's insane arguing abt this when we're almost in 2020. This has been known & accepted for years now. I guess slow ones will be slow?

 

[fightingirish595]

Simply abt value at that position. Why spend more when you absolutely know you can get similar production for cheaper?
I guess some haven't been paying attention to how view the position. Could you imagine Bill paying big money for a RB? Drafting a RB top 5? Of course not.

And the examples are literally there every year. Guaranteed not many knew who Carson was/is but he had another nice game today. I know reamer liked him a lot.
Just think it's insane arguing abt this when we're almost in 2020. This has been known & accepted for years now. I guess slow ones will be slow?

I think a good question here is where exactly is your cutoff. And are there any exceptions?

You against taking a back at pick 35?

also how what do you think about Dallas taking zeke at 4? I Personally thought that was a good pick.

I think their are exceptions to nearly every “rule”

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

View attachment 25538

I think a good question here is where exactly is your cutoff. And are there any exceptions?

You against taking a back at pick 35?

Rd1 should be QB/OL/DL/CB

Most valuable positions more or less
QB
... huge drop off
OT
Rush/Edge
CB
DT
Some debate here I guess but more or less those are the most valuable positions.
After that it's up for debate I guess. RB, S, LB?

Anyway I'd never take a RB Rd1. Esp when you have guys at more valuable positions like Jackson, Landry & can get a Chubb, Cook Rd2.

Like Sony & Chubbs salary aren't that different but again
31: Sony Michel
32: Lamar Jackson.

You can't ignore that value/production/cost etc.

If those guys aren't on the board I'm trading down even & getting more picks. Even though more picks don't = you have a better chance hitting on picks.

 

[fightingirish595]

Rd1 should be QB/OL/DL/CB

Most valuable positions more or less
QB
... huge drop off
OT
Rush/Edge
CB
DT
Some debate here I guess but more or less those are the most valuable positions.
After that it's up for debate I guess. RB, S, LB?

Anyway I'd never take a RB Rd1. Esp when you have guys at more valuable positions like Jackson, Landry & can get a Chubb, Cook Rd2.

Like Sony & Chubbs salary aren't that different but again
31: Sony Michel
32: Lamar Jackson.

You can't ignore that value/production/cost etc.

If those guys aren't on the board I'm trading down even & getting more picks. Even though more picks don't = you have a better chance hitting on picks.

QB most valuable of course.

Imo I’d say corner, edge rusher, OT, safety, and DT after that. Would probably look for the best player on the board Out of those positions.

feel like LB is a very underrated position. I’ve seen people say they wouldn’t take a LB in round 1 and I think that’s absolute madness. I think BB would agree

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

QB most valuable of course.

Imo I’d say corner, edge rusher, OT, safety, and DT after that. Would probably look for the best player on the board Out of those positions.

feel like LB is a very underrated position. I’ve seen people say they wouldn’t take a LB in round 1 and I think that’s absolute madness. I think BB would agree

I can be swayed. Obviously not a LB you're taking off for a DB but I can be swayed.
Harry for example. Not as against it as RB. I can absolutely see the need given that we were desperate at the time. They obviously felt good abt him. WR3 for me so I can be flexibility there.

 

[primetime]

View attachment 25538

I think a good question here is where exactly is your cutoff. And are there any exceptions?

You against taking a back at pick 35?

also how what do you think about Dallas taking zeke at 4? I Personally thought that was a good pick.

I think their are exceptions to nearly every “rule”

I think I'd rather have Jalen Ramsey or Ronnie Stanley if I was building a team right now than Elliott and those are the two guys drafted right after him. DeForest Buckner is really good too. I'd also rather take up cap space paying those guys than paying a back.

The dropoff from Elliott to an average running back just isn't as great as the dropoff from a good tackle or corner to a passable one, and it's tougher to find even a passable tackle or corner than it is a back. So yeah I generally agree with not taking a back in the 1st round. I might in the second but it has to be someone with special skills in the passing game.

 

[fightingirish595]

I can be swayed. Obviously not a LB you're taking off for a DB but I can be swayed.
Harry for example. Not as against it as RB. I can absolutely see the need given that we were desperate at the time. They obviously felt good abt him. WR3 for me so I can be flexibility there.

WR more important than RB the way the game is played today. Need good ones but there are plenty of solid ones who can get it done as well

 

[primetime]

To me, a guy like James White is more or less just as valuable as a guy like Zeke, but NFL teams don't see it that way so guys with that skillset can linger a bit in the draft, like Kamara did. I'd rather take shots on receiving/protecting backs in the early-middle rounds and fill out my "runners" with a rotating cast of veteran castoffs or undrafted guys. Which isn't too different from what the Patriots did when not drafting Maroney or Michel.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

To me, a guy like James White is more or less just as valuable as a guy like Zeke, but NFL teams don't see it that way so guys with that skillset can linger a bit in the draft, like Kamara did.

That & there's simply a bigger supply to pick from considering how many athletes there are in that range physique-wise.

 

[fightingirish595]

To me, a guy like James White is more or less just as valuable as a guy like Zeke, but NFL teams don't see it that way so guys with that skillset can linger a bit in the draft, like Kamara did. I'd rather take shots on receiving/protecting backs in the early-middle rounds and fill out my "runners" with a rotating cast of veteran castoffs or undrafted guys. Which isn't too different from what the Patriots did when not drafting Maroney or Michel.

I generally agree with that. It’s a passing league. With a good line, obviously you can run the ball effectively

 

[primetime]

That & there's simply a bigger supply to pick from considering how many athletes there are in that range physique-wise.

There are a lot of good college running backs and it's a position that translates without much issue.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

lAmEr wOnt lAsT LOL