would you be opposed to moving back up for Bijan Robinson?

[LinvilleGorge]

9 minutes ago, Wundrbread33 said:

Basically runningbacks with so so hands are a dime a dozen, yes.
 

A Marshall Faulk type player will always be insanely valuable in the NFL. 

How did that work out for us in terms of wins? How has that worked out for the Giants with Barkley in terms of wins?

RBs just have too short of a shelf life, are too injury prone, and there's too much bargain production at the position to justify huge resources into the position.

[Toomers]

6 minutes ago, Wundrbread33 said:

Every runningback thread contains people talking about CMC like he is just a runningback.

 

He’s a defense breaking offensive weapon. He’s the best runner and has the best hands on the team as soon as he walks in the building. 
 

Slot corners have issues with him, let alone the linebackers he abuses every play. 
 

Watch some 49er tape if McAdoo’s usage of him is stuck in your head. 

And with all that going for him, he still couldn’t bring more than what amounted to a mid 2nd round pick. Why wasn’t every team throwing 1sts at the team for him? 

[top dawg]

56 minutes ago, micnificent28 said:

I mean if your fine with Chubba Hubbard being your starting RB. There are exceptions to the rule. Barkley was one of them. when you get one of those guys at their best look what he did for the Giants carried their offense single handedly. I think you look hard at special talents. only reason he would be available at 20 or less is hes at a position thats undervalued.

Barkley was good, but he didn't carry the team by himself. Jones was really the cog that made the Giants go.  The Giants will sacrifice Barkley in a New York minute if it comes down to between Jones and Barkley.

[Shocker]

11 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

It's not really about his best or not his best. Even at his best, it didn't have a dramatic impact on wins and losses. I posted the article here a few seasons ago(around the time we were talking about extending him) and it was a detailed statistical analysis that specifically resulted in win shares for RB's being one of the lowest positions on any NFL offense.

And that has always been the big problem with paying money like that to a RB. This isn't the 70's or 80's or even 90's. It isn't "featured" backs anymore that have 400+ carries a year until they are ground to dust because that is what wins. That's not modern NFL football. RB's are complimentary players and the decline in overall top paid players at the position very much reflects the league recognizing that this has been the trend.

That's the problem a lot of the irrational CMC fanboys have with this argument. It literally has NOTHING to do with CMC the player. It's about the position and how it has evolved into something that doesn't need a $8+ mil/year player. Much less one double that cost.

I don’t disagree.  I think CMC and Barkley are the top 2 RBs in the league and both have lost significant time with injuries.  RBs just don’t last.  They take too much punishment.  Paying them big contracts on their second deal is a huge risk that tends to bomb

I would definitely say CMC had a serious impact on San Fran last season.  They won like every game once he played until Philly.

Edited February 16, 2023 by Shocker

[kungfoodude]

1 minute ago, Shocker said:

I don’t disagree.  I think CMC and Barkley are the top 2 RBs in the league and both have lost significant time with injuries.  RBs just don’t last.  They take too much punishment.  Paying them big contracts on their second deals is a huge risk that tends to bomb

Yeah, I didn't want to do that at the time and very sadly I was 100% correct in the reasons why we shouldn't have done it. 

It would have been nice to be very wrong and watch him have a Frank Gore-like career here but the data just showed how rarely that happens. 

It is what it is.

So, no to spending a 1st round pick on Robinson. I love him as a player but I have zero desire to fall into that trap again.

[Shocker]

2 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Yeah, I didn't want to do that at the time and very sadly I was 100% correct in the reasons why we shouldn't have done it. 

It would have been nice to be very wrong and watch him have a Frank Gore-like career here but the data just showed how rarely that happens. 

It is what it is.

So, no to spending a 1st round pick on Robinson. I love him as a player but I have zero desire to fall into that trap again.

Naw…I definitely don’t want to spend a first for us even if we move down on Bijan.
Absolutely not. 

[LinvilleGorge]

14 minutes ago, top dawg said:

Barkley was good, but he didn't carry the team by himself. Jones was really the cog that made the Giants go.  The Giants will sacrifice Barkley in a New York minute if it comes down to between Jones and Barkley.

Well, I mean Jones sucks. "Sacrificing" him would just be a smart move.

[micnificent28]

28 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

CMC's return was legitimately terrible. That's very little his fault but the return was insanely bad. We are 24-34 when he starts games in his career here(for reference we are 15-24 when he doesn't start/play, including after he was traded in 2022).

His stats were great, but the missed games were nuts and I think it's also kind of clear that he isn't quite as explosive as he once was. 

Will always be in the discussion for best RB in franchise history but he is also a case study in why you don't spend money on the position anymore. Unfortunately for us, it was about case file 25 or so. It isn't like there aren't ample examples of why not to pay big money for RB's over the past 20 years.

 

Your talking in terms of contracts? yeah sure it was awful. But im speaking in terms of draft capital and return. You got arugably the best rb in the game who redefines the position. An all time leader for our franchise in a franchise that has invested heavily in the position historically.  On the back end of that you were were able to trade him for a 2,3,4,5 i think which is of huge value for a rb on his secone contract.

Rbs this day and age never return a second. you got almost 1st round value for a guy you rode into the ground.

[top dawg]

Just now, LinvilleGorge said:

Well, I mean Jones sucks. "Sacrificing" him would just be a smart move.

A number of analysts disagree with you. We'll see how it all turns out.

[Bear Hands]

51 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

More reason not to trade up for anyone at a non-premium position.

I think there's a decent chance we draft a RB somewhere in the 3rd to 5th round range.

Yeah exactly what I'm saying

[Stuart Smith]

17 minutes ago, Shocker said:

I don’t disagree.  I think CMC and Barkley are the top 2 RBs in the league and both have lost significant time with injuries.  RBs just don’t last.  They take too much punishment.  Paying them big contracts on their second deal is a huge risk that tends to bomb

I would definitely say CMC had a serious impact on San Fran last season.  They won like every game once he played until Philly.

CMC was injured during the majority of 2 seasons, he should have less “wear and tear.” 

[RJK]

No RBs in the first 2 rounds ever again thanks 

[Basbear]

Bijan makes me want to break my rules. Hes the #2 guy after carter, just happens to play RB. 22 years ago hed be the no question first pick. 

 

Love to have him and I HATE investing into the RB.......CURSE YOU MARTY HERNIAY!!!!!!!!!!!!

[kungfoodude]

Just now, micnificent28 said:

Your talking in terms of contracts? yeah sure it was awful. But im speaking in terms of draft capital and return. You got arugably the best rb in the game who redefines the position. An all time leader for our franchise in a franchise that has invested heavily in the position historically.  On the back end of that you were were able to trade him for a 2,3,4,5 i think which is of huge value for a rb on his secone contract.

Rbs this day and age never return a second. you got almost 1st round value for a guy you rode into the ground.

He didn't redefine the position, TBH. Faulk and LT existed before him, even today there are backs or hybrid players with great catching ability/production. He might be the best overall package, to be sure but he wasn't some new thing.

The trade we made for him was fantastic. WAY more than I ever figured we would get for him given the value. 

But, again, the results were that we didn't win. That is ultimately what matters. You want painful? Mahomes, Watson, TJ Watt, Ryan Ramczyk, etc....those guys were drafted later in the 1st and would like have had a much bigger impact on wins and losses. Because all those guys play much more valuable positions. Not to mention in that draft Dalvin Cook was a 2nd round pick and Alvin Kamara a 3rd. So you could have gotten another elite RB AND an impact player at an high value position.

That will be the problem with taking a 1st round RB for the foreseeable future. 

You think the Giants would still take Barkley at 3? When they could have drafted Allen or Jackson at QB and probably still have gotten Nick Chubb(a better RB than Barkley)? Probably not.