Report: Giants players are getting frustrated with Eli Manning's performance

[Heinz D.]

16 hours ago, minutemancl said:

Obviously I cant be 100% sure, but considering they didnt pick one of those guys, I'd be willing to bet that that was the case. The Giants did their homework on these QBs. 

It could also be they felt so strongly about Barkley that it sort of overrode everything else--nudging them to take another chance on Eli. You could also make a case for snagging a RB before your QB, too...

[HTTRDynasty]

1 hour ago, iknowcool said:

Gotcha, didn’t notice that.  Still, the point remains.  Who is taking Cohen over CMac for example?  And I like Cohen.

I don’t think it proves much.  I could list a draft where late round guards are outplaying first round guards, or late round receivers over first round receivers.  Same thing with linebacker. Drafting any position other than QB, Tackle, or Pass Rusher in the top 10 is never ideal, but sometimes it’s the best route. RB unfairly gets held to a higher standard, but having a top flight WR isn’t any more of an advantage and doesn’t get the “don’t take in the top ten” rule.

I think you're focusing too much on who is "better", instead of taking the full picture into account.  As @RandyMossIsBoss explained, value is what matters here.  I would take Cohen over CMac with their salaries and/or draft position taken into account because I could also have a player like Lattimore, Humphrey, or Jonathan Allen on my team to go with Cohen.

[iknowcool]

Just now, HTTRG3Dynasty said:

I think you're focusing too much on who is objectively "better" right now, instead of taking the full picture into account.  As @RandyMossIsBoss explained, value is what matters here.  I would take Cohen over CMac with their salaries taken into account because I could also have a player like Lattimore, Humphrey, or Jonathan Allen on my team to go with Cohen.

Or you could have C-Mac on your team with Taylor Moton.  Or C-Mac with JuJu Smith-Schuster.  Or C-Mac with Carl Lawson.  

I get what you're saying, but you could apply that logic to any teams draft with just about any position other than pass rusher, quarterback, and tackle.  Its biased towards hindsight.  Why take Patrick Peterson in the first when you could have had Richard Sherman on a cheaper contract while getting JJ Watt in the 1st?  It doesn't mean you should pass on a player you are confident will be good.  

 

[HTTRDynasty]

6 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

Or you could have C-Mac on your team with Taylor Moton.  Or C-Mac with JuJu Smith-Schuster.  Or C-Mac with Carl Lawson.  

I get what you're saying, but you could apply that logic to any teams draft with just about any position other than pass rusher, quarterback, and tackle.  Its biased towards hindsight.  Why take Patrick Peterson in the first when you could have had Richard Sherman on a cheaper contract while getting JJ Watt in the 1st?  It doesn't mean you should pass on a player you are confident will be good.  

 

Because hit rates are much higher in the 1st than in any other round?  The likelihood of hitting on Lawson after drafting C-Mac is much worse (no stats to back this up, but this should be obvious) than the liklihood of hitting on a RB like Cohen after drafting Lattimore in the 1st.  Use your high hit rate picks on high impact positions.

JuJu and Moton were 2nd round picks btw, which means you could have had Lattimore/Allen/Humphrey plus JuJu plus Cohen.

[minutemancl]

38 minutes ago, Heinz D. said:

It could also be they felt so strongly about Barkley that it sort of overrode everything else--nudging them to take another chance on Eli. You could also make a case for snagging a RB before your QB, too...

You could. It worked out for the Rams. The Giants really thought Eli had more left in him than he did. Obviously they were wrong. As long as they're smart, all that means is a pretty sad 2018 season. 

Gettleman definitely felt strongly about Saquon. The latter is proving the former right so far. 

[iknowcool]

24 minutes ago, HTTRG3Dynasty said:

Because hit rates are much higher in the 1st than in any other round?  The likelihood of hitting on C-Mac and Lawson is much worse (no stats to back this up, but c'mon) than the liklihood of hitting on Lattimore and a RB like Cohen.  JuJu and Moton were 2nd round picks btw, which means you could have had Lattimore/Allen/Humphrey plus JuJu plus Cohen.

Cohen isn't some premier back, though.  In the grand scheme of thinks, he's an alright back putting up nice numbers this year on a limited amount of touches, but he'll probably never be a bell-cow in the same way guys drafted in the 1st-round are.  Nothing wrong with that, and Cohen's one of my favorites (esp because he went to NC A&T).  But I could describe plenty of late rounders DBs who fit that same description - average to above average guys who aren't ever going to be able to hold down the #1 spot but you can succeed with in a lesser role.  So I wouldn't say the success rate between the 1st and whatever late round you choose on hitting on C-Mac/average to above average CB is lower than hitting on Lattimore/average to above average RB, or whatever the DB equivalent is to a Cohen.

Heck, it is even easier with WRs.  There are plenty of WRs who are the equivalent of Cohen.  Over the last 4-5 years, wide receivers from all over the draft have been coming in and producing.  I think I'd understand the "don't take a RB in the top ten/first round" POV more if the same logic was applied to WRs, but its not, at least not as wide-spread.  I'd much rather have an elite RB than an elite WR.

If you think Cohen and McCaffrey offer you the same kind of ability, then fair enough.  But I don't see Cohen ever giving you the kind of every down consistenty as McCaffrey is able to provide.  I think his max is as a Darren Sproles kind of player - and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but its not like anybody ever talked about Sproles as a top back.  So I don't think its fair to use him as a reason not to take someone like McCaffrey, Zeke, etc. in the 1st - they are completely different RBs and offer you more.

[HTTRDynasty]

1 minute ago, iknowcool said:

You're talking about Cohen like he's some premier back, though.  In the grand scheme of thinks, he's an alright back putting up nice numbers this year on a limited amount of touches, but he'll probably never be a bell-cow in the same way guys drafted in the 1st-round are.  Nothing wrong with that, and Cohen's one of my favorites (esp because he went to NC A&T).  But I could describe plenty of late rounders DBs who fit that same description - average to above average guys who aren't ever going to be able to hold down the #1 spot but you can succeed with in a lesser role.  So I wouldn't say the success rate between the 1st and whatever late round you choose on hitting on C-Mac/average to above average CB is lower than hitting on Lattimore/average to above average RB, or whatever the DB equivalent is to a Cohen.

And its still dependent on hindsight.  How many people were really talking about Cohen before the draft?  I don't know for sure, but I doubt a team went into the draft thinking, "man, I'm gonna skip McCaffrey in the 1st because I might get Cohen in the 4th."

If you think Cohen and McCaffrey offer you the same kind of ability, then fair enough.  But I don't see Cohen ever giving you the kind of every down consistent as McCaffrey is able to provide.  I think his max is as a Darren Sproles kind of player - and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but its not like anybody ever talked about Sproles as a top back.  So I don't think its fair to use him as a reason not to take someone like McCaffrey, Zeke, etc. in the 1st - they are completely different RBs and offer you more.

I get what you're saying, but Cohen is just one example that I used because you originally brought it up.  The same applies to Kamara, Hunt, James Conner, etc.  It's not just the bit player RBs you're drafting in the mid rounds.

You are far more likely to hit on a player in the 1st round than in any other round, so why waste that pick on a position that does not have a high impact, especially when you can likely find a RB later with an impact that is slightly lower, or maybe even higher than that 1st round RB (the first two examples above)?

We haven't even gotten to the contract portion of this argument, which I already detailed my position on in this thread:

"Drafting Barkley at 2 is unbelievably terrible relative value.  And this isn't just Barkley hate from a division rival.  The quote below is what I said in a thread on the Redskins forum when we were contemplating drafting Guice at 13 overall.  It applies much more so to drafting a RB at 2 overall, no matter how good.

Quote

 

I love Guice, but my main issue with the pick is the fact that we would be getting terrible relative value over the next 5 years.

For example, Zeke and Jalen Ramsey are both top 5 players at their position.  Based on talent alone, you could argue that either Zeke (ignoring the off-the-field stuff) or Ramsey was the right pick for the Cowboys at #4 in 2016.  That there was no wrong pick.  However, that extremely underrates the value you get from having Ramsey under contract for 5 years vs. having Zeke under contract for 5 years:

Zeke is the 7th highest paid RB in the league.  That is okay value for a top 5 back.

Ramsey is the 30th highest paid CB in the league. That is unbelievable value for a top 5 CB.  It's a huge reason the Jags are able to pay Calais Campbell, AJ Bouye, and the other studs on that defense so much going forward.  That is the kind of value that leads to winning Superbowls.  Just ask the 2013 Seahawks.  IMO, the Jags hurt themselves last year by drafting Fournette (who is the 5th highest paid RB btw) at 4 rather than just drafting Deshaun Watson or Mahomes in the 1st and drafting a RB like Alvin Kamara, Kareem Hunt, Dalvin Cook, or Joe Mixon later in the draft.  They'd be SB favorites this year.

 

RB is the one position where it's better to get a guy in FA on his second contract than it is to get in the 1st round of the draft.  That is because you probably end up paying less for the FA over the life of the contract than you do a first round draft pick.  RB is pretty much the only position where that is the case.  So that's why, yes, it does matter how I originally phrased my question.  It's not about how many 1st round RBs have won a SB in the last 20 years.  It's about if they won the SB with the team that drafted them and wasted the relative value they would have gotten at a more important position on a 1st round RB.  If you can't find a FA RB, then you're better off drafting one on Day 2.  It's all about value when trying to build a consistent SB contender under the salary cap.

Believe me, I'm tempted to take Guice at 13 too, if only because of the lack of faith I have in the FO to find a premier talent in a later round.  But if the goal is a Superbowl,  then you have to really be cognizant of salary cap management and the relative value between players.  Give me a Jalen Ramsey or a Joey Bosa over Zeke any day.  Or give me a Marshon Lattimore, Deshaun Watson, or Jonathan Allen over Leonard Fournette.  Or, in this case, a Ward, Fitzpatrick, James, or Vea over Guice.  Not because they are more talented than Guice, but because of the relative value in their positions that allows you to spend more money on studs in FA, or gives you the ability to re-sign your own FAs.  Again, this is how I would manage a team if the goal is to win a Superbowl.  With the Redskins, I have a hard time believing that is their goal, so I have resigned myself to being disappointed.

 

 

Barkley is already the 4th highest paid RB in the league, and will soon have the highest guaranteed money at the position: https://overthecap.com/position/running-back/

I am ecstatic that the Giants made this selection.  It was the one choice I was actively rooting for them to make."

[Kip Smithers]

The way you guys talk about the draft you’d think these GMs have a crystal ball. I don’t regret the Saquon pick at all and coming from a guy who wanted to go OL at 3. He’s proven me wrong and you guys are way too in your evaluation of his impact. He’s drafted for 7-8 years not one. Do the Rams regret taking Gurley? Saquon being the 4th highest paid RB is not an issue. It only becomes so if he’s unproductive. He’s been one of the best backs in the league this season as a rookie 

[iknowcool]

29 minutes ago, HTTRG3Dynasty said:

I get what you're saying, but Cohen is just one example that I used because you originally brought it up.  The same applies to Kamara, Hunt, James Conner, etc.  It's not just the bit player RBs you're drafting in the mid rounds.

You are far more likely to hit on a player in the 1st round than in any other round, so why waste that pick on a position that does not have a high impact, especially when you can likely find a RB later with an impact that is slightly lower, or maybe even higher than that 1st round RB (the first two examples above)?

Even among late-round backs, Hunt and Kamara are exceptions, not the rule.   You are not likely to pick a Kamara or Hunt.  In all likelihood, the RB you (might) get is your Cohen-like back.  A scat-back that gets a lot of touches (by nature of the RB position, even a #2 RB is probably going to see a fair amount of touches) and puts up nice efficiency that gets people tlking.  But again, there are corners and lineman that fit that same description - nice, niche players.  They just aren't recognized as easily because you can't see their numbers the same way you do with a RB.  RBs also have an easier transition to the game, so its quicker to point them out when they are able to produce sooner than maybe an offensive lineman will.

If we define a "successful" player or "hitting on a player" as someone who is able to start as some point for your team (all per Pro Football Reference):

Since 2015, there's been 6 WRs drafted between rounds 4-7 that started 10+ games.

Since 2015, there's been 8 CBs drafted between rounds 4-7 that started 10+ games.

Since 2015, there's been 4 RBs drafted between rounds 4-7 that started 10+ games.

And that probably isn't even including nickel CBs, and it seems like half the league (if not more) rely on a mid-to-late rounder to hold down their nickel spot.  

I get what you're saying.  And being real, of course there is probably a better chance (but not great, and certainly not likely) of getting a Pro Bowl caliber back in the late rounds than maybe a Pro Bowl quality CB, but its not a guarantee.  I don't think you pass on Barkley, Ezekiel, or Gurley because you might get a Pro Bowl RB later in the draft.  

But I think we just value the impact RBs have on the offense differently.  I think an elite RB makes a huge difference.  They force defenses to adapt.  So I personally don't have a problem with how much he's being paid, but I can understand why you do.

[HTTRDynasty]

27 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

Even among late-round backs, Hunt and Kamara are exceptions, not the rule.   You are not likely to pick a Kamara or Hunt.  In all likelihood, the RB you (might) get is your Cohen-like back.  A scat-back that gets a lot of touches (by nature of the RB position, even a #2 RB is probably going to see a fair amount of touches) and puts up nice efficiency that gets people tlking.  But again, there are corners and lineman that fit that same description - nice, niche players.  They just aren't recognized as easily because you can't see their numbers the same way you do with a RB.  RBs also have an easier transition to the game, so its quicker to point them out when they are able to produce sooner than maybe an offensive lineman will.

If we define a "successful" player or "hitting on a player" as someone who is able to start as some point for your team (all per Pro Football Reference):

Since 2015, there's been 6 WRs drafted between rounds 4-7 that started 10+ games.

Since 2015, there's been 8 CBs drafted between rounds 4-7 that started 10+ games.

Since 2015, there's been 4 RBs drafted between rounds 4-7 that started 10+ games.

And that probably isn't even including nickel CBs, and it seems like half the league (if not more) rely on a mid-to-late rounder to hold down their nickel spot.  

I get what you're saying.  And being real, of course there is probably a better chance (but not great, and certainly not likely) of getting a Pro Bowl caliber back in the late rounds than maybe a Pro Bowl quality CB, but its not a guarantee.  I don't think you pass on Barkley, Ezekiel, or Gurley because you might get a Pro Bowl RB later in the draft.  

But I think we just value the impact RBs have on the offense differently.  I think an elite RB makes a huge difference.  They force defenses to adapt.  So I personally don't have a problem with how much he's being paid, but I can understand why you do.

Not sure how much this tells us.  We have remember that there are 2 "starters" at WR/CB, while there is one "starter" at RB.  And I'm sure those stats are much more in favor of the RB if we were to include round 3.

Regardless, I agree that those late-round RBs are far more likely to be niche players.  I was talking more about rounds 3-4.  I think some very nice all-around starting RBs can be, and have been, drafted in those rounds.  I agree that you can say the same for any position, but 1) I think there are more quality RBs that can be had there compared to other positions and 2) positional value is so integral to my point, and RBs just don't have the relative value to justify that high of a pick IMO.

I agree that elite RBs can make a huge difference.  But how much is that costing you on a relative basis?  That's my  point.  But yeah man, agree to disagree I guess.  

[DigInBoys]

Saquon looks like he's destined to be one of the best players in the league...he could very well be the most impactful player to come out of the draft.

 

 

[Heinz D.]

3 hours ago, HTTRG3Dynasty said:

Barkley is already the 4th highest paid RB in the league, and will soon have the highest guaranteed money at the position: https://overthecap.com/position/running-back/

I am ecstatic that the Giants made this selection.  It was the one choice I was actively rooting for them to make."

Ehhh, I don't know. No offense, but that seems like kind of an oversimplified take to me. I mean...it's the cap. And if Barkley is worth the money--then he's worth the money. If the Giants move on from Eli, then there are no worries at all. The only potential problem with the Barkley pick was passing on somebody  to replace Eli...and they can do that later. I was one who thought--strongly--they should have traded the pick. But even I can see some sort of plan with what they're up to. 

[Superman(DH23)]

13 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

Ehhh, I don't know. No offense, but that seems like kind of an oversimplified take to me. I mean...it's the cap. And if Barkley is worth the money--then he's worth the money. If the Giants move on from Eli, then there are no worries at all. The only potential problem with the Barkley pick was passing on somebody  to replace Eli...and they can do that later. I was one who thought--strongly--they should have traded the pick. But even I can see some sort of plan with what they're up to. 

But RBs arent worth the money is the point.  RB is the most easily replaceable position on the team.  Look what's going on with Lev Bell right now.  He is still on his first contract really right now.  The Steelers have no intention of signing him to big money and at age 27, you aren't going to find many teams looking to do it either.  Then in terms of draft status versus dollar value. Barkley is the 7th highest paid RB as a rookie.  Baker Mayfield is making less money than 90% of backup QBs and isnt even a blip on the radar in terms of starter money.  That's why you dont draft RBs early Jordan Howard was #2 in rushing his rookie year.  When you look at what he is making versus what Zeke is making it makes the value question very interesting.