What are the G-Men doing at #2?

[Iamcanadian]

55 minutes ago, jarren said:

People love to give Zeke all the credit for 16-17 yet always leave how great the oline play was, Dak, and how the defense overachived. 

This past year Dallas went 5-3 with Zeke, one of those wins against a Philly team (6-0 final) resting its starters. 3-3 without him (losses coming against Atl, Phi and SD). 

Not a huge difference in outcome. 

The oline and defense were way bigger reasons for the Boys decline this past season than losing Zeke. 

Theres also numbers that show Morris/Smith faced more stacked boxes and had better success on a per snap basis than Zeke.

Now am I saying Zekes impact is less than Morris and Smith? No. But his impact is not what it seems.  

RBs impact on a team is overrated and surely not worth the 2nd overall pick. 

 

 

Sorry, but I have to disagree, you can have a great OL which Dallas certainly has, but without a great RB to carry the ball, the effect will not be nearly as great.

As for Dak, he is a solid game manager, but without star power around him and an offense geared to the run, Dak simply cannot win just using his arm nor can he carry a team without a strong running attack.

It is just your opinion that the OL and a weak defense accounted for Dallas' decline, just maybe without Zeke, their defense was on the field a lot longer and thus exposed as very average at best and finding blockers for runners is a lot easier than finding pass blockers to replace injured players and without Zeke, Dak was forced to throw more, exposing him and the weakened OL to far more pressure.

I would conclude that Dallas' decline in offense/defense is all attributable to losing Zeke. It is simple math, if you are a team totally committed to running the ball 2/3 ths of the time, losing your star RB equates to most teams losing their QB's who account for 2/3 of their offense, then saying that team's defense got worse as well and the replacement QB stunk because the OL declined as well.

You are missing the point, if you are a pass first offense, of course, the impact of a RB is overrated, but if you are a run first offense, then losing your star RB is going to have an immense impact and if it is the intention of changing the Giants from a pass first offense to a run first offense, then drafting a RB at #2 makes perfect sense, after all, in the running era, drafting a RB #1 overall was not that unusual, it all depends on the focus of your offense!!!

Simple fact, with Zeke, Dallas made the playoffs, a very rare thing in the last 23 years, without him, they didn't, what more can anyone say???

[HTTRDynasty]

^  Lol at running the ball 2/3rds of the time.  No team has done that in I don't even know how long.  Dallas ran the ball 48.70% of the time in 2016... and that wasn't all with Zeke either.

[GSUeagles14]

39 minutes ago, jarren said:

Its really doesnt but ok. 

so the two main points they made, one he conceded himself was a sample size issue and the other was that throwing to rbs isnt really valuable because throwing to te's and wrs could be more valuable. So clearly youre in favor of eliminating throwing to rbs all together? 

[JJ6]

7 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

so the two main points they made, one he conceded himself was a sample size issue and the other was that throwing to rbs isnt really valuable because throwing to te's and wrs could be more valuable. So clearly youre in favor of eliminating throwing to rbs all together? 

Really?

[GSUeagles14]

3 minutes ago, jarren said:

Really?

i dont know, is it really? Did you read the articles you posted? maybe just the titles?

[JJ6]

52 minutes ago, Iamcanadian said:

Sorry, but I have to disagree, you can have a great OL which Dallas certainly has, but without a great RB to carry the ball, the effect will not be nearly as great.

As for Dak, he is a solid game manager, but without star power around him and an offense geared to the run, Dak simply cannot win just using his arm nor can he carry a team without a strong running attack.

It is just your opinion that the OL and a weak defense accounted for Dallas' decline, just maybe without Zeke, their defense was on the field a lot longer and thus exposed as very average at best and finding blockers for runners is a lot easier than finding pass blockers to replace injured players and without Zeke, Dak was forced to throw more, exposing him and the weakened OL to far more pressure.

I would conclude that Dallas' decline in offense/defense is all attributable to losing Zeke. It is simple math, if you are a team totally committed to running the ball 2/3 ths of the time, losing your star RB equates to most teams losing their QB's who account for 2/3 of their offense, then saying that team's defense got worse as well and the replacement QB stunk because the OL declined as well.

You are missing the point, if you are a pass first offense, of course, the impact of a RB is overrated, but if you are a run first offense, then losing your star RB is going to have an immense impact and if it is the intention of changing the Giants from a pass first offense to a run first offense, then drafting a RB at #2 makes perfect sense, after all, in the running era, drafting a RB #1 overall was not that unusual, it all depends on the focus of your offense!!!

Simple fact, with Zeke, Dallas made the playoffs, a very rare thing in the last 23 years, without him, they didn't, what more can anyone say???

I can see why you might be misled. I suggest you look into it a little more than that. Like @HTTRG3Dynasty said Dallas passed more than they ran, even with Elliott. 

[JJ6]

4 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

i dont know, is it really? Did you read the articles you posted? maybe just the titles?

Its a stupid question. Im not going to waste my time discussing the article with you if your asking those type of questions. 

[GSUeagles14]

9 minutes ago, jarren said:

Its a stupid question. Im not going to waste my time discussing the article with you if your asking those type of questions. 

im starting to think you really didnt read it, or maybe dont believe in it. As I already said and you replied with your useless one word response, he most has two main points. One he prefaced with there being a sample size issue but moved on anyway. Im not gonna consider that cause as he said himself, theres a sample size issue. The other is that rbs catching passes arent really that valuable because its more valuable for wrs and tes to catch passes. so why not just eliminate throwing to rbs? Could it be because especially in football so many things are dependent on other things and while rbs catching passes may bot be as valuable as others doing so its still necessary and valuable? lets see if we can answer that bolded question, if the answer is yes then what are you even arguing and if the answer is no ... then well thats just something and we should prob end this anyway.

[game3525]

Quote

RBs are one of the least valueable positions in football by almost any advance metric

People are really underselling how valuable it is to an offense to have a player (3-down RB) you don't have to take off the field. 

Quote

The oline and defense were way bigger reasons for the Boys decline this past season than losing Zeke. 

Great backs can mask o-line issues and the Cowboys defense being bad is partial because Zeke was out. The Cowboys's defense is built to play a limited amount of snaps since they lack talent. Without Zeke there to control the clock and help reduce the snaps the defense has to play, then they will get exposed. 

[JJ6]

11 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

im starting to think you really didnt read it, or maybe dont believe in it. As I already said and you replied with your useless one word response, he most has two main points. One he prefaced with there being a sample size issue but moved on anyway. Im not gonna consider that cause as he said himself, theres a sample size issue. The other is that rbs catching passes arent really that valuable because its more valuable for wrs and tes to catch passes. so why not just eliminate throwing to rbs? Could it be because especially in football so many things are dependent on other things and while rbs catching passes may bot be as valuable as others doing so its still necessary and valuable? lets see if we can answer that bolded question, if the answer is yes then what are you even arguing and if the answer is no ... then well thats just something and we should prob end this anyway.

Obviously you still need to pass to RBs. That was my point. Its a dumb question to even ask. 

 

[Broncofan]

3 minutes ago, game3525 said:

People are really underselling how valuable it is to an offense to have a player (3-down RB) you don't have to take off the field, and to boot with generational talent. 

I'm revising it a little too.   You can have guys who are 3-down guys but pretty meh, and that's not as much of an impact as having a Zeke, Bell or Gurley who can win with the run game, or the pass game (and in Zeke's case, a big plus for great pass protection, and good receiving skills, whereas the other 2 are great <Bell> or schemed to greatness by McVay <Gurley>) in the pass game.    It's why I downgraded Fournette from must-draft Rd1.   He's serviceable in the pass game, but he's not a wheel route / line up wide and beat the ILB/safety kind of threat that Kamara/Bell (and I believe Barkley) will be.

I'm a Rd 1 RB nihilist - unless you can stay on the field for 3-downs, and you have true generational talent.   In the past 7+ years, I count only Zeke, Gurley & Barkley as the 3 (Bell was a different back coming out of college, no one knew he'd slim down and become who he was, DJ was from small school background, so same deal).   I love Sony Michel, but didn't include him (nor Penny lol).  Both can stay on the field IMO, but not quite generational talent.     But I would include Barkley in there.

My problems with Barkley with NYG are 2-fold - I do think Eli's done, I don't think Barkley & OL upgrade will bring that back.  But if I and the others who think the same are wrong, we'll find out soon enough, I'll grant Eli & his supporters that much lol.    The other part I know will be billed as hindsight but I truly think there was no way Barkley wasn't going to be there at 1.5.   DEN apparently was interested in moving up to 1.2 to get Darnold.    Don't get me wrong, if I don't have Darnold (and sadly Elway had ruled out Rosen as a 1.5 option), I'm thrilled we didn't go Allen, and went Chubb.   But I don't see how Gettleman couldn't have extracted more value - and still got his guy.   DEN would have been offering 2.40 and their 2019 2nd, or their 2019 1st to move up.

I get it, Gettleman's never traded back - but if there was a time where it was indicated to break with tradition, this was it.    

[GSUeagles14]

4 minutes ago, jarren said:

Obviously you still need to pass to RBs. That was my point. Its a dumb question to even ask. 

 

i really feel like you didnt read your article that you posted, or you would understand exactly why it was asked. I ask again, what are you even arguing? The article you posted (that i actually read) tries to frame the argument that passing to rbs isnt valuable therefore guys like bell and johnson who are elite at catching it dont add that much. apparently you disagree with that, so... (again) what are you arguing?

[game3525]

7 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

I'm revising it a little too.   You can have guys who are 3-down guys but pretty meh, and that's not as much of an impact as having a Zeke, Bell or Gurley who can win with the run game, or the pass game (and in Zeke's case, a big plus for great pass protection, and good receiving skills, whereas the other 2 are great <Bell> or schemed to greatness by McVay <Gurley>) in the pass game.    It's why I downgraded Fournette from must-draft Rd1.   He's serviceable in the pass game, but he's not a wheel route / line up wide and beat the ILB/safety kind of threat that Kamara/Bell (and I believe Barkley) will be.

I'm a Rd 1 RB nihilist - unless you can stay on the field for 3-downs, and you have true generational talent.   In the past 7+ years, I count only Zeke, Gurley & Barkley as the 3 (Bell was a different back coming out of college, no one knew he'd slim down and become who he was, DJ was from small school background, so same deal).   I love Sony Michel, but didn't include him (nor Penny lol).  Both can stay on the field IMO, but not quite generational talent.     But I would include Barkley in there.

My problems with Barkley with NYG are 2-fold - I do think Eli's done, I don't think Barkley & OL upgrade will bring that back.  But if I and the others who think the same are wrong, we'll find out soon enough, I'll grant Eli & his supporters that much lol.    The other part I know will be billed as hindsight but I truly think there was no way Barkley wasn't going to be there at 1.5.   DEN apparently was interested in moving up to 1.2 to get Darnold.    Don't get me wrong, if I don't have Darnold (and sadly Elway had ruled out Rosen as a 1.5 option), I'm thrilled we didn't go Allen, and went Chubb.   But I don't see how Gettleman couldn't have extracted more value - and still got his guy.   DEN would have been offering 2.40 and their 2019 2nd, or their 2019 1st to move up.

I get it, Gettleman's never traded back - but if there was a time where it was indicated to break with tradition, this was it.    

Yeah, I should have added the elite part. This is why Gordon was a bad pick IMO. He is a 3-down RB and serviceable. But he isn't elite and you can't build your offense around him, which was what the Chargers wanted to do when they drafted him. 

I don't have a problem with Barkley at two, because the Giants at least have a plan in place. They took Barkley, while also rebuilding the offensive line through the draft and free agency. These moves won't bring back 2011 Eli, but it should make his life easier as he will throw less and get easier throws. 

[JJ6]

5 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

i really feel like you didnt read your article that you posted, or you would understand exactly why it was asked. I ask again, what are you even arguing? The article you posted (that i actually read) tries to frame the argument that passing to rbs isnt valuable therefore guys like bell and johnson who are elite at catching it dont add that much. apparently you disagree with that, so... (again) what are you arguing?

I understand where you're coming from with that question and its dumb. Any sort of critical thinking would tell you passing to RBs its still needed. However the impact of passing to RBs isnt as valuable as it may seem. 

[GSUeagles14]

8 minutes ago, jarren said:

I understand where you're coming from with that question and its dumb. Any sort of critical thinking would tell you passing to RBs its still needed. However the impact of passing to RBs isnt as valuable as it may seem. 

apparently you dont understand. using critical thinking and not being dumb, hopefully we can all realize football is a dependent sport and shouldnt be looked at in a vacuum. thats what he was trying to do, but it just doesnt work in football. it was a poor article to post if were trying to have any realistic discussion.