Week 4: Bears vs Raiders Sunday at 3:25 on CBS

[cwood218]

17 minutes ago, Hot Sauce said:

Calling any 2025 pick a bad pick three games into their careers is waaaaay premature.

You're oversimplifying a process that isn't by any measure simple. Most of the 1st round will end up busting or (to borrow a baseball term) become replacement level players, including those you would classify as being a "good use" of draft capital.

It has nothing to do with whether Jeanty is a bust, replacement level or better. Even in the best case scenario a running back is still so dependent on his O-line that his production, what he himself is solely responsible for, will not justify the use of such a high draft pick. It's the same reason why you shouldn't draft kickers, punters or long snappers in the first round.

[Hot Sauce]

29 minutes ago, cwood218 said:

It has nothing to do with whether Jeanty is a bust, replacement level or better. Even in the best case scenario a running back is still so dependent on his O-line that his production, what he himself is solely responsible for, will not justify the use of such a high draft pick. It's the same reason why you shouldn't draft kickers, punters or long snappers in the first round.

No. Kickers, punters, and long snappers can't be compared with players who play 50+ offensive snaps in a game. That's just a silly argument.

Jeanty's selection is justified as long as the Raiders believed he was the highest graded player on their board. Essentially, you're arguing that the Giants should have chosen Mike McGlinchey over Saquon Barkley solely because Saquon is a RB. The Giants also had a terrible O-line at the time. You're oversimplifying a complex decision-making process and overlooking the reality that constructing a competitive team extends beyond a single draft. 

Edited September 25, 2025 by Hot Sauce

[cwood218]

1 hour ago, Hot Sauce said:

No. Kickers, punters, and long snappers can't be compared with players who play 50+ offensive snaps in a game. That's just a silly argument.

No, the correct comparison is what excess value would you get by taking one of those positions ( K-P-LS ) in the first round versus later in the draft. Obviously, it would not be worthy of the first round draft capital.

The same can be said of running backs.

1 hour ago, Hot Sauce said:

Jeanty's selection is justified as long as the Raiders believed he was the highest graded player on their board. 

False, teams routinely overdraft QB's because the payoff, if you hit, it is so dramatic that it quite literally changes the course of the franchise. 

1 hour ago, Hot Sauce said:

Essentially, you're arguing that the Giants should have chosen Mike McGlinchey over Saquon Barkley solely because Saquon is a RB and the Giants had a terrible O-line. 

No, your totally missing the point. I made no argument about who they should have taken. It is however generally accepted that QB, CB, WR, OT, DE are the optimal higher picks due to the upside if you hit.

Barkley was #2 the next 10 were

#3 Darnold - QB

#4 Ward - CB **

#5 Chubb - DE *

#6 Nelson - OG **

#7 Allen - QB **

#8 Smith - OLB **

#9 McGlinchey - OT *

#10 Rosen - QB

#11 Fitzpatrick - S **

#12 Vea - DT **

I think you need to go back and review the production Barkley gave the Giants during his 6 seasons. Factoring in both his multiple years of crap production along with the higher cost in his 5th and 6th season. It comes nowhere close to the value of the draft capital they used on him.

6 of the 10 ( ** ) above would have been flat out better picks. 2 of the 10 ( * ) would have been essentially a wash, although considering they were at positions of higher value they would have been wiser picks given the possible excess value had they worked out.

Of course Darnold and Rosen didn't work out. Many however would argue that picking a quarterback at #2 would have been wiser. Essentially viewing the 33% chance you end up with Allen as being worth the risk due to the astronomical value if you hit on QB.

 

Edited September 25, 2025 by cwood218

[Brian707]

If I were the Raiders I would not have drafted Jeanty given their draft position.  That being said he is going to be very good.  Maybe not soon, although the Bears run D is next but 3 games is not a big sample size to make any judgements 

[cwood218]

1 hour ago, Brian707 said:

If I were the Raiders I would not have drafted Jeanty given their draft position.  That being said he is going to be very good.  Maybe not soon, although the Bears run D is next but 3 games is not a big sample size to make any judgements 

Sample size is irrelevant because the question is not if or how good Jeanty is or will be. It's about proper use of limited resources. 

Imagine you have a limited repair budget and your house needs a new roof, new pluming, new electrical and massive foundation repair.

Going full Trump and buying a solid gold refrigerator isn't a wise decision.

[Brian707]

Just now, cwood218 said:

Sample size is irrelevant because the question is not if or how good Jeanty is or will be. It's about proper use of limited resources. 

Imagine you have a limited repair budget and your house needs a new roof, new pluming, new electrical and massive foundation repair.

Going full Trump and buying a solid gold refrigerator isn't a wise decision.

Read what I said again.  Basically what you said just now

[BigbadB]

20 hours ago, Brian707 said:

Not a surprise

Of note, When Ben tried to give Caleb a special moment in the locker room, Caleb wanted none of it. He brushed it off. He's growing into a big boy before our very eyes.

[jersey cubs fan]

7 hours ago, cwood218 said:

It has nothing to do with whether Jeanty is a bust, replacement level or better. Even in the best case scenario a running back is still so dependent on his O-line that his production, what he himself is solely responsible for, will not justify the use of such a high draft pick. It's the same reason why you shouldn't draft kickers, punters or long snappers in the first round.

You cannot compare RB with kickers punters and long snappers. 
 

RBs can make a difference on their own. There are elite difference makers at the position. Most are not, but they do exist and they are worthy of first round picks. 

[cwood218]

25 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

You cannot compare RB with kickers punters and long snappers. 
 

RBs can make a difference on their own. There are elite difference makers at the position. Most are not, but they do exist and they are worthy of first round picks. 

While I disagree, there are some who argue that a mid or late first round pick is still acceptable. As far as a high R1 ... absolutely not. "Their difference" is just to infrequent.

[Soul]

33 minutes ago, cwood218 said:

While I disagree, there are some who argue that a mid or late first round pick is still acceptable. As far as a high R1 ... absolutely not. "Their difference" is just to infrequent.

I don't know how you can make a blanket, all-or-nothing statement like that when there are guys like Barkley out there, and typically those kind of special players are known before the draft.  First 3 games of Jeanty's career should be indicative of nothing.  Sure, he could bust but the same is true of all high first rounders.

What I would say is: overall I'm leery of drafting an RB high in the first round, unless it's a guy who most people think is an exceptional, game-changing type of RB.

[cwood218]

5 minutes ago, Soul said:

I don't know how you can make a blanket, all-or-nothing statement like that when there are guys like Barkley out there, and typically those kind of special players are known before the draft.  First 3 games of Jeanty's career should be indicative of nothing.  Sure, he could bust but the same is true of all high first rounders.

What I would say is: overall I'm leery of drafting an RB high in the first round, unless it's a guy who most people think is an exceptional, game-changing type of RB.

Addressed in the annoying long post above.

Edited September 25, 2025 by cwood218

[SpongeWorthy]

6 hours ago, cwood218 said:

No, the correct comparison is what excess value would you get by taking one of those positions ( K-P-LS ) in the first round versus later in the draft. Obviously, it would not be worthy of the first round draft capital.

The same can be said of running backs.

False, teams routinely overdraft QB's because the payoff, if you hit, it is so dramatic that it quite literally changes the course of the franchise. 

No, your totally missing the point. I made no argument about who they should have taken. It is however generally accepted that QB, CB, WR, OT, DE are the optimal higher picks due to the upside if you hit.

Barkley was #2 the next 10 were

#3 Darnold - QB

#4 Ward - CB **

#5 Chubb - DE *

#6 Nelson - OG **

#7 Allen - QB **

#8 Smith - OLB **

#9 McGlinchey - OT *

#10 Rosen - QB

#11 Fitzpatrick - S **

#12 Vea - DT **

I think you need to go back and review the production Barkley gave the Giants during his 6 seasons. Factoring in both his multiple years of crap production along with the higher cost in his 5th and 6th season. It comes nowhere close to the value of the draft capital they used on him.

6 of the 10 ( ** ) above would have been flat out better picks. 2 of the 10 ( * ) would have been essentially a wash, although considering they were at positions of higher value they would have been wiser picks given the possible excess value had they worked out.

Of course Darnold and Rosen didn't work out. Many however would argue that picking a quarterback at #2 would have been wiser. Essentially viewing the 33% chance you end up with Allen as being worth the risk due to the astronomical value if you hit on QB.

 

ward (who isn't even a good CB), roquan (an off ball linebacker), nelson, and fitzpatrick ain't getting drafted higher than barkley on most boards in a redraft. 

you're taking a truism (you shouldn't draft an RB very high) to a logical extreme that isn't born out by what good offenses actually do. lot of good offenses and teams making deep playoff runs here

[WrigleyField 22]

Any hard and fast rules on RB value should be viewed skeptically IMO. I think the analytic view on RB will go down in history like early analytics if defense and catcher framing in baseball. 

 

I think Jeanty absolutely is a guy who had large enough questions that he shouldn't have been drafted that high. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. Same way that there are very few Gs who meet that criteria, but they do exist. 

 

As far as resources go... Resource restriction honestly isn't all that bad in the NFL. Way different than in baseball.  But teams should take an economic/market based approach which means that value will always be relative and you can't create many concrete rules about resource allocation. 

Edited September 25, 2025 by WrigleyField 22

[cwood218]

2 minutes ago, SpongeWorthy said:

ward (who isn't even a good CB), roquan (an off ball linebacker), nelson, and fitzpatrick ain't getting drafted higher than barkley on most boards in a redraft. 

you're taking a truism (you shouldn't draft an RB very high) to a logical extreme that isn't born out by what good offenses actually do. lot of good offenses and teams making deep playoff runs here

Barkley, Jacobs and McCaffrey weren't drafted by their current teams.

Henry, Cook and Taylor were 2nd round picks.

Kamara and Conner were 3rd round picks.

Willams and Jones were 5th round picks.

 

[SpongeWorthy]

2 minutes ago, cwood218 said:

Barkley, Jacobs and McCaffrey weren't drafted by their current teams.

Henry, Cook and Taylor were 2nd round picks.

Kamara and Conner were 3rd round picks.

Willams and Jones were 5th round picks.

 

yes, and they were all given top or near top of the market contracts and most of those offenses are at least good (some historicallly good). good offenses don't really correlate with cycling through a bunch of mid round draft picks at RB which is what people tend to think is happening. point of fact, barkley, jacobs, and mccaffrey's former teams are now terrible offenses. 

[Outshined_One]

I tend to view modern RBs like I view relief pitchers in baseball.  Most teams can churn RPs internally without much of an issue, and they tend to be reasonably interchangeable with minimal resources needed to acquire them.  Take Andrew Kittredge; all the Cubs needed to trade for him was a lottery ticket.  It's also generally a fool's errand to spend a high draft pick on a guy who's a relief pitcher in college.

However, all of that goes flying out the window when you find a really, really good RP.  In that instance, it can be worth the hefty price, be it draft pick, trade pieces, or contract.

[mul21]

Yeah, I think the argument here boils down to process.  If you're taking a RB high in the first round, it better be a generational type talent like Barkley or Henry.  The excess value provided by those guys far outweighs what you might get from another position.  OO's comparison to a relief pitcher works really well.  They're kinda fungible until you get to the tippy top of the heap and then you've got an incredibly valuable resource, but there just aren't many out there.

[cwood218]

44 minutes ago, SpongeWorthy said:

yes, and they were all given top or near top of the market contracts and most of those offenses are at least good (some historicallly good). good offenses don't really correlate with cycling through a bunch of mid round draft picks at RB which is what people tend to think is happening. point of fact, barkley, jacobs, and mccaffrey's former teams are now terrible offenses. 

Free agents signings are a different discussion then draft pick usage. The production of Barkley and Jacobs during their rookie contracts dosen't really tell the story your claiming. The Chiefs, to name one, seem to have had success "cycling" through. In fact the last time they wasted a first round pick on a running back was ...

2020 R1 pick 32 Clyde Edwards Helaire

The next two picks ...

R2 33 - Tee Higgins WR

R2 34 - Michael Pittman Jr.

Imagine one of those two on that team.

Your best case, McCaffrey, only had two out of five years that you could even point to. One of course being exceptional. However, that pick cost them the opportunity cost of possibly taking Mahomes, who went two picks later, among others. 

Also, Who did the Patroits have as running backs?

Edited September 25, 2025 by cwood218

[cwood218]

1 hour ago, SpongeWorthy said:

ward (who isn't even a good CB)

I believe your confusing Ward ( Cleveland ) with  Jeff Okudah the #3 pick in 2020 ( Lions ) 

[Tryptamine]

Caleb Williams has to be one of the most hated pro athletes right now and it's all for just about nothing. He paints his nails, he's a diva, apparently a large portion of the internet believes he's gay, etc. That's all ignoring his performance where he's still labeled as bad by a huge number of people despite having a career 27TD 7INT.  It doesn't matter what he does, he just gets dragged for all of it.

[gflore34]

5 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

Caleb Williams has to be one of the most hated pro athletes right now and it's all for just about nothing. He paints his nails, he's a diva, apparently a large portion of the internet believes he's gay, etc. That's all ignoring his performance where he's still labeled as bad by a huge number of people despite having a career 27TD 7INT.  It doesn't matter what he does, he just gets dragged for all of it.

I don't get it either, this week, Cowherd and others have been downplaying his performance against the Cowboys.  Going with the Cowboys were and are terrible on defense, which is true.  Caleb also executed, some credit should be given, the NFL thought his performance worthy of praise.   In the end doesn't really matter, as long as Caleb plays on schedule, trusts Ben Johnson, trusts in the process, he's going to be lethal against any defense.

[BigSlick]

If Caleb ends up as even a pretty above average Qb for 8-10 years in Chicago he’ll be beloved for all time here, so he has that going for him 

[Soul]

2 hours ago, gflore34 said:

I don't get it either, this week, Cowherd and others have been downplaying his performance against the Cowboys.  Going with the Cowboys were and are terrible on defense, which is true.  Caleb also executed, some credit should be given, the NFL thought his performance worthy of praise.   In the end doesn't really matter, as long as Caleb plays on schedule, trusts Ben Johnson, trusts in the process, he's going to be lethal against any defense.

These “sports talk” clowns are almost universally worthless. Nobody should care what they say because there are a ton of topics where their take was completely wrong.  They just move on to the next controversial take and everyone forgets the previous discussions.

It’s like market “experts.”  They make 10 doom and gloom predictions.  9 are wrong.  1 is correct and they trumpet how awesome they are at predicting markets. Nobody’s keeping score so they don’t remember the 9 wrong ones.

[cwood218]

3 hours ago, SpongeWorthy said:

...ain't getting drafted higher than barkley on most boards in a redraft. 

Yes, yes they are.

You definitely didn't think this part through. My scenario looks at the next ten picks in general as "these are considered the top of the draft talents" what would have happened if they had just choose differently.

In your redraft scenario we now have 7 seasons of results. There is no guess work or projection.

First, we know that Barkley has an outstanding first year, Followed by good second year. However, years 3 and 4 he misses a lot of games and the production he has is trash. Year 5 is back to good but now he is costing more since it's his option year. Year 6 eats even more of the salary cap and he is below average. That's all the Giants got out of the pick.

Second, and more important, we have the entire draft to look through since it is a redraft. Also, we can be a lot more loose with positional value and upside because we know who hits and who busts. 

#2 Is obviously Allen or Lamar whichever one Cleveland passes on.

In some order all of the following would have been more productive first round picks from pick #3 on.

Denzel Ward - Derwin James - Minkah Fitzpatrick

Frank Ragnow - Quenton Nelson 

Fred Warner - Vita Vea - Mark Andrews - NIck Chubb

That's just a quick look through, defiantly not an exhaustive list.

[Soul]

I love ChatGPT for what it can do in terms of crunching a ton of info and putting it all together.  RE: Caleb Williams being hated on sports talk radio.  Here's what people were saying about Josh Allen after he was drafted:

Absolutely—here’s a solid cross-section of what “sports talk” voices were saying about Josh Allen during his 2018 rookie year (and right around his selection), with direct quotes and dates.

• Colin Cowherd (FOX Sports Radio, Aug 31, 2018):
  “He’s got the tools, but he can’t put it together against an elite defense when the game speeds up.” FOX Sports Radio

• Rodger Sherman (The Ringer, Apr 27, 2018 — day after Round 1):
  “I would consider any team that used a first-round pick on Josh Allen to be the biggest loser of the first round.” He added, “There are just so many videos of him missing easy passes so badly.” The Ringer

• Riley McAtee (The Ringer, Apr 26, 2018 — draft night):
  “The Bills Paid a Premium to Take a Massive Risk on Josh Allen… the draft’s most volatile passing prospect.” The Ringer

• Kevin Clark (The Ringer, May 1, 2018):
  “Buffalo’s decision to trade up for the unproven Josh Allen sent the league in the other direction.” (contrasting Allen with Mayfield as an “analytics” pick) The Ringer

• Danny Heifetz (The Ringer, Dec 10, 2018):
  On Buffalo’s offense with rookie Allen: “The offense flirted with finishing as the worst unit adjusted for era in NFL history… [with] 8 passing touchdowns and 20 interceptions” to that point. The Ringer

• Local Buffalo sports-radio snapshot (WGR 550 context), Jun 6, 2018:
  A WGR producer, Ryan Gates, followed through on a public vow to quit if the Bills drafted Allen, underscoring how polarized local talk was at the time: “A Buffalo radio producer said he’d quit if the Bills picked Josh Allen. So he did.” SB Nation

 

Dude actually quit his job because the Bills picked Allen.  That's got to be the king of all fails.