​Saquon Barkley is likely going to be one of the top running backs in the NFL. He is the most dynamic player the Giants have had (along with Odell Beckham) in a very long time.  I will root hard for him and possibly adopt him as my favorite player.  I’m going out to buy #26 Jerseys for me and my son (and any of my daughters willing to fake an interest).
 
BUT HE WAS THE WRONG PICK.
 
He will get approximately $32m over 4 years.  That puts him on par with the highest paid running backs in the NFL with a multi-year contract and a bit below what Le’veon Bell will ultimately get when he gets a multi-year deal (I’ll estimate about $10-11m per year).  If he is the second coming of Le’veon Bell, and that would be above his expected value, the Giants gained $3m a year of value from the pick.  When they move on from Manning, assuming they don’t discover that Davis Webb is something he likely is not, they will need to spend $20-30m to get a quarterback.  Even Blake Bortles is getting $18m. If Darnold was only Bortles the Giants would save $10m per year. 
 
If the Giants were really not in love with any of the quarterbacks at the top of the draft, and none are can’t miss, then they needed to trade down.
 
Turning down an offer from the Broncos to move down to #5, is the very definition of taking instant gratification over what’s better in the long term.
 
In round 2, expect the Giants to either build the offensive line with Connor Williams or Will Hernandez, or replace DRC with a Josh Jackson or Donte Jackson.  I think they would love to move on from Flowers but Hernandez really is a guard. Tis a real shame they didn’t keep Pugh over Andrew Norwell as that would have provided the flexibility to play him at guard or tackle and then draft the better lineman -whether it was a guard or tackle.
 
 -Ari Glass

The Giants have the #2 pick in this weeks 2018 NFL draft. The word they have leaked is that they are strongly considering taking all world running back Saquon Barkley with this pick. In my prior blog, I explained how they could be using Game theory to get the Browns to take Barkley at #1 leaving them Darnold, who I believe is the only quarterback they highly value. 
 
Here we will explain why it would be a very bad idea to take Barkley with the second overall selection.
 
Its all about The Relative Value of Positions
 
For any running back with more than a one year (Franchise) contract (meaning we are excluding the franchised Le’veon Bell for this), the highest paid in the NFL is Davonta Freeman at $8.25m.  By the time you get to 15th highest you are at $4m per year.
 
The Jags signed Blake Bortles for $18m -BLAKE BORTLES!!!!  He happens to be not much better than the 30th best quarterback but 18th highest paid quarterback.  This is largely as a result of some very good quarterbacks still on their rookie contracts. The highest paid QB is now Cousins at $28m per, and the 15th (average for a starter) gets just under $21m.
 
The salary cap is at about $177m.  To compete for the Superbowl you arguably need to produce significantly more value than that.  Let’s say approximately $235m in production (the exact amount could be argued but the concept can’t).
 
If you can draft a top performing quarterback and pay him less than $7m per year, if he performs at just the top half that comes to $21m, a savings of $14m or just above a quarter of the outperformance you will need, from one position.  Paying a running back the $7m that a #2 overall pick will make, if he performs at the very top level, you are still only saving approximately $2m. There is virtually no running back you couldn’t get if you would pay $9m per year. Walter Payton in his prime would likely not get more than $10-11m per year. You hope that Barkley is Walter Payton.
 
The relative value of these positions makes it that you can’t take a running back that high even if you think he will be a top 3 running back in the NFL.  You would have to know you were drafting Jim Brown for that to make sense and even then, the numbers likely would not support it in today’s passing league.
 
The math and replacement value formula makes the argument clear.  It is interesting to analyze whether the entire league has it wrong. Is it possible that the entire league just incorrectly evaluating the relative value of a good running back to a good quarterback?  It’s unclear if the answer matters as you could get just about any running back you want for $9m per year, and therefore even if the league is incorrectly calculating the position, you should still “arb” that in the free agent market and not in the draft.
 
The typical QB is an active part of an offensive play an average of 500 times per year (based on attempts by 15th ranked QB in attempts) versus average running back of 210 carries by same metric. Even accounting for only receptions and the QB can affect materially more plays.  Additionally, the variance around the average quarterbacks’ performance is substantially higher than the variance around a running backs production.  Firstly, there is more variance in yards per attempt between a 90th percentile (top tier) QB versus a 50th percentile one, than there is in yard per carry of similarly stratified running backs (you must assume a certain number of minimum carries when doing the math since unlike QBs some running backs only run very infrequently and their averages are not statistically significant).
Secondly, the impact of the much wider variance on turnovers makes the QB even more important.  The difference between lost fumbles for the most generous of ball carriers (again assume 95th percentile) on a given year versus the average fumbler may be about 1-1.5 lost fumbles per year.  For QB INTs that would be at least 6.  It could be argued that the average turnover would cost a team approximately 40 yards worth of field position.  When that is factored into any yards per play analysis, the impact of a turnover on total value differential is significant, once again making QB a much higher “leverage” position.
 
Seattle had a dominant team when they had Russell Wilson playing on his cheap 3rd round rookie contract. Their ability to win went down materially when they had to start paying him full price. Without a doubt, one of the keys to the Patriots success has been Brady’s willingness to work for what is known to be well below his intrinsic value (I don’t know what kind of deal he and Kraft have worked out for a personal services contract after he retires to compensate for this).
 
Lastly, many of the things they are now saying about Barkley, they were saying about Leonard Fournette. He is/will be a good running back, but he averaged 3.8 yards per carry. If Barkley came in and did well and became a free agent a year from now he would command $8-9m. If a Rosen or Darnold did the same they would command $25m (see Garofalo, Jimmy).
 
You sign a Rosen and if he is only average quality you will get more added value out of him than a top running back. The relative value of the positions is just too lopsided to take a running back that high.
 
So, what should the Giants do?
​
Ideally, they like a quarterback available to them at number 2. If they really do not like the quarterback options available to them (I suspect that they like Darnold who could go to the Browns at number 1), they should look to trade down (although the best deal they would have gotten and the trade I’d have liked was the trade the Jets made with the Colts).
Lastly, if neither is a possibility they should look at Bradley Chubb as their next best option.  It still doesn’t have QB positional value but top defensive ends make double what top running backs make and get a bit closer to the value of a QB.

-Ari Glass
 
 

The Giants are letting it get leaked that they are not going to take a quarterback with the second pick in the draft, and that specifically they are targeting Saquon Barkley.
 
For reasons to be discussed in the next blog to be posted prior to the draft, the Giants would be foolish to take Barkley.  I believe they must recognize the positional value and that Walter Payton would not be paid what an average NFL quarterback makes.
 
So why are they letting everyone believe they are in on Barkley?
 
It’s all about game theory.  I believe the Giants would like to draft Sam Darnold.  They are unsure as to whether the Browns intend to take Darnold or Allen but don’t think the Browns are strongly convicted on one versus the other. It’s almost obvious that the Browns intend to take Barkley with the 4th pick. They obviously are not going to take a second quarterback with that pick and are not very likely to take Chubb as they took Myles Garret with last year’s number one and need to spread it around a bit more. The Giants are hoping by introducing the idea of Barkley as their choice at #2, they get the Browns to take Barkley at 1, leaving Darnold to the Giants.  The Browns would still know that either Darnold, Allen, Rosen or Mayfield will be available at 4. 
 
The former Giants regime had too many leaks which led to teams trading up to jump them. If I’m right, they are using the false leaks this time around to meet their objectives. It’s a smart move.

-Ari Glass