2 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

To me this might be correlation and not causation.  There are some other factors to consider:

370 carries are not given to bad RBs behind poor OLs. This is a list mostly composed of very good RBs on very good teams.  Nothing can be said for the following seasons--maybe the team wasn't as good and defenses geared up to stop the run, which will surely happen to Saquon next year.

 

370 carries are not given to injured RBs.  By definition, this list will include those who had relatively healthy seasons and excluded those who weren't.  So clearly, there will be a bias in the data. Two of Edgerrin James' 10 seasons are on the list, two of Ricky Williams' bizarre 10 year career are on the list, two of Erie Dickersons 10 full seasons, two of Emmitt Smiths 15, 

 

370 is also relatively arbitrary and convenient to their argument.  Like they made a conclusion, and then went about finding the data to confirm it.  For example, Edgerrin James had over 300 carries for 5 straight years when he was 25-29 years old (after the seasons on this list).  Emmitt Smith had seasons of 365, 368 (immediately before a 377 carry season), 327, 319, and 329 carries, none of which made the cut.

 

You said it yourself, these are historic, extraordinary seasons on the list.  It's tough to take these exceptional cases and make a ton of assumptions about RBs at large.

It's a risk but not really a huge risk after already bringing him in and winning the SB based largely on his impact 

 

I’m not a math guy, so I can’t say how strongly the numbers hold up against scientific method scrutiny, but 29 of 30 or whatever the total was having significantly decreased production or efficiency or increased injury rate is at least alarming.

As for the bolded, I don’t think having won the SB off Barkley’s back makes this less risky. We essentially gave him a bunch of money for past performance when just about all the data says investing in older RBs is a bad idea.

7 hours ago, TEW said:

Brown is 27 years old. We are looking at a 3 year window to win the Super Bowl. Aside from 2023, he really doesn’t average a ton of catches per year. I’m confident he’ll play through 30 at a pro bowl level.

I think that's the same basic calculus that Howie is doing.  Looking at the OL... their best years are going to be the next 3.  The defense is going to start to get very expensive in about 3 years.  And the offensive players will start to break down.  So, this is a 3 year window to push for another title (or more?) and then Howie will have to jettison some pieces and start to rebuild it all again on the offensive side, while the defense is the expensive side of the ball.

3 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

All extensions are risky.  At the time, no one questioned the extension he gave to Brandon Brooks in 2019 making him the highest paid OG in NFL history, but after that, he played 9 games total.  7 to finish that season, and only 2 after that... a full missed season later.

This contract, I assume, is going to be backed by insurance, mitigating the risk.  Howie is a lot of things, but fool hearty isn't one of them.  He knows the risks, and I'm sure he's doing everything he can to cover his butt on that front.

The insurance doesn’t cover a player hitting the age/athleticism cliff or decline in performance or nagging injuries that sap performance. It’s only catastrophic injury. 

I know this isn’t the MO here but this is one of those things I’m just moving on from. They did it. They had reasons and they surely have a mapped out cap plan. I’m back to free agency

4 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

I’m not a math guy, so I can’t say how strongly the numbers hold up against scientific method scrutiny, but 29 of 30 or whatever the total was having significantly decreased production or efficiency or increased injury rate is at least alarming.

As for the bolded, I don’t think having won the SB off Barkley’s back makes this less risky. We essentially gave him a bunch of money for past performance when just about all the data says investing in older RBs is a bad idea.

Just for ishs and giggles, and I'm not asking you to pull this data, but I'd like to see the list either include receptions and playoff touches, OR let's move the threshold down to Saquons 345 regular season carries and see what the data shows.  I think it would poke a few holes in the 29/30 number which is admittedly, and probably purposefully, jarring.

 

And regarding risk, I meant that his value already kind of proved itself out, so you have to calculate the enormous upside when considering the amount of risk to take on.  

If you are assuming that injury risk is equal for all RBs, it's less risky to take on the elite RB than it is for an average workhorse back.

 

It's an interesting discussion, and there's probably a hundred factors I'm not even considering

51 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Yup

all data would suggest a falloff or injury, sadly

Not all.  Walter Payton, at the age of 28 carried very close to Barkley's number (339 for Peyton to Barkley's 345... nearly identical receptions and was used as the primary blitz pick up, because they didn't spell RBs like they do today back in 1981) with a running style that was far more physical.  He did have an injury and played only 9 games the following year.  But bounced back in 1983 - 314 carries at age 30, 1984 - 381 carries at age 31, 1985 - 324 carries at age 32, 1986 - 321 carries at age 33.  

If we get anything near to that, then this extension is a slam dunk.    Barkley's workload this year was a bit higher than Peyton's in 1981, because they didn't make the playoffs.  But his workload in 1984 and 1985 were very high, because they did.  He led all rushers in post-season carries in 1984 with 46... and added 67 carries in 1985 (strangely NOT leading the post-season in carries that year).

 

I choose to remain optimistic that Barkley can follow the unicorn path he's been on as a player since Day 1.  And, he has the fortune of only having to play at Met Life stadium once a year now that they have gotten the Jets off the schedule for a few years.  And, if they are smart in that game against the Giants, they will limit his use again.

11 hours ago, NOTW said:

 

 

He's off Howie's board.  Not a team player check 

23 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

All that said, despite the heavy investment in Barkley, I think we do need to draft a running back that we believe us the capability of handling 15+ quality touches a game. I love Gainwell as a role player, but that’s not his game. Maybe Shipley becomes that guy, but this draft is too good not to add a good prospect from late round 3 and on.

Scattebo!  

19 minutes ago, UK Eagle said:

I'm interested to see what the team think of Shipley.  Part of me thinks they look at a Vet backup rather than a draft pick to let him develop, but another rookie makes a lot more sense from a cost control perspective. I guess STs could be a hidden factor in what they do

Yup.  Gainwell and Shipley both played extensively on ST.  The RB2 will likely need to do that, and for RB3 that's not even a question.  To stick on the roster, a RB3 or RB4 has to be a major contributor on ST.  Shipley was a guy that they didn't seem to trust in pass pro at all last season.  Maybe that was due to his rookie status and inexperience, and so they just went with the vets... Barkley and Gainwell.   But in the game that Gainwell went out with the concussion (granted the Eagles had the game firmly in hand by that point), Shipley didn't sniff the field until the very end when they pulled the starters.   Barkley took every snap and they got creative to run the ball and drain clock, using Goedert on some sweeps and even Smith, IIRC.  Barkley didn't get a touch offensively the rest of the way, if I remember it correctly, but was out there for every play... for his blocking on pass downs.

20 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

The insurance doesn’t cover a player hitting the age/athleticism cliff or decline in performance or nagging injuries that sap performance. It’s only catastrophic injury. 

Right, which is why it only mitigates the risk, but doesn't eliminate it.  If Howie used it with Brooks, which I assume he would have given the nature of that contract, it likely paid off handsomely given the nature of his injuries to follow that contract.

18 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Just for ishs and giggles, and I'm not asking you to pull this data, but I'd like to see the list either include receptions and playoff touches, OR let's move the threshold down to Saquons 345 regular season carries and see what the data shows.  I think it would poke a few holes in the 29/30 number which is admittedly, and probably purposefully, jarring.

 

And regarding risk, I meant that his value already kind of proved itself out, so you have to calculate the enormous upside when considering the amount of risk to take on.  

If you are assuming that injury risk is equal for all RBs, it's less risky to take on the elite RB than it is for an average workhorse back.

 

It's an interesting discussion, and there's probably a hundred factors I'm not even considering

I'm guessing that one of those 29 that had a 'decrease' in production the following year was Walter Payton.

1984 - 381 carries, 1684 yards, 11 rushing TD, 4.4 ypc, 45 receptions, 368 yards, 8.2ypr, 0 receiving TDs.

1985 - 324 carries, 1551 yards, 9 rushing TD, 4.8 ypc, 49 receptions, 483 yards, 9.9ypr, 2 receiving TDs.

 

Was that really a 'decrease' in production though?  I would say not (18 fewer all-purpose yards from one year to the next).  And he was actually MORE efficient... and doing this at the age of 31 and 32.  In other words, its not beyond the realm of possible that Barkley will be just fine after this large workload, even at his advanced age of 27 (now 28, having had his birthday on Super Bowl Sunday).  

11 hours ago, NOTW said:

 

 

So... we have to wait 5 years for him to hit free agency then.   I'll be waiting...

 

11 hours ago, greendestiny27 said:

Let's see what happens with our big 4 free agents before we say "everyone that deserves it gets paid on the eagles". I like all the positivity we are getting but we're most likely not bringing all 4 free agents back and all 4 played their asses off and deserve extensions. 

Agreed

Saquon will have a worse season next year, because he pretty much has to from a regression perspective.

We don't necessarily need another RB. We can just throw more.

41 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Scattebo!  

Love his balance 

Rap Sheet: 

Sources: The #Bears are expected to trade for #Chiefs All-Pro G Joe Thuney, as the Chicago continues to load up on the offensive line. 

KC gets a bit younger, plus frees up some money to use elsewhere

1 hour ago, ManuManu said:

All that said, despite the heavy investment in Barkley, I think we do need to draft a running back that we believe us the capability of handling 15+ quality touches a game. I love Gainwell as a role player, but that’s not his game. Maybe Shipley becomes that guy, but this draft is too good not to add a good prospect from late round 3 and on.

As the biggest (only?) Shipley proponent before the draft,  I so have said I want another RB2 this year.  I'd be fine with drafting one in Round 2, or even pick 32 if the board is just right. The run game is so important to this teams success,  I want to be absolutely certain the team has a dominating every down RB in the event that Barkley has to miss time. 

 

I also think there's a chance we see about 1500 rushing yards from Barkley next season without a drop-off. Just from the team hopefully being able to pass better,  and incorporating RB2 (not Hurts) more.

11 hours ago, greendestiny27 said:

Let's see what happens with our big 4 free agents before we say "everyone that deserves it gets paid on the eagles". I like all the positivity we are getting but we're most likely not bringing all 4 free agents back and all 4 played their asses off and deserve extensions. 

The only one who approached what Barkley did is Baun.  Becton was really good... great even.  But not the same level as Barkley.  Same for Williams, same for Sweat.  Williams and Sweat have made it pretty well known that they want massive deals.  The reality is that not every player can get a massive deal.  And when you compare 'market price' for DT or EDGE to RB... RB is WAY lower than the other two.

EDGE - top guy is Nick Bosa... $34M/year avg.  #2 is Josh Hines-Allen... $28.5M/yr avg.
DT - top guy is Chris Jones... $31.5M/year avg. #2 Christian Wilkins... $27.5M/yr. avg.
RB - top guy WAS Christian McCaffrey... $19M/year avg.   #2 - Jonathon Taylor $14M/year. 

That's a dramatic difference.  

 

So, one position is much easier to reset the market price for than the others.  

I expect Baun back.   Becton coming back is 50-50 to me.  It really comes down to whether or not he wants to be back and come at a 'discount'.  But, they are 'one year wonders'.   Barkley's year here was ridiculous, but I think it would be a massive stretch to consider him a 'one year wonder'.  On the contrary, we heard his teammates laud him all year, not just as the best RB in the league, but literally they were calling him the BEST FOOTBALL PLAYER in the NFL.  None of the big 4 compare to that.  I'd argue that none of them are the best at their respective positions around the league.

17 minutes ago, RLC said:

Saquon will have a worse season next year, because he pretty much has to from a regression perspective.

We don't necessarily need another RB. We can just throw more.

Right now, only Barkley and Shipley are under contract.  They need another RB.

Gunn said Graham did indeed re-tear his triceps in the SB. Legend. 

5 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Gunn said Graham did indeed re-tear his triceps in the SB. Legend. 

 

Can anyone remember a game where TWO edges tore their triceps in the same game and neither one came out... or said anything about it post-game?  🤔

Eagles Defense in SB:  Snapping triceps and cashing checks

1 hour ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I think that's the same basic calculus that Howie is doing.  Looking at the OL... their best years are going to be the next 3.  The defense is going to start to get very expensive in about 3 years.  And the offensive players will start to break down.  So, this is a 3 year window to push for another title (or more?) and then Howie will have to jettison some pieces and start to rebuild it all again on the offensive side, while the defense is the expensive side of the ball.

 

8 hours ago, TEW said:

Brown is 27 years old. We are looking at a 3 year window to win the Super Bowl. Aside from 2023, he really doesn’t average a ton of catches per year. I’m confident he’ll play through 30 at a pro bowl level.

Agreed on a 3 year window.

When a bad team is in "cap hell," the fans and media view it as a double whammy...you suck and you don't have cap room.  But if you are rebuilding from the bottom up through the draft, what good is the cap room to sign a bunch of 26-28 year olds anyway?  2 years of cap inflexibility when you are rebuilding are fine.

My point is...we already just won a SB and figure to be a SB favorite for the next 3.  No team in the NFL is more "ready."  So what's wrong with stashing all the bad cap obligations to exactly 3-4 years from now when all of these great players will be past their prime, the team won't be ready, and our focus will be on drafting new franchise cornerstones all over again to get back?

This strategy is stupid for a merely good team still looking to arrive.  Say...the Packers or Commanders.  But for a team that is already at the top with well defined cornerstones with fairly predictable declines in 3-4 years...

I'd say pummel that 2028 cap with bad contracts.  We could be 3 superbowls in by then.

Guessing that trade won't work for the Bears. The Chiefs trading a good player = red flag.

2 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

I'd say pummel that 2028 cap with bad contracts.  We could be 3 superbowls in by then.

Eagles had better hope the hangover for the fans lasts a while.   That year will be a rough one for all concerned.  How fast could they rebound?   It really all depends on what they can do with the draft picks.   And if they can keep hitting on picks like they have in the last 3, the bottoming out won't even be that bad.  But, they are absolutely going to need to hit on some late round picks and UDFAs like they did with Sweat and Blankenship.