Saquon Barkley - Dynasty Discussion Thread

[jetsfan5757]

It is pure fantasy thinking Uber studs can be a buy low player with no age or off field issues.

Barkley is a stud.
Zeke is a stud
Kamara is a stud
CMC is a stud.

These players sell at high market period. No owner in their right mind would accept anything under premium value.

Every player in dynasty eventually has a buy low window. Nobody is immune. It's a pretty safe bet that sometime in the near future, Barkley will cost significantly less. See Todd Gurley, Leonard Fournette, David Johnson, & Le'Veon Bell.

Your comment is obvious. However this thread is about Barkley entering a buy low period now.

Maybe you agree, but at this point that is pure fantasy IMO. He is an Uber Stud and seen as such by virtually everyone.

I thought the thread was about Barkley entering a buy low window if he badly underperformed this year. Not that he is already in one.

I agree with others who said he might enter a buy lowER window, but I think even that will be top 5 RB price (whereas right now it feels like he's in a tier of his own).

[Kcarr]

I dont have any concrete evidence to this but will try some context.

https://www.fantasypros.com/nfl/strengt ... osition=RB

Giants have 31st toughest RB schedule this year. So Barkley is already facing a tough uphill battle.

https://www.fantasypros.com/2019/07/how ... ball-2019/

This article gives great context into how poor offences usually affect RB'S a ton in terms of fantasy scoring.

Its a pretty long article but the biggest takeaway is that if a team has a bottom 10 scoring offence, there is only a 7.1 % chance that the RB on that team is a top 6 fantasy RB.

Now you could point out that Barkley was a top fantasy RB on last year on the Giants and they were a top 16 offence, but by losing Odell and relying on Manning or a rookie to keep that team out of the bottom 10 for offence seems like a stretch.

Im aware that Barkley is a stud, I realize hes generational, but I'm just trying to point out that maybe his production dips and there might be a window where his cost dips a bit.

At this time last year I believe that Gurley was the RB1 and look how far he has fallen. (Yes I understand it's different circumstances because of his injury).

Barkley is ranked #1 in RB rankings . All it takes is for him to move down one spot and you can argue his value has decreased even if it's minimal making him an easier buy.

Take this thread for what its worth.

A couple of things stand out to me here with these percentages that may go overlooked. First, the chances of a bottom 10 offense having a top 6 rb is low, 7.1%, which should be expected for 2 reasons. First, if the rb is that good it will often raise the offense above bottom 10 and second, if the offense is good the backs will flourish meaning more top offenses will fill those few spots.

That said, regardless of overall offense the chance of the top back being top 6 is low, only 18% of all teams will have a top 6 back.

Also, if 7% of bottom 10 teams have one then more often than not one of the bottom 10 teams will have one. Which back do you think will be on a bottom 10 offense that has a better chance of being top 6 than Barkley

[Hottoddies]

I dont have any concrete evidence to this but will try some context.

https://www.fantasypros.com/nfl/strengt ... osition=RB

Giants have 31st toughest RB schedule this year. So Barkley is already facing a tough uphill battle.

https://www.fantasypros.com/2019/07/how ... ball-2019/

This article gives great context into how poor offences usually affect RB'S a ton in terms of fantasy scoring.

Its a pretty long article but the biggest takeaway is that if a team has a bottom 10 scoring offence, there is only a 7.1 % chance that the RB on that team is a top 6 fantasy RB.

Now you could point out that Barkley was a top fantasy RB on last year on the Giants and they were a top 16 offence, but by losing Odell and relying on Manning or a rookie to keep that team out of the bottom 10 for offence seems like a stretch.

Im aware that Barkley is a stud, I realize hes generational, but I'm just trying to point out that maybe his production dips and there might be a window where his cost dips a bit.

At this time last year I believe that Gurley was the RB1 and look how far he has fallen. (Yes I understand it's different circumstances because of his injury).

Barkley is ranked #1 in RB rankings . All it takes is for him to move down one spot and you can argue his value has decreased even if it's minimal making him an easier buy.

Take this thread for what its worth.

A couple of things stand out to me here with these percentages that may go overlooked. First, the chances of a bottom 10 offense having a top 6 rb is low, 7.1%, which should be expected for 2 reasons. First, if the rb is that good it will often raise the offense above bottom 10 and second, if the offense is good the backs will flourish meaning more top offenses will fill those few spots.

That said, regardless of overall offense the chance of the top back being top 6 is low, only 18% of all teams will have a top 6 back.

Also, if 7% of bottom 10 teams have one then more often than not one of the bottom 10 teams will have one. Which back do you think will be on a bottom 10 offense that has a better chance of being top 6 than Barkley

There are lies, there are damn lies, then there are statistics, and sometimes even a total misunderstanding of what the statistics actually mean. If the bottom 10 scoring offenses have a 7.1% chance of producing a top 6 RB, it doesn't mean that 7.1% of bottom 10 scoring offenses will produce a top 6 RB.

What it does mean is that there is a 92.9% chance that a bottom 10 scoring offense will not produce a top 6 RB. In other words, a bottom 10 scoring offense will produce ZERO top 6 RBs more often than not.

[jenkins.math]

The issue with trying to find a correlation between offensive ranks and RB ranks is that the game has really evolved over the past 5 years or so where pass catching for a RB is more important now than ever before. There has always been the entire chicken vs egg argument when it comes to "does a good running game = more wins, or does more wins = a good running game". The prevailing thought has been that you run the ball more when you're winning to run clock, thus increasing the volume of your RB, thus increasing his stat line. Whereas if you are down, you're airing the ball out and not running near as much.

Well when you have guys like Barkley, CMC, Kamara, etc those guys are going to be on the field and involved in the offense regardless. They are all going to get touches no matter what via air or ground. Barkley is still the Giants best offensive weapon and if he is averaging 20+ touches per game (he averaged 22 last season) I would bet he ends up as a top 5 RB again regardless of where the Giants offense ends up being ranked.

What I do agree with is that if the Giants are a bottom 10 offense I do not believe Barkley with be the number 1 overall RB. I think the whole "buy low period" is crazy talk though.

[Kcarr]

I dont have any concrete evidence to this but will try some context.

https://www.fantasypros.com/nfl/strengt ... osition=RB

Giants have 31st toughest RB schedule this year. So Barkley is already facing a tough uphill battle.

https://www.fantasypros.com/2019/07/how ... ball-2019/

This article gives great context into how poor offences usually affect RB'S a ton in terms of fantasy scoring.

Its a pretty long article but the biggest takeaway is that if a team has a bottom 10 scoring offence, there is only a 7.1 % chance that the RB on that team is a top 6 fantasy RB.

Now you could point out that Barkley was a top fantasy RB on last year on the Giants and they were a top 16 offence, but by losing Odell and relying on Manning or a rookie to keep that team out of the bottom 10 for offence seems like a stretch.

Im aware that Barkley is a stud, I realize hes generational, but I'm just trying to point out that maybe his production dips and there might be a window where his cost dips a bit.

At this time last year I believe that Gurley was the RB1 and look how far he has fallen. (Yes I understand it's different circumstances because of his injury).

Barkley is ranked #1 in RB rankings . All it takes is for him to move down one spot and you can argue his value has decreased even if it's minimal making him an easier buy.

Take this thread for what its worth.

A couple of things stand out to me here with these percentages that may go overlooked. First, the chances of a bottom 10 offense having a top 6 rb is low, 7.1%, which should be expected for 2 reasons. First, if the rb is that good it will often raise the offense above bottom 10 and second, if the offense is good the backs will flourish meaning more top offenses will fill those few spots.

That said, regardless of overall offense the chance of the top back being top 6 is low, only 18% of all teams will have a top 6 back.

Also, if 7% of bottom 10 teams have one then more often than not one of the bottom 10 teams will have one. Which back do you think will be on a bottom 10 offense that has a better chance of being top 6 than Barkley

There are lies, there are damn lies, then there are statistics, and sometimes even a total misunderstanding of what the statistics actually mean. If the bottom 10 scoring offenses have a 7.1% chance of producing a top 6 RB, it doesn't mean that 7.1% of bottom 10 scoring offenses will produce a top 6 RB.

What it does mean is that there is a 92.9% chance that a bottom 10 scoring offense will not produce a top 6 RB. In other words, a bottom 10 scoring offense will produce ZERO top 6 RBs more often than not.

You are correct, somewhat, I had not read the article and was basing my statement off of the post. The post said if a team was in the bottom 10 in offense that team had a 7.1% chance of having a top 6 back. The article says that all bottom teams total produce 7.1% of top 10 backs.

Those are two completely different things, though both are different than your statement that there is a 92.9% chance no bottom team will produce a top 6 back any given year. Considering that there are 6 such spots and bottom 10 teams produce 7.1% of them, essentially 1 out of 15, with 6 such spots to fill each year actually there is around a 40% chance that one of the bottom 10 offenses will produce 1 top 6 running back.

[GridironGuerilla]

We need football.

[Kcarr]

We need football.

Pretty sure we need more math heavy over analysis of semi relevant statistics

[GridironGuerilla]

We need football.

Pretty sure we need more math heavy over analysis of semi relevant statistics

Haha!

[Hottoddies]

A couple of things stand out to me here with these percentages that may go overlooked. First, the chances of a bottom 10 offense having a top 6 rb is low, 7.1%, which should be expected for 2 reasons. First, if the rb is that good it will often raise the offense above bottom 10 and second, if the offense is good the backs will flourish meaning more top offenses will fill those few spots.

That said, regardless of overall offense the chance of the top back being top 6 is low, only 18% of all teams will have a top 6 back.

Also, if 7% of bottom 10 teams have one then more often than not one of the bottom 10 teams will have one. Which back do you think will be on a bottom 10 offense that has a better chance of being top 6 than Barkley

There are lies, there are damn lies, then there are statistics, and sometimes even a total misunderstanding of what the statistics actually mean. If the bottom 10 scoring offenses have a 7.1% chance of producing a top 6 RB, it doesn't mean that 7.1% of bottom 10 scoring offenses will produce a top 6 RB.

What it does mean is that there is a 92.9% chance that a bottom 10 scoring offense will not produce a top 6 RB. In other words, a bottom 10 scoring offense will produce ZERO top 6 RBs more often than not.

You are correct, somewhat, I had not read the article and was basing my statement off of the post. The post said if a team was in the bottom 10 in offense that team had a 7.1% chance of having a top 6 back. The article says that all bottom teams total produce 7.1% of top 10 backs.

Those are two completely different things, though both are different than your statement that there is a 92.9% chance no bottom team will produce a top 6 back any given year. Considering that there are 6 such spots and bottom 10 teams produce 7.1% of them, essentially 1 out of 15, with 6 such spots to fill each year actually there is around a 40% chance that one of the bottom 10 offenses will produce 1 top 6 running back.

O.K. now that I've read the source article I see that you both got it wrong. The article states the chances a top 6 RB comes from a bottom 10 team not the chances a bottom 10 team produces a top 6 RB. I assumed that DJB got his statement straight from the article.

The article states that in the last 7 years 7.1%(3 out of 42) of the top 6 RBs came from bottom 10 teams. So actually there were 3 occasions in the last 7 years that a bottom 10 team had a top 6 RB. That would mean that 42.8%(3 out of 7) of the time in the last 7 years a bottom 10 team produced a top 6 RB.

Regardless of whatever the historical facts are, I think the chances of Barkley being a top producer are pretty good and the chances of him losing value in the eyes of his owners are pretty low. I just wanted to clear up the misunderstandings of the statistics behind this article.

[Kcarr]

There are lies, there are damn lies, then there are statistics, and sometimes even a total misunderstanding of what the statistics actually mean. If the bottom 10 scoring offenses have a 7.1% chance of producing a top 6 RB, it doesn't mean that 7.1% of bottom 10 scoring offenses will produce a top 6 RB.

What it does mean is that there is a 92.9% chance that a bottom 10 scoring offense will not produce a top 6 RB. In other words, a bottom 10 scoring offense will produce ZERO top 6 RBs more often than not.

You are correct, somewhat, I had not read the article and was basing my statement off of the post. The post said if a team was in the bottom 10 in offense that team had a 7.1% chance of having a top 6 back. The article says that all bottom teams total produce 7.1% of top 10 backs.

Those are two completely different things, though both are different than your statement that there is a 92.9% chance no bottom team will produce a top 6 back any given year. Considering that there are 6 such spots and bottom 10 teams produce 7.1% of them, essentially 1 out of 15, with 6 such spots to fill each year actually there is around a 40% chance that one of the bottom 10 offenses will produce 1 top 6 running back.

O.K. now that I've read the source article I see that you both got it wrong. The article states the chances a top 6 RB comes from a bottom 10 team not the chances a bottom 10 team produces a top 6 RB. I assumed that DJB got his statement straight from the article.

The article states that in the last 7 years 7.1%(3 out of 42) of the top 6 RBs came from bottom 10 teams. So actually there were 3 occasions in the last 7 years that a bottom 10 team had a top 6 RB. That would mean that 42.8%(3 out of 7) of the time in the last 7 years a bottom 10 team produced a top 6 RB.

Regardless of whatever the historical facts are, I think the chances of Barkley being a top producer are pretty good and the chances of him losing value in the eyes of his owners are pretty low. I just wanted to clear up the misunderstandings of the statistics behind this article.

That is what I said in the past post you quoted, though I did just do the math in my head and rounded to 40% rather than 42.8. I agree that Barkley does have a good chance though, and would not say the gian tee s are guaranteed to be a bottom 10 offense though I think they will be in that area.

[remedy29]

Why do people think the Giants will be a bottom 10 offense? They have improved their OL and they have Saquan Barkley. That alone will put them in the middle tier of offenses.

Not to mention, the Giants defense stinks. At the least they'll get garbage time stats, but I think they'll be much better than people think.

[ArrylT]

I guess that depends on what people consider a bottom 10 offense - however if it is points scored or total yardage then no the Giants were not a bottom 10 offence last year

I believe they were 16th or 17th in Points scored in 2018.
For total yardage they were 17th overall.
They were 11th overall for passing yardage.
They were however 24th for rushing yardage.

We saw that did not really affect Barkley - what it could affect is how little usage his backup(s) will see if Barkley stays healthy & on the field.

[davieglove34]

Hey all-
Just wondering what people think Saquon's current trade value is?

[trc]

Still start up 1.01 pick for me - I would consider MT and CMC too at that spot. But noone else.

[AlbertaPrime]

Was able to acquire Saquon three weeks ago with the following deal:

Gave: Melvin, Corey Davis, Guice, 2020 1st
Received: Saquon

4 nickels for a dollar. Maybe a dime in there somewhere as well, but still, got my guy.