Should Saquon Barkley, Josh Jacobs Get Paid?

NFL Week 6 - No, the New York Giants should not reward Saquon Barkley with a fat contract because of his outstanding play in 2022.

I know it. You know it, oh analytics-steeped Football Outsiders reader. And Joe Schoen knows it. Schoen just dragged the Giants out of a salary cap crisis caused by boomer football logic. There's no way he plans to start over.

The Las Vegas Raiders should not reward Josh Jacobs for his 2022 performance, either. Josh McDaniels and his general manager Dave Ziegler know this, too. McDaniels was such a Jacobs skeptic that he made the running back play in the Hall of Fame game, when even the starting towel boys were wearing baseball caps and drinking Gatorade. McDaniels didn't spend chunks of two decades in New England getting better production from James White and Rex Burkhead than Sony Michel and Laurence Maroney just so he could drop $60 million on the first bruiser to hammer out a few 100-yard games.

Miles Sanders? No, the Philadelphia Eagles shouldn't bite and won't bite. Howie Roseman operates on the salary cap's bleeding edge, and he has Jalen Hurts to pay next year. Roseman is also an early extender: if he wanted to keep Sanders beyond his rookie contract, he would have already kept him.

Barkley, Jacobs, and Sanders don't "deserve" huge deals from their current teams, no matter what they do for the rest of the 2022 season, because huge running back deals are always a bad idea. But does that mean they shouldn't get paid at all? They should just retire? Stand outside of minicamps holding up signs? We haven't crawled that far down the Running Backs Don't Matter hole, have we? They are all worth something once their contracts expire at the end of this season. But how much is "something?"

Barkley is second to Nick Chubb with 533 rushing yards through five games. Jacobs is third with 490 yards. Sanders is fourth with 414 rushing yards. Jacobs is third in rushing DYAR, Sanders fourth. Barkley is 15th, but Barkley is forced to carry the load for one of the NFL's least talented offenses, and he's also the most versatile receiver of the trio. Barkley spearheaded a Week 5 upset of the Packers to lift the Giants to 4-1. Jacobs cranked out 193 scrimmage yards and a touchdown in a near-upset of the Chiefs. Neither rusher looks all that replaceable right now.

All three of these backs are in the final years of their rookie contracts. The Raiders chose not to exercise Jacobs' fifth-year option after three seasons of high-volume, notch-above-replacement-level production. Sanders was a second-round pick: no option to exercise, and he misses a few games per year with various injuries.

Barkley spent so much time on the injury list from 2019 through 2021 that he's now licensed to operate an MRI machine, but the outgoing Giants regime exercised his fifth-year option despite a desperate need for cap space elsewhere. It turned out to be a wise decision in the same sense that calling for a stretch limo to take you home from the bachelor party is a wise decision: better than crashing off an overpass or ending up in jail, but not as wise as squeezing into a Lyft and saving lots of dough.

So let's extrapolate: Barkley and Jacobs remain healthy and productive all season. (We'll slide Sanders, with a lower established ceiling, out of the discussion for now.) They each rush for about 1,400 yards, with receiving value. They each hit free agency in 2023, along with Sanders, James Robinson, and some interesting B-tier options such as Kareem Hunt, Rashaad Penny, and Jamaal Williams. You are an NFL general manager. What do you do?

Ignore them, you say. Let Trent Baalke sign them (he should just extend Robinson now for a Duval discount*, but he's Trent Baalke). Draft a running back in a third round. Walkthrough hears you.

* Robinson was a UDFA and is essentially an RB2 behind Travis Etienne, albeit an excellent one. The Jaguars should be able to lock him up with lots of "new money" that doesn't really impact their cap much. See Austin Ekeler's Chargers contract for an example.

But then they sit and sit and sit through that first free-agent spending spree. How low must the market go before you snatch up a Barkley, Jacobs, or Sanders?

What Running Back Contracts Now Look Like

Alvin Kamara, Christian McCaffrey, and Dalvin Cook all signed recent extensions in the range of $63 million to $75 million reported, $28 million to $37 million guaranteed, with Cook's deal a notch below the others. Those contracts were of dubious merit: Kamara and CMC have dealt with injuries ever since, the Panthers might trade McCaffrey for cap relief, and Cook is the running back version of Kirk Cousins.

Barkley or Jacobs could be offered $70 million in free agency, but it's worth noting that the Kamara-McCaffrey-Cook extensions all:

• came from their current teams; and
• were signed entering their fourth seasons: McCaffrey in April of 2020, Cook and Kamara in early September of that year.

There's a huge difference between a running back's value in his fourth year and in his fifth or sixth year. One early-career year probably represents, conservatively, about 20% of a running back's total value. If our Barkley Bunch was destined to sign such a deal, they already would have signed them. And you don't need an economics degree to know what a supply glut will do to values on the free agent market. So while it only takes one Baalke to offer a bad contract, most general managers now know to bargain-hunt when looking outside the building for running backs.

So let's lower our expectations a bit.

What about four years and $48 million? That's the Joe Mixon-Aaron Jones range. Jones is having a solid all-purpose season. Mixon is starting to come around a bit in an offense that's still getting in his own way. Is $48 million too rich for your blood? Even for, say, seven or eight games per year of Peak Barkley? Keep in mind that you could front-load it a bit like the Mixon contract if you are looking for a security-blanket rusher to help a young quarterback or back-load it Jones-style if you're the Bills in win-now mode.

Ah, but you are a cunning negotiator. Barkley has a long injury history (as does Sanders, lest we completely forget him), and Jacobs has high mileage. And again, the market is flooded! Best to sit tight, maybe grab D'Ernest Johnson on a one-year nuttin'-but-incentives deal, and build the ultimate coupon-clipping committee.

But why settle for Johnson? Nick Chubb is playing on a three-year, $36-million extension. It's a well-constructed, affordable little deal concocted by the analytics-friendly Cleveland Browns. You would scoop Barkley up in that salary range, right? No?

Leonard Fournette is playing for a three-year, $21-million contract. C'mon now, you hard-hearted miser: Barkley, Jacobs, and Sanders are all much better than Lenny. For just $7 million per year, you get Saquon's ability to take over games (when healthy), Jacobs' ruggedness between the tackles, and Sanders' darting, high-success-rate, perfect-for-shotgun-rushing consistency. Any takers?

Somewhere between the Fournette extension and the Jones-Mixon contracts, probably closer to the Fournette side, the running back cost/benefit equation levels out, and grabbing a young veteran with a track record and special attributes starts to make more sense than dipping into the draft.

Heck, somewhere around $21 million over three years, a Barkley would make sense for the Giants, Jacobs for the Raiders, and so forth. We said "fat" contract in the intro. A lean contract would be just dandy. In reality, though, there's enough demand to push Barkley/Jacobs/Sanders closer to Mixon money.

Love the Running Backs, Hate the Economics

Crafting second contracts for quality veteran running backs in the current marketplace is an interesting thought experiment. It's also a somewhat depressing one. Barkley has been a blast to watch and root for this season. It would be fun to pound the table for him to earn a $90-million contract for his services. But that's not just a bad idea from an analytics standpoint: it's a misread of the current trends in running back contracts.

There are folks on the Giants fan-o-sphere these days who are still trying to re-litigate the team's decision to select Barkley second overall in the 2018 draft. Hey, beancounters, is he worth it now? they ask after Barkley rips off a big run against the Packers, but before holding their breath as he briefly disappears into the tunnel with an injury. LOL, sure: Barkley is playing well and Sam Darnold is long gone, and 46 Giants losses in four seasons were all vindicated by a Sunday morning upset.

Barkley may leave the Giants with fond memories, and even a wild-card surprise. But unless he's willing to take a hometown discount for the ages, he must leave them for the Giants to become the team that Joe Schoen and Brian Daboll want to build. Cheering for the Giants to PAY THE MAN would just be cheering for them to make another big mistake. And the same goes for the other marquee running backs approaching free agency.

New York Giants Prop-a-Palooza!

Walkthrough hasn't done PropWatch in a long time! That's because it was never all that popular. Oh well, since we're talking about Saquon Barkley and the Giants, let's talk about Barkley and the Giants. All moneylines come from DraftKings, before Thursday Night Football:

Comeback Player of the Year Award: Saquon Barkley (-225), Geno Smith (+1000)

If Walkthrough were voting for CPOY, we'd select Barkley. But when wagering, that -225 isn't worth it. We based all of the salary speculation in the last segment on Barkley staying healthy for the rest of the season. We're not ready to risk real money on Barkley staying healthy for the rest of the season.

Walkthrough grabbed Smith when he was +2000 live on-air during Monday's livestream. Then the moneyline plummeted. Stop spying on me, sportsbooks! Even at 10-to-1, Geno provides value. He can cool off significantly and still be one Barkley high ankle sprain away from being 2022's greatest comeback tale, and CPOY is a storyline-driven award.

Coach of the Year Award: Nick Sirianni (+150), Brian Daboll (+600)

Here's your value, Giants fans. Coach of the Year often goes to a first-year head coach enjoying surprising success: Kevin Stefanski in 2020, Matt Nagy in 2018, Sean McVay in 2017, Jim Harbaugh in 2011, Mike Smith in 2008, Sean Payton in 2006. It never goes to a second-year coach who was successful in his first season but (so far) better in his second like Sirianni.

Sirianni would have been a likely candidate last year, but he did not receive a single vote. Players love his bruh-energy, but he doesn't make a very strong impression with the media (voters), who have come to think of the Eagles as Howie Roseman's team.

Look at it this way: Daboll will walk away with the award if the Giants can win five more games to reach 9-8. The Giants face the Commanders twice, the Texans, the Lions, and several other teams (Jaguars, Seahawks, Colts) who should be beatable, even once the Giants fall back to earth. Are there five wins among those eight games? Or four wins with one Eagles or Cowboys upset? It's worth 6-to-1 to find out.

Giants to Make the Playoffs (+105)

Our playoff odds report gives the Giants a 42.1% chance of reaching the postseason. The +105 moneyline implies about a 49% probability. Our methods suggest that you should hold out until +140 or so. Walkthrough thinks you should just bet on Daboll.

Giants Regular-Season Wins: Over 8.5 (-150), Under 8.5 (+125)

Again, if you are feeling a 9-8 Giants team, bet on Daboll for Coach of the Year or the playoff prop: 9-8 almost certainly nets a playoff berth in the NFC.

Giants to Win NFC East (+1200)

That moneyline implies probability around 8%; our Playoff Odds give the Giants a 2.9% chance of winning the NFC East. Even Giants fanatics should skip this one.

Most Rushing Yards: Nick Chubb (+275), Saquon Barkley (+400), Josh Jacobs (+750), Miles Sanders (+1200)

Does anyone bet on the rushing title? It just seems like shooting craps on who will or won't get injured.

If you do wager on the rushing title, skip Sanders, who shares carries with other backs and his quarterback. If Barkley comes close to winning the rushing title, the Giants probably reach the playoffs, so taking the Daboll/playoffs props insulates you from Chubb rushing for 177 yards in Week 18 or something.

Jacobs is actually an intriguing play for those inclined to wager on rushing titles. Here's why.

Las Vegas Raiders: Keeping the I-Formation Alive

One of the most delightful things about watching Raiders games/film this year is watching them run-run-run from the I-formation.

The alignment, an NFL offensive staple in the 1980s and 1990s, became obsolete before it's time as team after team shifted to 11 or 12 personnel and default shotgun formations in the early 2000s. But Josh McDaniels revived the I-formation, and it's fraternal twin brother the offset I (with the fullback shifted left or right), when Tom Brady left the Patriots before the 2020 season.

McDaniels has imported the I-formation to Las Vegas, where Josh Jacobs often runs good 'ol halfback Iso behind 255-pound fullback Jakob Johnson, while Derek Carr sets up the occasional deep shot with a play-action concept straight from Madden 98. Jon Gruden liked the I-formation, too, but McDaniels is willing to bust it out in the fourth quarter while trailing the Chiefs, and that warms the cockles of this Gen-X greybeard's heart.

Let's run some numbers, courtesy Sports Info Solutions. Here are the NFL's leaders in runs from the standard I-formation through Week 5. Plays from inside the 5-yard line are excluded so we don't just end up with a bunch of goal-line plunges that don't really reflect a team's offensive philosophy.

The Eagles, Seahawks, and Buccaneers have only used one I-formation run each so far in 2022. (Again, goal-line runs are excluded, including Philly's mighty SKINNY BATMEN-I.) The Bengals have handed off from it just twice. The Commanders, Giants, Patriots, Jets, Colts, and Cardinals have not run from the I-formation at all in non-goal line situations.

Let's slide the fullback over a few steps and take a look at the offset I-formation runs:

As you can see, the Raiders blow away the field, with over five running plays per game from some form of I-formation. As noted in the intro, McDaniels has loved his two-back attack for a few years. The 2020 Patriots ran from the I-formation 111 times and offset-I 76 times; the 2021 Patriots, from the I-formation 111 times again and the offset-I 50 times. Matt Patricia and Joe Judge clearly purged those pages from the playbook; J.J. and Silent Matt are having their moment right now, so we'll reserve judgment on that decision.

The Bucs like the offset-I, but they don't like the I-formation. It's a Fannee Doolee! The Jets and Colts are the only teams with zero runs from either formation; they probably have no I-formation concepts in their playbook which are not designed for short-yardage usage. The same can be said of the Commanders and Patriots, who each have only run once from either formation, and a few other teams who likely only bust it out on third-and-inches.

The Texans are the Team That Time Forgot with 43 I-concept runs, not because they are tacticians like McDaniels but because they do not know what year it is. Frankly, a two-back power offense makes as much sense as anything else they would try to do, especially with Dameon Pierce in the backfield. The 49ers are logical choices to run two-back concepts. The Rams appear to have used the formation mostly against the Falcons to try to hammer out a win.

It's silly to read too much into the gaudy yards-per-carry averages above, many of which are distorted by one long run. It's worth noting, however, that if weak offenses such as the Texans, Falcons, and Bears can generate splash plays from two-back sets, better teams that are struggling offensively (especially those with running backs like Jonathan Taylor) are silly to never tinker with an I-formation, even if it means using a tight end as a fullback. Frank Reich and Zac Taylor should all be looking for ways to diversify their running games. Sean McVay already has. Though if these teams have never, ever used such formations, it may now be far too late to start in 2022.

You are just DYING to see the I-formation passing numbers, aren't you? Let's start with the standard I, again with plays inside the 5-yard line removed:

What about the Offset I?

The Vikings have run the ball 20 times from the two I-formations this season, so all of their passing from the set is justified. They love play-action rollouts from two-back sets, and sometimes they get more than 4 yards per attempt from them. You can probably figure out what the Titans are up to tactically. Again, the Raiders pace the NFL in terms of total I-concept plays, and they appear to be enjoying success, though three sacks and a scramble from the offset-I are a point of concern.

Offenses should cause as many problems as possible for opposing defenses. In an NFL where teams have stopped investing in linebackers and old-fashioned thumper Mike/Sam-types are considered (with some merit) liabilities, putting Alec Ingold or Zander Horvath on the field and running Iso, or a play-action seamer that looks like Iso, can be a real problem. A thudding running game can also hide the weaknesses of a quarterback like Davis Mills. Alas, I-formations probably won't come back in style unless the Raiders start winning.

One final thought: regular usage of the I-formation could make the formation more effective at the goal line. Check C.J. Ham and Johnny Mundt on this Dalvin Cook touchdown from Week 5:

Dalvin Cook up the middle for 6!

📺: #CHIvsMIN on FOX
📱: Stream on NFL+ https://t.co/78MQfPqpl1 pic.twitter.com/WKq638qc0f

— NFL (@NFL) October 9, 2022

That's a fullback and tight end comfortable with their blocking assignments on an off-tackle run, not two guys who only play in select packages.

And yes, Walkthrough ends our programming week with praise of the Vikings. Hey, they're 4-1, so they have earned it.