Here’s why Saquon Barkley should be Rookie of the Year
The Giants’ first round pick lived up to the hype and then some
Saquon Barkley came into his first season in the NFL with just a wee bit of pressure placed on his shoulders.
The second overall pick in a draft that had four QBs go in the top 10, Barkley was going to have to live up to his generational hype to convince the skeptics (myself included) that he was worth the pick. With Eli Manning on the decline, many thought the right choice was to draft a QB at 2. This would, of course, set the Giants up for sustained success at the most important position in the game.
But, as we all know, GM Dave Gettleman was enamored with Barkley and considered him to be the best player in the draft.
Barkley was going to have to live up to the ridiculous hype he cultivated during his time at Penn State and the draft combine, wowing everyone with his unique skill-set. Not only is he a fluid, patient runner, but he also has the size to run over defenders and the hands to make tough catches while covered closely.
Simply put, if you created a running back in a lab, you’d probably end up with Saquon Barkley.
Well, did he live up to the hype? I’ll let his stats answer that:
He rushed 261 times for 1307 yards and 11 TDs (good for 5.01 YPC), and caught 91 (!) passes for 721 yards and an additional four TDs.
That put him at 2028 yards from scrimmage for the season, only the third rookie in the history of the NFL to break 2,000 yards.
He also finished with nine plays of 40+ yards, and broke the rookie RB record for receptions in a season. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to call him one of the three- or five-best running backs in the league already.
So, in a word, yes, Saquon lived up to the hype.
The Giants finished the season 5–11 and had — at best — a mediocre offensive line by season’s end. This context is crucial when examining Barkley’s rookie season as a whole. He played on a floundering Giants team with an offense that didn’t gel until at least mid-season. Despite all this, Barkley consistently produced game after game.
Context should matter when discussing the Rookie of the Year award, and I think Saquon’s only works in his favor. The Giants were a mess the first half of the season, with Barkley routinely getting hit behind the line of scrimmage on runs. He played with a relatively poor offensive line, on a losing team.
I mention this because yes, there is an excellent argument that Baker Mayfield should win ROY over Saquon. I get it, I do. I really don’t think there’s a “wrong” choice between the two for this award. Baker plays the most important position and had a phenomenal run for the latter half of the season once OC (and now HC) Freddie Kitchens took over play calling.
He broke the rookie QB passing TD record. He revitalized the most laughed-at franchise in professional sports and arguably played at a top-10 level for those last seven or eight games. Again, he did this as a rookie at the most important position in the game.
But when I’m thinking of who my Offensive Rookie of the Year is, it’s going to the best rookie player, period. Not the most valuable; not the one who played very well down the stretch. And not the one who takes the cake on an emotional level. To me, this award goes to the most outstanding rookie out there, and I believe that was Saquon Barkley.
The Baker-over-Saquon buzz has its roots in two major factors: Mayfield improved his play significantly down the stretch, and people already expected Saquon to be this good. When it comes to voting for awards, recency bias plays a big part. Everyone expected Saquon to come in and light the league on fire, and he did just that.
Meanwhile, Baker came into the worst franchise in football, started by week four, and played at or near a top-ten level for the second half of the season. It’s the perfect storm for Mayfield to find himself making room next to his Heisman Award.
Both he and Barkley are more than worthy. But for my money, Saquon was consistently better, and has already established himself as a top RB in the league.
