Anyone else see this? Were they finally seeing the truth? No. They were using a metaphor. (I'm see a lot of that today.) What they were saying: sc is getting a lot out of Barkely because they are taking the risk of calling plays that either succeed big or crash. sc is throwing all of their offensive currency out there -- nothing cautious, trying to make big plays. Sounds like a debate we've been having here BUT: In the next sentence they praised the sc O line, noted that sc could send out multiple receivers AND protect Barkley from a 6 man rush and blitzes. Barkley routinely gets 4 or more seconds to throw. And, they also pointed out that sc's receivers have been catching the ball. Point: To take the risks sc is taking with its freshman QB you need the ability to protect him and give him time to throw and receivers who catch the ball.
When we can do the same, we will throw more currency on the table.
But, hey, the headline about the "best money can buy" seems a clear case of using a double entendre