JPP looking for "At Least" Vernon money per Ralph

In comment 13338139 HBart said:

Quote:

He owes the Giants a bit more whether he thinks so or not.....hopefully his agent talks some sense into him. He's not going to sit a year out. He can sign a 5 year deal at a reasonable discount or he can play for one more year and walk. As posted above, the Giants hold the cards. For one more year.

But, as Diver_Down points out, if he resents the tag, he can hold out until after July 15th at which point you can't get a contract done with him. Meanwhile, we can't use that 17 mil already allocated for the FT designation to bring in much needed help which won't be inexpensive.

In comment 13338119 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

In comment 13338111 Old Dirty Beckham said: Quote: OL we can't sign if we keep JPP? Kevin Zeitler quickly comes to mind. Still young and can build with at G..Best G coming out of college in '12 and has maintained his A-one ranking ever since..He and Pugh would be terrific bookends imo..Not many OLTs to write home about..I'll have to look at other FAs to name others

And that is good starting point. If you are thinking we need a LT, the best available LT without an injury history is Whitworth. A probowl LT that plays 16 games a season won't come at a discount. He'll get 8-9mil/year. We won't give him a long-term contract as he will only serve as a stopgap so we won't be able to spread out a signing bonus.

In comment 13338149 Old Dirty Beckham said:

Quote:

In comment 13338119 Big Blue '56 said: Quote: In comment 13338111 Old Dirty Beckham said: Quote: OL we can't sign if we keep JPP? Kevin Zeitler quickly comes to mind. Still young and can build with at G..Best G coming out of college in '12 and has maintained his A-one ranking ever since..He and Pugh would be terrific bookends imo..Not many OLTs to write home about..I'll have to look at other FAs to name others This is my thing though, I dont want to lose JPP for a guard. The giants need tackles. If we had to lose him to sign a top tier tackle that's fine but i'm not doing it for a guard.

G, TE, bigger WR, whoever. A 17 million FT severely eats into available funds to get the O at least back to functional..Either sign him to an amortizable contract (regardless of the entire, mostly meaningless amount announced to the media as only SB and guaranteed money is important with such announcements, imv)..Our O, without herculean help again by our D will bring us down. A lot, imv

1) it was unlikely we could make several impactful Free Agent signings to immediately help the Offense, particularly on O-line

AND

2) there is not likely a DE we can draft in Rounds 1 that we can reasonably predict to give a good amount of snaps to in 2017

If the above factors can indeed be met, then I think it is kind of foolhardy to give JPP a big market contract. It ties too much money into only the D-line; it gives it to a injury-prone guy that is not getting any better over this contract; and it clearly dampens $ resources to grab better Offensive players.

Vernon's cap hit doesn't hit 17 mil until year three, at which point you can cut him and save 5 mil.

Just think how far ahead we would be if we had simply given him what he wanted 2 years ago.

you either want him long term or you don't. 2 years ago, we weren't sure. If we're still not sure, don't give him 17 mil to prove he's worth it and then try to sign him long term next year. all you do is massively increase the guaranteed he's going to get (the franchise guarantee, then the long term contract guarantee). JPP should laugh all the way to the bank on that deal. It's either pay him for long term, or say so long.

than over 5 years $15 to 16M if he doesn't like it to bad he has a choice.

In comment 13338170 fkap said:

Quote:

Vernon's cap hit doesn't hit 17 mil until year three, at which point you can cut him and save 5 mil. Just think how far ahead we would be if we had simply given him what he wanted 2 years ago. you either want him long term or you don't. 2 years ago, we weren't sure. If we're still not sure, don't give him 17 mil to prove he's worth it and then try to sign him long term next year. all you do is massively increase the guaranteed he's going to get (the franchise guarantee, then the long term contract guarantee). JPP should laugh all the way to the bank on that deal. It's either pay him for long term, or say so long.

Good points. In my view though, paying him the franchise tag is not looking for him to prove anything. Its because we want the high level of DE-play for one more year since there is not better alternatives with the money.

off the top of their heads?

then add in Pugh's 5th year at 8M, that's 26 right off the top of the cap....

JPP is not worth it....in big games, where were the sacks last season? In the Wash and Cleveland games...add in the uncertainty that he can stay on the field, you have to think twice over matching an offer someone else would make.....

signing JPP. They have enough money under the cap to sign him and bring in some quality talents and even more when they shed the contracts of Cruz. Jennings. and JT Thomas. Thats another 13 million right there..

The Giants had 56 million in cap space last year and made HUGE moves signing OV, Jackrabbit and Snacks.

This year they they should have around 33-35 with cuts so they will have plenty of flexibility to make moves if need be. And thats without restructuring or extending anyone..

The Giants will be able to make moves

In comment 13338200 Doomster said:

Quote:

then add in Pugh's 5th year at 8M, that's 26 right off the top of the cap.... JPP is not worth it....in big games, where were the sacks last season? In the Wash and Cleveland games...add in the uncertainty that he can stay on the field, you have to think twice over matching an offer someone else would make.....

Pugh's option is included in the cap figure. It's almost $24 million with Pugh's $8 mil calculated in.

In comment 13337650 Ten Ton Hammer said:

Quote:

In comment 13337639 crick n NC said: Quote: In comment 13337636 Ten Ton Hammer said: Quote: considering the number of plays he's made against them over the years and the fact that they desperately need a pass rush. Dallas can afford him? They're not going to let Tony Romo's contract just sit around on the bench while they're in a winning window.I have no idea what their cap is, but they're not letting $18-20m go to waste as a backup QB.

If they CUT OR tRADE rOMO HE counts $19.4 million against the cap.

In comment 13338205 blueblood said:

Quote:

signing JPP. They have enough money under the cap to sign him and bring in some quality talents and even more when they shed the contracts of Cruz. Jennings. and JT Thomas. Thats another 13 million right there.. The Giants had 56 million in cap space last year and made HUGE moves signing OV, Jackrabbit and Snacks. This year they they should have around 33-35 with cuts so they will have plenty of flexibility to make moves if need be. And thats without restructuring or extending anyone.. The Giants will be able to make moves

33-35 less JPP's non-amortizable, 17 mil

Its not either franchise him OR let him walk/pay him OV money.

The Giants can (most likely will) franchise him if they get the sense their offer is not going to be accepted before he hits the open market where they will have no shot.

I'm sure the offer will be more than fair, just not shooting for the moon OV contract.

Instead, the Giants can place the tag on him, I'm sure he'll complain for a couple months but you can guarantee yourself he'll take the 15 million per year and 35 million or so they are guaranteeing by July 15th after what he's been through and it will all be forgotten by training camp.

The tag is the Giants leverage to get him to offer a very fair deal he wouldn't accept with the open market waiting.

The Giants are not letting him walk. Its goes against any type of roster building they've done over the past 20 years. Young, homegrown, defensive end. Not happening.

the $17 million is a placeholder before he ultimately accepts whatever we are offering. The Giants goal isn't to get him on a one year prove it deal. They saw what they needed to see and want to get him locked up long term where they also get cap relief spread out.

The Giants will have plenty of flexibility to get what they need to get done if we need to use that $17 million placeholder and then will get the relief when he finally signs the long term deal.

This isn't rocket science.

Well said,I believe that it will work out that way,and I am not even from 90210.

In comment 13338220 Brandon Walsh said:

Quote:

the $17 million is a placeholder before he ultimately accepts whatever we are offering. The Giants goal isn't to get him on a one year prove it deal. They saw what they needed to see and want to get him locked up long term where they also get cap relief spread out. The Giants will have plenty of flexibility to get what they need to get done if we need to use that $17 million placeholder and then will get the relief when he finally signs the long term deal. This isn't rocket science.

Again, BW (unless I'm not understanding your posts), having a placeholder that could tie up the money you use to obtain key FAs, doesn't seem productive to me. If a deal can't be worked out before the July 15th date to do so, you've tied up 17 mil out of a possible 35 mil cap availability. How is that a positive thing?

and can free up money via Cruz, JT Thomas, Jennings, and Vereen. The tag placeholder isn't going to prevent us from making any other moves.

In comment 13338197 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

off the top of their heads?

TBD at the start of the new league year, so after the super bowl.

In comment 13338331 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

In comment 13338220 Brandon Walsh said: Quote: the $17 million is a placeholder before he ultimately accepts whatever we are offering. The Giants goal isn't to get him on a one year prove it deal. They saw what they needed to see and want to get him locked up long term where they also get cap relief spread out. The Giants will have plenty of flexibility to get what they need to get done if we need to use that $17 million placeholder and then will get the relief when he finally signs the long term deal. This isn't rocket science. Again, BW (unless I'm not understanding your posts), having a placeholder that could tie up the money you use to obtain key FAs, doesn't seem productive to me. If a deal can't be worked out before the July 15th date to do so, you've tied up 17 mil out of a possible 35 mil cap availability. How is that a positive thing?

As you know, cap space is fluid. We don't know if 35 million is the number yet. My guess is it will be more but regardless.

Up until July 15th, the Giants will not spend close to every penny of the $35 million. They will easily save 7 million or so for in season injuries/contracts/carry over/etc.

For some reason if the placeholder is used on JPP and they went closer to the cap than they normally would by July 15th to sign free agents, they know they will have money coming due when he inevitably signs the long term deal (deadlines spur action).

Very important is the Top 51 players only count towards the cap during the offesason so when it was time for 53 players/IR/practice squad to hit the cap, the Giants would have JPP's now free money.

The cap is fluid and easily maneuvered around and that isn't even counting simple restructures they have in their back pocket they can make to players they know will be on the roster 3 plus years (Jenkins, Snacks, OV) where pushing money down the road won't hurt them.

To me, JPP is a whatever it takes re-sign. I use the statement in the macro form meaning the franchise tag is included although not Plan A.

Hankins is a nice player but if we were the Patriots he probably would not be returning. I would try to sign him, but would not be surprised if the market is too rich for Reese.

what if they can't work out a long term deal? Too, what if we want to sign what we deem to be premium FAs and we need a lot of upfront money as part of the deals with said FAs? These are honest questions because I really want to learn, not just argue "to win." You and many others have a very good to terrific grasp of the cap, so I'd love to understand how we can pull off what we need to do on O, for example. And by your reasoning, can we retain Hankins as well?

what's the downside to a FT? You're paying the dude 17 mil in guaranteed money for ONE year of service. That's the downside. I have advocated using the tag on JPP but not without some reservations or fears. You have to come to grips with the likelihood that the Mara's aren't going to throw around the same guaranteed money that they threw around last year. Forget the media created 200 million that gets conjured up in every article. The Giants dished out approx 70-80 million in guaranteed money during last year's FA run. Odds are they won't come too close to that this year. Let's say they have 40 million in the coffers. Forget the cap, it's all about upfront money that these owners are winning to eat or spend. So let's say it's 40 mil for the sake of things. If you give JPP 17, you're left with 23. That aint much and you just ate nearly half the off-season loot on a one year rental. Not good business.

Saying the FT has no downside is just some of you obsessing about the salary cap. The Giants are in great shape cap wise. But they backed up the brinks truck last year. I have a hard time believing they will eat up a large chunk of offseason money for a one year rental. Yes you would be staving off any long term financial burdens but really you're doing far more damage to the present. If you sign JPP long term you could spread out the cap hit which allows for more spending today.

..

I don't think there's any right or wrong answer here but a FT really kind of sucks.

If you sign the guy long term you're holding your breath and praying for good health. If you let JPP walk you're holding your breath and praying that his long term replacement, coming via the draft, turns out to be viable. Either way, you're praying. Either decision could come back to haunt us. The safe route is FT and then you compromise this very off-season. An off-season as critical to this team's title aspirations as any off-season in NYG history.

In comment 13338352 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

what if they can't work out a long term deal? Too, what if we want to sign what we deem to be premium FAs and we need a lot of upfront money as part of the deals with said FAs? These are honest questions because I really want to learn, not just argue "to win." You and many others have a very good to terrific grasp of the cap, so I'd love to understand how we can pull off what we need to do on O, for example. And by your reasoning, can we retain Hankins as well?

That was to BW

In comment 13338371 djm said:

Quote:

I don't think there's any right or wrong answer here but a FT really kind of sucks. If you sign the guy long term you're holding your breath and praying for good health. If you let JPP walk you're holding your breath and praying that his long term replacement, coming via the draft, turns out to be viable. Either way, you're praying. Either decision could come back to haunt us. The safe route is FT and then you compromise this very off-season. An off-season as critical to this team's title aspirations as any off-season in NYG history.

You have a lot more leeway if you don't sign the guy. Sign JPP to what he wants and now they are married to him for a while.

In comment 13338371 djm said:

Quote:

I don't think there's any right or wrong answer here but a FT really kind of sucks. If you sign the guy long term you're holding your breath and praying for good health. If you let JPP walk you're holding your breath and praying that his long term replacement, coming via the draft, turns out to be viable. Either way, you're praying. Either decision could come back to haunt us. The safe route is FT and then you compromise this very off-season. An off-season as critical to this team's title aspirations as any off-season in NYG history.

Except, as I understand it, if he fizzles out after the big contract, at least the cap hit because of amortization, might not be as hard to take as opposed to a 17 mil hard hit if his one year sucks?

I mean to say

In comment 13338378 Go Terps said:

Quote:

In comment 13338371 djm said: Quote: I don't think there's any right or wrong answer here but a FT really kind of sucks. If you sign the guy long term you're holding your breath and praying for good health. If you let JPP walk you're holding your breath and praying that his long term replacement, coming via the draft, turns out to be viable. Either way, you're praying. Either decision could come back to haunt us. The safe route is FT and then you compromise this very off-season. An off-season as critical to this team's title aspirations as any off-season in NYG history. You have a lot more leeway if you don't sign the guy. Sign JPP to what he wants and now they are married to him for a while.

I am not giving him what he wants. He's not the clean UFA that Vernon was. Sorry JPP but you're not. You're every bit the player Vernon is maybe even more but you're not as clean. I'd offer him a nice contract but no way am I giving him 40-50 mil in guarantees. He's got more mileage on him and a challenging injury situation with the back and sports hernia. Not a terrifying injury history, but they exist.

In comment 13338378 Go Terps said:

Quote:

In comment 13338371 djm said: Quote: I don't think there's any right or wrong answer here but a FT really kind of sucks. If you sign the guy long term you're holding your breath and praying for good health. If you let JPP walk you're holding your breath and praying that his long term replacement, coming via the draft, turns out to be viable. Either way, you're praying. Either decision could come back to haunt us. The safe route is FT and then you compromise this very off-season. An off-season as critical to this team's title aspirations as any off-season in NYG history. You have a lot more leeway if you don't sign the guy. Sign JPP to what he wants and now they are married to him for a while.

This. This is exactly why Belichick lets big ticket guys walk, or trades them first (Brady excepted. But even Brady signs team friendly deals).

In comment 13338383 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

I mean to say

Yea this is true. You're still eating a shit load of money either way.

He will be injured more than not. Looking for a golden parachute contract IMO. keep Hankins and replace the bad pick Bromley right away.

In comment 13338392 Victor in CT said:

Quote:

This is exactly why Belichick lets big ticket guys walk, or trades them first (Brady excepted. But even Brady signs team friendly deals).

what is the relevance of "why Belichick lets big ticket guys walk" ?

There is no other coach that can coach or operate a team the way Belichick does -- even his own coaches fail at it when they take their shot at head coach -- I have issues with folks sying anyone should be doing things because that's the way Belichick does it --

the Giants need to do things based on their conviction and their team theories - they need to be themselves -- and by the way -- the Giants beat Belichick twice in the Superbowl using non-Belichickian techniques - there is more than one way to skin a cat -- to thyne own self be true

In comment 13338373 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

In comment 13338352 Big Blue '56 said: Quote: what if they can't work out a long term deal? Too, what if we want to sign what we deem to be premium FAs and we need a lot of upfront money as part of the deals with said FAs? These are honest questions because I really want to learn, not just argue "to win." You and many others have a very good to terrific grasp of the cap, so I'd love to understand how we can pull off what we need to do on O, for example. And by your reasoning, can we retain Hankins as well? That was to BW

Totally not taking it as a arugement, solid conversation.

These are just my opinons of course, but just from following the league long enough, one I think thats very realistic.

I dont think JPP plays under the Franchise Tag not because he said he wont, but, because the Giants offer will be very fair and I can't see him passing on the contract he's been waiting for and risking injury over a couple million more guaranteed he could of got on the open market (that's all that matters, the annual average salary value is all smoke and mirrors). Outside of quarterbacks, not many players risk that. We see it ever year and his circumstances are even more unique with what he's been through and playing in the trenches.

Second, as they do ever year, the Giants will have a very precise free agent plan. They earmark their target, what it will cost to get them and execute right away. Saw it last year and of course in years past with Baas, Rolle, Canty, Boley, etc. If they have to franchise JPP, they will have this factored in and have every contingency ready.

Lastly, I'm not saying this is my preference but if they do what I said above with JPP, there is no way Hankins is back unless his market isn't what he thought it was. We've seen the history with the Giants letting the number two defensive tackle go when market dictated so while I like him as player and part of a solid defensive line, Snacks is the man here and while the next player won't be as good as Hankins, the pass rusher (JPP) will come out out on top. I can't see them sinking over $17 million or so a year on two run stoppers.

Only way Hankins is back is if his market is dry or for some reason they let JPP walk.

yes this is why belichick does this and does that. We get it. But it's also bullshit. The Pats don't let everyone walk as FA. They just signed McCourty to a long term monster deal.

Bringing up what the Pats do every time doesn't always apply to what the Giants should do.

In comment 13338416 Brandon Walsh said:

Quote:

In comment 13338373 Big Blue '56 said: Quote: In comment 13338352 Big Blue '56 said: Quote: what if they can't work out a long term deal? Too, what if we want to sign what we deem to be premium FAs and we need a lot of upfront money as part of the deals with said FAs? These are honest questions because I really want to learn, not just argue "to win." You and many others have a very good to terrific grasp of the cap, so I'd love to understand how we can pull off what we need to do on O, for example. And by your reasoning, can we retain Hankins as well? That was to BW Totally not taking it as a arugement, solid conversation. These are just my opinons of course, but just from following the league long enough, one I think thats very realistic. I dont think JPP plays under the Franchise Tag not because he said he wont, but, because the Giants offer will be very fair and I can't see him passing on the contract he's been waiting for and risking injury over a couple million more guaranteed he could of got on the open market (that's all that matters, the annual average salary value is all smoke and mirrors). Outside of quarterbacks, not many players risk that. We see it ever year and his circumstances are even more unique with what he's been through and playing in the trenches. Second, as they do ever year, the Giants will have a very precise free agent plan. They earmark their target, what it will cost to get them and execute right away. Saw it last year and of course in years past with Baas, Rolle, Canty, Boley, etc. If they have to franchise JPP, they will have this factored in and have every contingency ready. Lastly, I'm not saying this is my preference but if they do what I said above with JPP, there is no way Hankins is back unless his market isn't what he thought it was. We've seen the history with the Giants letting the number two defensive tackle go when market dictated so while I like him as player and part of a solid defensive line, Snacks is the man here and while the next player won't be as good as Hankins, the pass rusher (JPP) will come out out on top. I can't see them sinking over $17 million or so a year on two run stoppers. Only way Hankins is back is if his market is dry or for some reason they let JPP walk.

No way of really knowing what they think of and how they value Hankins. When you mentioned about Hankins' possible low market, it brought to mind Ahmad Bradshaw. There was a lot of concern about what he would corner on the market. Many here, myself included, felt he would not be affordable for us given how tight we were against the cap. Lo and behold there proved to be little if any market for him and I think we signed him for something like 20 mil for 4(?) years..I was really stunned that we were able to sign him..

So, who ever really knows the market for most of these players?

In comment 13338424 djm said:

Quote:

yes this is why belichick does this and does that. We get it. But it's also bullshit. The Pats don't let everyone walk as FA. They just signed McCourty to a long term monster deal. Bringing up what the Pats do every time doesn't always apply to what the Giants should do.

I would agree with this. They didn't let a still healthy and viable Seymour walk until he was what, 32? Same with Wilfork, they didn't re-sign him until he was even okder than Seymour? I would agree they seem to know WHEN to let vets go, which is something we haven't been all that good at, but unless a player was deemed to be trouble, they had no hesitancy in re-signing them unless there was a competent replacement

In comment 13338428 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

In comment 13338416 Brandon Walsh said: Quote: In comment 13338373 Big Blue '56 said: Quote: In comment 13338352 Big Blue '56 said: Quote: what if they can't work out a long term deal? Too, what if we want to sign what we deem to be premium FAs and we need a lot of upfront money as part of the deals with said FAs? These are honest questions because I really want to learn, not just argue "to win." You and many others have a very good to terrific grasp of the cap, so I'd love to understand how we can pull off what we need to do on O, for example. And by your reasoning, can we retain Hankins as well? That was to BW Totally not taking it as a arugement, solid conversation. These are just my opinons of course, but just from following the league long enough, one I think thats very realistic. I dont think JPP plays under the Franchise Tag not because he said he wont, but, because the Giants offer will be very fair and I can't see him passing on the contract he's been waiting for and risking injury over a couple million more guaranteed he could of got on the open market (that's all that matters, the annual average salary value is all smoke and mirrors). Outside of quarterbacks, not many players risk that. We see it ever year and his circumstances are even more unique with what he's been through and playing in the trenches. Second, as they do ever year, the Giants will have a very precise free agent plan. They earmark their target, what it will cost to get them and execute right away. Saw it last year and of course in years past with Baas, Rolle, Canty, Boley, etc. If they have to franchise JPP, they will have this factored in and have every contingency ready. Lastly, I'm not saying this is my preference but if they do what I said above with JPP, there is no way Hankins is back unless his market isn't what he thought it was. We've seen the history with the Giants letting the number two defensive tackle go when market dictated so while I like him as player and part of a solid defensive line, Snacks is the man here and while the next player won't be as good as Hankins, the pass rusher (JPP) will come out out on top. I can't see them sinking over $17 million or so a year on two run stoppers. Only way Hankins is back is if his market is dry or for some reason they let JPP walk. No way of really knowing what they think of and how they value Hankins. When you mentioned about Hankins' possible low market, it brought to mind Ahmad Bradshaw. There was a lot of concern about what he would corner on the market. Many here, myself included, felt he would not be affordable for us given how tight we were against the cap. Lo and behold there proved to be little if any market for him and I think we signed him for something like 20 mil for 4(?) years..I was really stunned that we were able to sign him.. So, who ever really knows the market for most of these players?

I think they probably value Hankins, but we've also seen how they value that certain position. If Hankins was more of a pure pass rusher 3 technique, I wonder if their philosophy would slightly be altered this time around but with his main value as a run stopper, and with NYG already committing top dollar to the best run stopper in the league it looks like a redundant use of resources- of course, if he gets what he's probably looking for.

The Giants don't see pass rushers as redundant.

Good point on Bradshaw, but as we've seen over the years, the NFL does not pay free agent running backs in the middle of their careers. I fear a team like the Browns (Hankins went to school at OSU and they were so bad against the run) could pony up for him.

Olivier Vervon's cap numbers from overthecap

2016: $13m
2017: $16m
2018: $17m
2019: $19.5m
2020: $19.5

I guess the real question is, can we really afford $13m for JPP next year.

The salary cap will increase over the next few years, so it might be an option. It could limit our ability to address other moves.

I appreciate the posts, and would like to add a smidge if possible as many of you posted great comments.

You should beat the bad teams easy if your good team. But we struggled against the Bears and Browns. If not for JPP playing well against these so called bad teams, we might not have made the playoffs.

It would be great if he played better vs the so called better teams too, but the better teams are able to game plan for him better than lesser teams.

Still I agree if he wants big dollars you would want a player that is a more of a lock to do more. And without an OSI or a Tuck, he has been around the ball without the impact a fan would like to see. His efforts I am sure helped other be able to make plays too.

The question I am not able to answer is it enough?
We have glaring needs does minus a JPP help us fill more gaps or holes to make up for his absence to move to the next level.

With the lack of play makers on offense, and not being able to deal with two deep safeties it amazing we lasted as long as we did.

Still think we missed a shot at the Superbowl by not closing out GB in the first half as we had Dallas number and the Falcon game could have been one for the ages.

In any event tough choices are ahead, going to be interesting. Can easily see the Giants tag JPP. His off the field antics have cost him PR wise in the big apple media with a big contact his only real chance at a payday.

Sure everyone likes a comeback, but can easily see TC make a play for him. Do not think the Giants are going to outside the box for him dollar wise with so many holes. Especially how he played a game with the front office in the past reaching out to him like only a handful of teams do.

Forgiven, but not forgotten. JPP already has his ring, now wants his payday.

when we only keep scoring 13 points per game on Offense. Something has got to give here in allocating dollars.

Tough to let talented guys like JPP walk, but I think I can get over letting a guy that has had a bad back, a reconstructed hand and now a hernia/groin issue go find his big payday elsewhere.

Hopefully Giants don't waste it on a 35-year old Offensive Tackle...but that's where I am at.

looking for the biggest payday he can get, JPP is gone. Reese won't and can't outbid the league for him.

when they say we "have to" keep him.

Meanwhile the Pats trade their top defensive player and chandler jones and keep rolling.

You cannot keep 'em all. The rules are stacked against it, and trying to do so gets you in a cap nightmare. It's not like this team doesn't have needs.

In comment 13338218 Brandon Walsh said:

Quote:

The Giants are not letting him walk. Its goes against any type of roster building they've done over the past 20 years. Young, homegrown, defensive end. Not happening.

Going into a season with potentially two defensive ends taking up $30+ million in cap cost goes against any type of roster building they've done too.

In 2016, the Giants allocated $70m of their cap to 31 players on defense

he does not help matters when he starts off with militant talk about how much money he should be offered. Other teams might have treated him a lot worse than the Giants when he blew up his hand. According to reports from management, he genuinely earned their respect when he got back onto the field at mid-season in 2015 in good enough condition to play well. They were also impressed when he reported this year in good shape, with a good work ethic.

This respect by the Giants make it JPP's best decision to stay where he is known. If he leaves for another team for a huge contract, he will find that if he gets off to a slow start, or starts missing games with injuries, they will have little patience with him.

If fans don't appreciate the value of JPP to make big, game-changing plays, I'm not going to convince them.

Consider this story that Parcell's tells: In 1984 the NFL had a USFL dispersion draft, so teams could put their claims in early for players in that league if they became available individually or collectively (if the league went bust).

The Giants had the third pick and Parcells lobbied Young hard to select Reggie White. Young instead went to the position of need, the OL, and picked Gary Zimmerman, who then refused to play for the Giants. We all know where Reggie White ended up. Canton.

In comment 13338684 SB 42 and 46 and ? said:

Quote:

he does not help matters when he starts off with militant talk about how much money he should be offered. Other teams might have treated him a lot worse than the Giants when he blew up his hand. According to reports from management, he genuinely earned their respect when he got back onto the field at mid-season in 2015 in good enough condition to play well. They were also impressed when he reported this year in good shape, with a good work ethic. This respect by the Giants make it JPP's best decision to stay where he is known. If he leaves for another team for a huge contract, he will find that if he gets off to a slow start, or starts missing games with injuries, they will have little patience with him. If fans don't appreciate the value of JPP to make big, game-changing plays, I'm not going to convince them. Consider this story that Parcell's tells: In 1984 the NFL had a USFL dispersion draft, so teams could put their claims in early for players in that league if they became available individually or collectively (if the league went bust). The Giants had the third pick and Parcells lobbied Young hard to select Reggie White. Young instead went to the position of need, the OL, and picked Gary Zimmerman, who then refused to play for the Giants. We all know where Reggie White ended up. Canton.

So did Gary Zimmerman

In comment 13338010 Chris684 said:

Quote:

Like it or not, JPP agreed to take a 1 year "prove it" deal and he proved it. Someone is going to pay him good money.

but he got injured, missed the Dallas, Skins and Packers playoff game. One injury has nothing to do with the other yet he didn't prove he could stay healthy.

Said it before and I'll post it again, franchise tag for 2017/18 and he walks in 2018/19.

So did Gary Zimmerman.

Yes, the USFL had some pretty good players.

I don't think that very many would take Zimmerman over White.

I don't remember why Zimmerman turned down New York.

maybe he'll take a pay cut so that we can afford to get him a better supporting cast.

No. You don't think so.

According to NFL.com, Eli was the 8th highest paid QB in 2016, earning $21 million. Rodgers earned only a million more at $22 and Ben $21,850.

I think Eli could afford to give some back, for his own protection.