Jordan Raanan - Giants Trying to Bring Back JPP+JHank+KRob

It's the latest post with video...
Scroll down a bit and it's there - ( New Window )

sorry for the triple post just to get this bit out...

but we know they want to be paid, especially JPP. I just hope he doesn't price himself out because I think the Giants were good to him with his injury.

.

Keep the defense intact and concentrate on offense in FA and the draft. We need to win now since Eli has only 2 or 3 solid years left.

Jpp is the current priority

Without changing manning's contract and converting salary to bonus to pay him more salary later.

This actually might be the one time they should think about it, not because of the 3 above specifically, but in actuality where Manning is in his career.

that the team wants these guys back. The question has always been can they afford to. Certainly they have the cap space, but with the $s that JPP and Hank will probably get, there won't be a lot left over to address the broken offense.

It makes sense, the unit performed very well, why not try to bring it back?

Want JPP back but is he worth more than 12 mil is the question? Add the number of years, bonus money and dead money should he be released prior to contract end. JPP is a two year contract guy but will want four or five if not more, for guy in the final leg of a once exceptional future that has just never happened.

Why does he have only two years left?

In comment 13363865 hitdog42 said:

Quote:

Jpp is the current priority

Good. They are thinking like I am.

Might as well keep things amicable at this stage of the game.

In comment 13363871 Dragon said:

Quote:

Want JPP back but is he worth more than 12 mil is the question? Add the number of years, bonus money and dead money should he be released prior to contract end. JPP is a two year contract guy but will want four or five if not more, for guy in the final leg of a once exceptional future that has just never happened.

I too see the risk with investing too much with JPP. However, let's look at this situation in a positive light. JPP was having a very good season, and seemed more mature and worked his ass off last off season. There is just as much a chance of him having 4-5 good years left ala Michael Strahan as there is of having a heavy decline.

He is not the same JPP from 3 years ago and that is a good thing. The only question I have is " how much " will get it done.

In comment 13363850 robbieballs2003 said:

Quote:

.

1. I think he means the key FA's.
2. I doubt the Giants are actively shopping DRC, but I think they'd listed if called.

rid of one of the better players and pro bowler.

In comment 13363850 robbieballs2003 said:

Quote:

.

No it won't, you know that..😎

They have plenty of money to do this and still get a vet OL.

Take what they have now - 33+M in space - add JT thomas and get you to 37M. You also have Pugh to sign long term and provide more

JPP 4-62 22M SB 42G
Hankins 5-40 12M SB 20G could go 4-32
Pugh 5-42 15M SB 24G

SB allocation is 11M - you can give each 3M salary for 2017 and still have absolute minimum 17M left.

In comment 13363896 stretch234 said:

Quote:

They have plenty of money to do this and still get a vet OL. Take what they have now - 33+M in space - add JT thomas and get you to 37M. You also have Pugh to sign long term and provide more JPP 4-62 22M SB 42G Hankins 5-40 12M SB 20G could go 4-32 Pugh 5-42 15M SB 24G SB allocation is 11M - you can give each 3M salary for 2017 and still have absolute minimum 17M left.

I think those are realistic estimates for JPP and hank. JPP gets Vernon money just 4 years instead of 5. Hankins seems high to me, but he is young.

I think you are low on Pugh. He should get closer to what osemele got last year(5/58, 25 guaranteed).

nothing is put to rest just yet.

the trade/cut DRC crowd will point to the savings so that Giants can bring back JPP+JHank+KRob. never mind that the savings are mostly an illusion, as now you have to replace DRC. The draft is supposedly deep in DB, so there is an argument to be made that DRC can be replaced cheaper in the draft.

the gotta keep him crowd will point out that the Giants want to keep the D band together.

my initial reaction to your post was to wonder which side thinks the issue is put to rest?

and I think he's a better player than Pugh. I don't know if I'd feel comfortable paying that much for a guy who is good, but not great.

All I see are people saying we should listen if called. Is anyone even saying we should be shopping him? The Giants would be dumb not to take a premium pick for a guy that will be here 1 more year.

and keep DRC. the real question is whether other teams will offer more than what the Giants deem as good value. Probably have to give more than good value to keep them (overall), but you have to limit how much.

However, they won't have much room to do much by way of new acquisitions.

Unless there's a can't miss FA out there, DO NOT mortgage the future by redoing contracts. It's one of the ways we got into cap hell a couple years ago.

the cut/trade DRC talk has died down a lot from last year, but there is still a bit of it around. both talk of it and the perception that there's a lot of talk of it have a lot of hold over perception from a year ago.

In comment 13363910 Ten Ton Hammer said:

Quote:

and I think he's a better player than Pugh. I don't know if I'd feel comfortable paying that much for a guy who is good, but not great.

... and constantly hurt. Pugh is our best OL, but the bar is set so low that he stands out. His 5th year option 8+ mil cap hit can't stand. He either needs to be extended or cut.

An extension should be a short term to allow him to prove he can stay healthy and allow him to earn another payday in the short term. It should include escalators for performance and game starts.

If he does not want to agree to a prove it deal, then we can move on before the start of the season with a zero cap hit. We own his rights, but the 5th year option is guaranteed for injury only. If he gets hurt in OTAs or training camp, we are on the hook for the 8+ mil.

With Pugh's rights retained, we should look to upgrade his position. If we are content at paying 8mil/yr, then we might as well upgrade the position in FA and tell Pugh to find his own money.

agree with a lot of that.

I don't really see the love for Pugh. He's more than a JAG, but not really much to write home about. As you said 'best of' is a really low bar to reach on this team. Seems to me he's a middle of the road guy, not someone you spend 8 mil a year on. then again, maybe 8 mil is the going price for middle of the road guards.

That's basically your whole off-season other than the draft.

I look at JPP as the ego thing, which everyone has. You give him a higher signing bonus and more guaranteed money per year than Vernon. Giving him 24M signing bonus also gets him highest at the position. Doable

I think the Hank number is reasonable - he is not the top level, but with yearly salary increases, it moves him up from Linjo type numbers. He would be in top 10 4-3 DT

I think Pugh or Zeitler will get Osemele type money in guarantees only (25M). Pugh at 5-42 gets him top 5 and 24M guaranteed is slightly under Osemele

The way Reese front loaded the contracts last year of the FA, the Giants are not going into cap hell. After 2017

Vernon has 29M of 40M paid
Snacks has 15.5M of 24M paid
jenkins has 23M of 28M paid

If they keep Vernon in 2018, 46 of his 52M will be paid and he will be 27. The deals were essentially 3 year deals 16-18. There is no money other than SB allocation that will be left after 2018.

In comment 13363937 fkap said:

Quote:

agree with a lot of that. I don't really see the love for Pugh. He's more than a JAG, but not really much to write home about. As you said 'best of' is a really low bar to reach on this team. Seems to me he's a middle of the road guy, not someone you spend 8 mil a year on. then again, maybe 8 mil is the going price for middle of the road guards.

Also agree. Pugh isn't worth $8.8M, but what choice do we have? The whole OL is in flux. Extending him is more likely than cutting him, but we'd probably have to overpay to do so. My guess is we just eat the $8.8M. Sometimes teams have to do so. Eli is an immobile QB on the "back nine" of his career. I can't see the Giants removing the one stable piece of his otherwise shaky OL.

JPP is the most likely of the other three to leave. A few teams have a gargantuan amount of cap space, and at least one may well make him an offer Reese won't match. That seems less likely with Hankins and Robinson. I want JPP back, but am OK letting him go because of his age and injury history.

Cutting Veeren and JT plus extending Pugh and trading DRC puts us around 50 m's.

Enough to sign JPP Hank and Krob and still have a easy 20+m's. But then our biggest needs are a OL , a CB, a WR.

JPP and Hankins will end up taking up approximately 75% of available cap space IMO. That leaves very little left for adding another good OT or lineman and potentially other pieces in FA. I'd love to bring back those three, but in all likelihood will be outbid, and most likely JPP will be the guy to go. I see Giants looking to go all in to continue their Defensive dominance, especially with Eli in the twilight of his career. This might cap us out, and provide very little wiggle room going into next year to sign others or extend current starters. I'm not sure it's prudent to have a Dline taking up 40% or so of the cap?!

In comment 13363963 Carl in CT said:

Quote:

That's basically your whole off-season other than the draft.

Wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. As long as they beefed up the offense in the draft.

In comment 13364003 est1986 said:

Quote:

Cutting Veeren and JT plus extending Pugh and trading DRC puts us around 50 m's. Enough to sign JPP Hank and Krob and still have a easy 20+m's. But then our biggest needs are a OL , a CB, a WR.

Not quite. Cutting those guys gets us to about 37.5 in space. You are only saving 4-5m max extending Pugh. So we will be much closer to 40m than 50m in space.

In comment 13363866 DavidinBMNY said:

Quote:

Without changing manning's contract and converting salary to bonus to pay him more salary later. This actually might be the one time they should think about it, not because of the 3 above specifically, but in actuality where Manning is in his career.

Eli shouldnt have taken the contract he did. Easy to say in my shoes but the guy's been rich his entire life. Has never worried about one bill. He's made enough money and comes from enough money where that will be the case. Did he really need another 100 million contract? Not just eli, a lot of these quarterbacks who have made a disgusting amount of money should take half on their last deal to help the organization out.

don't really understand the cap implications of these moves. Giants should have about 35M in space. Vernon, first year cap hit was 13 million. Harrison's first year cap hit was 6.6M. So assuming JPP and Hank get the same deal, the Giants are still 15 million under with the ability to create some space elsewhere. Can't imagine Robinsons cap number being more than 3-4M.

The Giants can still make one major splash on the OL and bolster other areas with the remaining space and flexibility.

Spags always preaches keeping guys together - his scheme is takes time. Will be interesting to see if an ascending defense can take a step up to dominant this year.

Darian Thompson back is like getting an impact free agent. Goodson replacing Sheppard should realize improvement.

And the overall group having another year in the scheme is further gains.

it doesn't appear that some people understand the cap and the implications of these moves. The Giants have plenty of room to sign these 3 and make other moves.

in addition, all you "offensive gurus" and actual lower level coaches may end up witnessing a really, really fun offense draft!

doable. Would leave room for an OL signing as well.

can be structured any number of ways but a reasonable 1st year cap hit for all 3 would be in the $19M range....IMO

folks try and do the math when figuring out the cap. Don't even bother with it. Teams can always make the room either with signing bonus, restructures, etc.

In comment 13363866 DavidinBMNY said:

Quote:

Without changing manning's contract and converting salary to bonus to pay him more salary later. This actually might be the one time they should think about it, not because of the 3 above specifically, but in actuality where Manning is in his career.

Why? Signing OV, Jackrabbit, Snacks, Robinson, Hall, Rainey, Sheppard and Sensabaugh cost us 34 million last year.

Hankins & JPP aren't getting OV & Jackrabbit money. We can sign all 3 of them and have plenty of money to sign free agents.

signees, its time to draft great ones at this point.

a very good, and young OL prior-to Mannings retirement. Not during or after. The only route to that is the draft.

Then you draft a QB once that is achieved.

In comment 13364021 area junc said:

Quote:

Spags always preaches keeping guys together...

Unlike most other DCs, who prefer that their personnel is constantly changing, I suppose.

In comment 13364055 idiotsavant said:

Quote:

signees, its time to draft great ones at this point.

It's a good thing the great ones come with signs on their backs letting you know that they truly are great.

Am I going to have a yapping pug dog snapping at my heels now?

Lovely.

In comment 13364079 idiotsavant said:

Quote:

Am I going to have a yapping pug dog snapping at my heels now? Lovely.

Just wondering when you'll give us another insightful mock draft that looks like this:

1. G
2. G
3. TE
4. TE
5. WR
6. WR
7. RB

but why stop at the OL? From here on out, let's dedicate ourselves to drafting only great players at every position.

Next up, getting JPP to play for vet minimum.

In comment 13364059 idiotsavant said:

Quote:

a very good, and young OL prior-to Mannings retirement. Not during or after.

Got it. Send Jerry a letter, I'm sure your request will hit home for him.

You do understand that you have to pay other people on the team right? You'd be the guy bitching and moaning about the DL if the OL was perfect.

actually still hilarious that people think that having an awesome OL means every team will be good. Our OL was near below average in 2011. We won the Super Bowl.

Our passblocking was very good and our run blocking was bad. They picked it up in the playoffs and that's why we won. This OL couldn't sniff that OL.

we can sign all three, and have money left over for the offense, and of course, draft 7 great players....it just doesn't work out that way...in most cases, it's a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul.....

I think the Giants are hesitant, to sign Pugh long term, because of injury problems....

I don't think they can afford both Hankins and JPP....both are going for there first big multi year contracts, and will not be cheap, especially if when FAcy starts, a couple of GM's start overpaying players....

As for the draft, we will be lucky to get one starter from it, picking in the 23rd position...

But, I don't know how Reese can just let this offense go on with marginal players, and expect better results from Eli....

Reese is fixing the offense AND the defense again(because of our own FA's)....there is also the matter of another CB, LB, and FS needs...

If he doesn't get the right guys, and doesn't get lucky in the draft, it could be matter of 2 steps forward, and one step back, for this team in the upcoming season....

In comment 13364139 Keith said:

Quote:

Our passblocking was very good and our run blocking was bad. They picked it up in the playoffs and that's why we won. This OL couldn't sniff that OL.

Keith...Eli was running for his life at times that year, and got absolutely destroyed throw after throw against the Niners in the playoffs. That OL was not good.

cherry picking stats but that OL gave up 28 sacks.

was on its last legs. None of them were playing at a particularly high level.

In comment 13364130 ryanmkeane said:

Quote:

actually still hilarious that people think that having an awesome OL means every team will be good. Our OL was near below average in 2011. We won the Super Bowl.

That offensive line was still better than this one.

Which should tell you how bad this line is.

Beatty/Diehl > Flowers
Diehl/Boothe = Pugh (Even if you favor Pugh, its not by much)
Baas < Richburg
Snee >>>> Jerry
McKenzie > Hart/Newhouse

what's the point...both the 2011 and 2016 OL were basically average? I don't get it. We need to upgrade some positions on the OL, I think everyone is in agreement.

That being said, you can't ignore the 17 other positions on the team.

In comment 13364059 idiotsavant said:

Quote:

a very good, and young OL prior-to Mannings retirement. Not during or after. The only route to that is the draft. Then you draft a QB once that is achieved.

Agree 10,00000 percent

All five starters didn't get to play together, all being healthy, till very late in the season and into the playoffs.

So when people point to how poor the O-Line was in 2011, I think they forget that aspect that majority of the regular season, we didn't have all 5 healthy at the same time.

When we did, then we got on a roll and their level of play was elevated with a healthy O-Line in the playoffs.

Argue injuries or whatnot but it wasn't a good line. Awful run unit and mediocre pass blocking. 2011 happened on Eli's arm.

All I can say is:
.
.
.

but wonder why some other guys have not been announced cuts to fatten the available pot.
I know lots of numbers have been thrown out as to what is available, or will be if...., but are those numbers before or after the 6M for draft picks and about 3M for injury settlements? That reserve alone is one pretty good player.

''RE: oh, my god
Klaatu : 10:15 am : link : reply

In comment 13364079 idiotsavant said:

Quote:
Am I going to have a yapping pug dog snapping at my heels now?

Lovely.


Just wondering when you'll give us another insightful mock draft that looks like this:

1. G
2. G
3. TE
4. TE
5. WR
6. WR
7. RB''

Hehe, very lacking in detail to say the least on that one, hehehe. Still laughing here right now.

That said, you did 'instruct and correct' me for pasting in TOO MUCH information and opinion in another thread, a combine related thread, just yesterday, so there is that. I had been minding my own business.

But, that said again, I did laugh at myself on that one above, brief would be an understatement. Then, that said x3, if we do it, we will probably win more next year.

no offense but if the solution were to just "draft great players" at every position especially OL, every team would be a dynasty. The draft isn't exact science. We could take 3 OL in the first three rounds and they could all suck. This is why you never put too much stock at one position in the draft.

Reese has tried to rebuild the OL over the past few years a few steps at a time with decent success. It's certainly not the shit show it was in 2013 and 2014, but it still needs work. We'll get there.

but, and I do feel you and Klaatu, I do:

I mean, he may come here because he is comforted by the predictability and banality of the usual discourse, and the assumption that he is a man among boys when it comes to football drafting acumen. Which is all just fine.

However, he may have been discomforted to a certain degree when I DID post more data and opinion, in a different thread, because, at that time, rather than engaging in discourse about the prospects, he resorted to playing Hall Monitor, saying, in short, 'that is not allowed.'

If you look back, if anything, I have posted TOO much data and specifics this time of year, and have never been short on opinions.

The total number of combine participants is only 330 or so this year.

Yet from the NCAA:

Estimated probability of competing in professional football

NCAA Participants (A)
Approximate # Draft Eligible (B)
# Draft Slots (C)
# NCAA Drafted
% NCAA to Major Pro* %
NCAA to Total Pro^
(A)72,788
(B)16,175 (draft eligible!)
(C)256
256
1.6%
1.9%

Yet there are (46?) regional combines.

So, obviously if pro scouts were just or mainly looking to the combine, they are / would be letting the NFL select players for them to a certain degree, which would seem to fly in the face of the numbers.

Therefor blabbing away about top prospects ad infinitum would seem silly.

understood, just saying that i think we can all agree we'd like every player the Giants draft to be great. It is not, however, realistic in any way shape or form.

down the road. The more I think about it.....It will be either JPP or Hankins...not both.

That would be great but I'll take 2 out of three and be satisfied. JPP would be my priority and I'd sign, tag or trade him before all is said and done.

Then frankly I wouldn't care which of the other two guys we inked. We do well with DT's in the draft and free agency(which has a very strong group this year) so I'm confident we can find a worthy partner for Snacks. LB on the other hand has been a problem for a loooong time. I'd rather not take a step back after we finally made some progress there with competent play as a whole.

keep the D together. Keep Hank, JPP and Krob here especially if all three guys want to stay here, and why wouldn't they. You don't even know if you can sign some other team's FA over the next few months. Everyone just says sign this guy sign that guy and says there's plenty of cap room do it. The cap is obviously a factor but I honestly think it takes a backseat to other elements, mainly the player wanting to be here and the Giants wanting that player.

The whole FA thing is fluid and predicated on so many variables, cap room is one of them but it's hardly the only one. I firmly believe that.

Keep this D together if you can do so. If these three NYG FAs want to chance things and shop around for the biggest offer there's only so much the Giants should do, but they should definitely offer these guys legit deals. Nothing crazy but fair. If they leave so be it...at least the Giants tried. I would think all three guys stay as long as the Giants offer fair value.

In comment 13364013 Keith said:

Quote:

In comment 13364003 est1986 said: Quote: Cutting Veeren and JT plus extending Pugh and trading DRC puts us around 50 m's. Enough to sign JPP Hank and Krob and still have a easy 20+m's. But then our biggest needs are a OL , a CB, a WR. Not quite. Cutting those guys gets us to about 37.5 in space. You are only saving 4-5m max extending Pugh. So we will be much closer to 40m than 50m in space.

3 mil from JT, 3 mil from Veeren, 5 mil from DRC that's 11 mil on top of 34 mil plus Pugh's extension.. I think that's closer to 50 than 40 but we will see..

didn't see DRC.

...that much is obvious. But what are the odds we can get all three of them signed to manageable cap numbers? And to do so while maintaining enough financial resources to address the other side of the ball. You know, the one that struggled all year.

In comment 13364549 Keith said:

Quote:

didn't see DRC.

Point is, I agree with you that we should be able to retain the three and still have 'plenty' to make another splash or two.

they had big money tied up all over the place. The Giants had big bucks invested along the entire OL, RB (2), QB and one WR. They had even bigger bucks invested along the DL, MLB and secondary.

Think to now. No one on the OL is making any money. Pugh and Richburg will soon. Maybe Flowers will if he improves. Who else? No one. And Pugh and Burg aren't even making that much yet. TE? No one. WR? No one but Beckum will soon. RB? Not really. Vereen makes a bit but no one else.

The Giants have plenty of money to spend. Spend it on the known commodities and worry about other FAs when the time comes. You don't even know if any of the so called FAs of need out there are even on the Giants radar or vice versa.

The Giants rebooted this thing in 2014 for this exact reason. They drafted well, now it's time to reap the rewards and build some continuity. They'd be nuts not to make fair market value offers to these guys. Other teams should have to exceed those offers to land them. Hopefully logic prevails and they stay.

..

'They drafted well, now it's time to reap the rewards and build some continuity.'

Take Flowers for instance, that pick is looking troublesome, to say the least.

We're in the market right now for Reuben '2nd Rounder' Randle's replacement. Great pick.

Oh where, o where is the JPP of Tight Ends when you need him. Oh yeah another 3rd rounder on the scrap heap.

I find this one stunning, noone from the 2011 and 2012 combined drafts, that's right all 15 picks, both entire drafts was on the Giants roster this past season.

I'd hate to see poor drafting if that was good. Factor in the potential Flowers miss with a Top Ten selection and the offensive talent evaluation comes into serious question. Which is where free agency comes into play.

It's doubtful we can find solutions to all these offensive problems in one draft.

gets extended, they aren't going to want him hitting the cap that hard this year.

JT may get cut, but all this talk of Vereen getting cut makes no sense. He showed he can make a contribution. He got hurt, he will stick around another at least.

Every year there is a guy that inexplicably gets talked up as a cut, usually a guy that got injured. This year's guy is Vereen.

Is that he's a $5m cap hit and lost a season from a bicep injury he could not heal from. I don't think it's rash to question his place on the roster. I don't know if it's even sensical to cut him financially, but it's certainly frustrating to have slotted that money and gotten nothing with it.

It would be nice to have 40m in cap space rather than 35.

but it looked like Vereen got dinged in the cabeza.

Its a thing in football, RBs sometimes have to retire.

then, really its not about money, nor about giving the player a chance, sometimes its best for them that they not play the game. This team has been great about its people, and will be for Vereen in any case.

look, they probably rehabbed Cruz for a damn long time, that is about helping Cruz be healthy as much as anything else.

for RB's especially, be safe.