@NFLResearch
16h16 hours ago
More
Of the 6 highest paid QBs (based on average annual salary) in 2018, Kirk Cousins is the only one whose team is currently in playoff position
Rodgers is an outlier. GB is finally just having one of those years.
I like Ryan. He’s having a terrific year actually. But Atlanta has been besieged by injuries on that defense. So they have been playing with a shorthand for most of the year.
As mentioned, JimG has been out for most of the year.
Stafford is a disaster.
Hard to evaluate Carr with the wrecking ball Gruden is taking to that organization...
and go hey Kirk is making way more then he should be.
The facts of the matter are that Minnesota taxes their professional athletes at a very high level.
Tom Brady made less money by actually playing in the Super Bowl because he had to be taxed by the state of Minnesota. Jimmy G made more by just collecting the game check and never actually "working" in the state.
So in order to stay competitive in the QB market, they had to overpay to actually get him at the going rate for a QB.
The QB contracts are getting out of control. I saw speculation that Dak Prescott will command 28m/yr. The alternative is scary but the Cowboys are better off letting him walk. Or at the very least tagging him to buy some time. They can probably even trade him if they don't drag it out too long.
I'm not saying you don't pay your QBs either but if you know your QBs level is average or worse, you're better off reinforcing the roster around the position and going back to the well. Teams do it all the time at other positions, they let their mediocre free agents walk, they just have a fear at QB because the stakes are higher. The stakes shouldn't change the decision making though.
It is something that has been noted the past few years. Â
Tom Brady made less money by actually playing in the Super Bowl because he had to be taxed by the state of Minnesota. Jimmy G made more by just collecting the game check and never actually "working" in the state.
Is this true? I mean, how do you actually know this?
I ask because I'm curious about the definition of working. It seems that most tax officials consider the number of days to include days spent in practice. In other words, a backup QB would have been determined to "work" in the state because of his practice time and, I imagine, even suiting up for the game.
Anyway, that's how I understand it, so I'd love to hear how come that's wrong. Thanks!
that you have to take a young QB to get five years of low cost value out of him, shouldn't the plan be to have the team already built before his arrival to best maximize your five years, rather than get the QB then build around him, thus wasting some of those precious years trying to put the roster together (also making his growing pains worse).
that you have to take a young QB to get five years of low cost value out of him, shouldn't the plan be to have the team already built before his arrival to best maximize your five years, rather than get the QB then build around him, thus wasting some of those precious years trying to put the roster together (also making his growing pains worse).
There isn't one way to do it. There's where you are, the draftable players and free agents and go from there. But the 5 year cap friendly contract looks like the constant.
have recently made sb or were named MVP and have made playoffs often in recent history.
Others on that list represent horrendous value. OAK and SF should be flogged for the deals they are in much worse than NYG should. Cousins probably as well in case of MN.
that you have to take a young QB to get five years of low cost value out of him, shouldn't the plan be to have the team already built before his arrival to best maximize your five years, rather than get the QB then build around him, thus wasting some of those precious years trying to put the roster together (also making his growing pains worse).
The NFL does not work that way. No team is ever "already built".
Team building is a constant, ongoing process. This is a mistake the Giants have made frequently going well back into the Coughlin years. Roster construction can't be based on, "We're all set in this area, so let's focus our resources in other areas." That kind of reactive approach has characterized the Giants' approach to roster building (and coaching staff construction) going back over a decade. And based on his very recent quotes Coughlin hasn't learned that lesson in Jacksonville:
Quote:
“We were a whistle” away, Coughlin said. “We’re a whistle (and) we’re in the Super Bowl. And that’s my position, OK?
“So tell me, everyone out there, what they’re going to do in that circumstance about your football team. Aren’t you going to fill other pieces in and try to be as good as you can be? And we tried, didn’t we? Well, the nature of the game got us, so we go back to the drawing board. But I’ll put the gloves on with anybody that wants to talk about what” went awry.
Coughlin still doesn't understand that in the NFL you are always moving forward or backward. Last year is last year; each year requires its own independent objective self-analysis. Shit, each game requires it.
A roster is never "built". There is no rolling out a red carpet for a young QB with a "built up roster".
The problem is that if they make the second contract.... Â
you're going to have to pay. Even for average quality. See Dak Prescott asking for 28 million. See Kirk Cousins. No way they should pay that. But they will, because otherwise they have to start over.
And the more times you draft a QB in the first round, the higher percentage you're going to pick a bust, because that's what a lot of them end up being.
and I'm strictly talking about the Giants here, then you are maximizing your value putting a rookie QB on a team with Saquon Barkley than you are putting a rookie QB on a team without Saquon Barkley.
For instance, if we took Darnold this year, he would be a bad, bad situation. And we would have wasted at least one of those valuable five years. Instead, what we did was take Barkley, start to build our offense around him. Now, when we do anty up this year or next for the first round guy, he will be coming into a much more favorable situation, and perhaps be able to step right in week 1, year 1, and have a successful year. Thus maximizing the so called five year window.
it's an enormous advantage. I've been pointing that out for years.
If you're going to pay a guy franchise QB money you'd better be damn sure he can get you to a title. And even then it can blow up in your face...I wonder if Green Bay would pay Rodgers again if they could do it over. He's an incredible player, but age and injury have taken a toll this year. I'd be genuinely worried about whether he can get back to what he was. What would Green Bay have been able to get for him in trade after last season? It's a question worth asking.
The next interesting test case will be Goff in LA. I think if they pay him they're making a big mistake. McVay is the star there, not Goff.
Goff looked like a guy scared of the cold last Sunday Â
And even with a vet quarterback as experienced as Eli, the offense largely sucked with Barkley on it until the season was effectively over.
The offense will be different next year. Barkley will be different. Assuming any player will be the same player next year (and/or the year after) is a dangerous game. The forces of attrition in the NFL are enormous and constant.
And who is the next QB? We had good possible answers to those questions this offseason. Now we have no answer. And it continues to drive me nuts that now people seem to think it's easy to find a blue chip QB prospect, when a year ago (before we picked a RB) no one felt that way.
Dallas didn’t have a ready made offense for dak Prescott? That offense wasn’t “built?” Whatever the term “built” means, semantics, all I know is you most definitely do build up certain areas of the team and then focus elsewhere as needed. This isn’t 1988 anymore.
The goal is to gather as many good and inexpensive players over a fluid amount of time while plugging glaring holes with veteran help. Veterans cost money. You pick your spots. You got it all when the time is right. Then you pray. Make no mistake, good LUCK is needed. Some positions are at a premium, some less so. You pick your spots and pray.
The best teams have the best players. After a while the best players get paid. Let them all walk and your business model will crumble. Sign the wrong ones long term and it crumbles. Good luck predicting injuries too because in the real world that’s not possible. If Oliver Vernon doesn’t get hurt in August we might be playoff team right now and he’s our best defensive player all year long rather than just over the last two weeks.
you're going to have to pay. Even for average quality. See Dak Prescott asking for 28 million. See Kirk Cousins. No way they should pay that. But they will, because otherwise they have to start over.
And the more times you draft a QB in the first round, the higher percentage you're going to pick a bust, because that's what a lot of them end up being.
I don't think you have to pay those guys. You can trade them, you can let them walk. IMO, I think there's a dearth of special QBs but there's actually a good number of capable QBs. The talent flattens out. Teams fear the unknown a little too much and end up paying for mediocre.
The Giants should be on a 5 year plan anyway, so what happens with that second contract with a drafted QB is a down the road problem. Get a QB prospect you like on a cost controlled contract and you have the flexibility you need to build the talent around him.
Terps, you and I both agreed years back the way to win a title is to fatten up on one part of the team and make that unit dominant, even if it comes at the expense of another unit. If you see a great player for the offense you take that player even if the position isn’t a so called need.
The only way to win is to excel at something. Being good across the board is nice, but not a fool proof model. Then again there’s no fool proof model. Get to January by any means necessary and then pray.
RE: RE: The problem is that if they make the second contract.... Â
you're going to have to pay. Even for average quality. See Dak Prescott asking for 28 million. See Kirk Cousins. No way they should pay that. But they will, because otherwise they have to start over.
And the more times you draft a QB in the first round, the higher percentage you're going to pick a bust, because that's what a lot of them end up being.
I don't think you have to pay those guys. You can trade them, you can let them walk. IMO, I think there's a dearth of special QBs but there's actually a good number of capable QBs. The talent flattens out. Teams fear the unknown a little too much and end up paying for mediocre.
The Giants should be on a 5 year plan anyway, so what happens with that second contract with a drafted QB is a down the road problem. Get a QB prospect you like on a cost controlled contract and you have the flexibility you need to build the talent around him.
Well there's also risk involved. Like if you miss.
RE: RE: RE: The problem is that if they make the second contract.... Â
Well there's also risk involved. Like if you miss.
Of course. But teams are paying 30m to skirt that risk. It's past the tipping point to where it's worth it. And like I said, the talent has flattened out. Teams overestimate the downside of a Dak vs. having to settle for a guy like Fitzpatrick. Minus the age, they're pretty fungible.
Do the Patriots look like they do much praying to you? This season will be 16 in a row of 10+ wins for them. That's not luck, or prayer. Over a long period of time luck becomes less and less a factor if you've got a solid program in place.
If I'm designing a bridge I don't count on luck to keep it from collapsing. If I'm going into surgery and the surgeon pray before going to work on me, I want a new surgeon.
The Giants are a $3 billion dollar corporation with access to enormous resources. Relying on prayer and luck at any level is unacceptable.
on the contingency if a prospect busts and you turn to the veteran journeyman market. The real one, not the Bradford or Glennon one where teams convince themselves they may have untapped potential to be a franchise guy. I don't think it's too difficult to find a replacement for a Dak level QB in the draft either.
the more I realize a good QB can't carry a poor roster, however, a good roster can carry a poor QB.
The idea should be that you build up your roster, defense and running game, then plug a QB in.
It seems to me like you're trying to fit a philosophy into what you think the Giants are trying to do. I have a couple problems with that:
1. Like I said above, I don't think you "build up your roster". The roster is a constant pipeline of people coming in and out. You're never static.
2. Waiting for a certain point to "plug a QB in" could result in missing on a better QB now to settle on a poorer one once you've determined the roster is sufficiently "built up".
3. I don't think the Giants are trying to "build up" the roster in preparation for the next QB. I think their plan entering this season was the same as it's been for several seasons: make a run with Eli.
Best four teams in football all have one thing in common.
Can you guess??
Point is, contracts are one thing but simply “plugging in” any QB into a good team isn’t a recipe for anything except being the Jags of recent years or Niners of a few years back.
It’s still a QB league and when the dust settles, the last team standing will have an elite QB or have had elite QB play. Nothing has changed.
2. Waiting for a certain point to "plug a QB in" could result in missing on a better QB now to settle on a poorer one once you've determined the roster is sufficiently "built up".
3. I don't think the Giants are trying to "build up" the roster in preparation for the next QB. I think their plan entering this season was the same as it's been for several seasons: make a run with Eli.
Well, I've always believed #3 is drives the decision making at Jints Central. And, I fear, will drive decision making in 2019.
As for #2, I only think that work in college because the of the talent disparity. In the NFL, in my judgment, the talent and coaching are so good and deep you cana't expect such a prime position as QB to be JAG...
the more I realize a good QB can't carry a poor roster, however, a good roster can carry a poor QB.
The idea should be that you build up your roster, defense and running game, then plug a QB in.
It seems to me like you're trying to fit a philosophy into what you think the Giants are trying to do. I have a couple problems with that:
1. Like I said above, I don't think you "build up your roster". The roster is a constant pipeline of people coming in and out. You're never static.
That is true, it is fluid, but there are certainly better periods than others. For instance, it would seemingly be a better year next year in terms of stability to insert a new QB rather than have inserted him, at the beginning of this year or last year for that matter.
Quote:
2. Waiting for a certain point to "plug a QB in" could result in missing on a better QB now to settle on a poorer one once you've determined the roster is sufficiently "built up".
Passing on a player like Saquon Barkley for a player you consider to be of lesser quality because you are desperate to get that QB isn't a sound roster building strategy either.
Quote:
3. I don't think the Giants are trying to "build up" the roster in preparation for the next QB. I think their plan entering this season was the same as it's been for several seasons: make a run with Eli.
I think they are trying to build the future. Period. I think they are satisfied with Eli currently and are addressing other areas. I do not think they are specifically on a mission with blinders of selling out to make another run for Eli specifically.
Terps, you used to be all over the Seattle team building plan. In fact, I think I could even quote you as saying you would rather, after Eli was gone, build an awesome team and just draft QB's to play for periods of time then let them walk. And you would have let Russell Wilson walk, too, at the time.
QB is the highest paid position in the league and always has been. if you're going to sign a QB to a second contract, it's going to be enormous. If you look at the likely playoff teams, there are plenty of veteran QBs, and all of them - Rivers, Brady, Brees, Roethlisberger and Wilson - have salaries comparable to those on that list. Washington didn't think Cousins was worth the money. They may have been right, but was Smith a better investment? And what happens next for them? There's no team that's shown an ability to win consistently by churning through cheap QBs. In the end, it's about your ability to identify the franchise QB in the first place. And that's not so easy to do
Nothing changed. But that's not what the Giants are trying to do. If it were, Eli would have been cut after 2017 when he had an out in his contract and a QB would have been drafted from a QB-rich draft. And they wouldn't have paid a WR the contract they did.
The Giants did what they did to try to milk another run out of Eli. They weren't thinking much about a succession plan, as evidenced by their pathetic handling of Lauletta since they drafted him.
that you have to take a young QB to get five years of low cost value out of him, shouldn't the plan be to have the team already built before his arrival to best maximize your five years, rather than get the QB then build around him, thus wasting some of those precious years trying to put the roster together (also making his growing pains worse).
If you're inclined to do it this way, you're still better off with a dirt cheap placeholder QB while you assemble the team around him so that you're maximizing the cap space for the rest of the roster that you're trying to build, IMO.
What are the Steelers, Chargers & Saints doing differently with their late 30’s QB’s which wouldn’t categorize as ‘make a run’ with their QB’s. All of these franchises have been successful this year - what are they doing?
What are the teams who just paid huge money to their QB’s recently - SF, ATL, DET, MIN, GB & I’m sure a few others I’m missing doing that wouldn’t be considered ‘making a run’ with their QB?
The Pats are clearly on an island by themselves here. What franchise other than NE do you look at and say, they are a smooth well oiled machine that isn’t trying to win with their veteran/high paid QB?
What are the Steelers, Chargers & Saints doing differently with their late 30’s QB’s which wouldn’t categorize as ‘make a run’ with their QB’s. All of these franchises have been successful this year - what are they doing?
What are the teams who just paid huge money to their QB’s recently - SF, ATL, DET, MIN, GB & I’m sure a few others I’m missing doing that wouldn’t be considered ‘making a run’ with their QB?
The Pats are clearly on an island by themselves here. What franchise other than NE do you look at and say, they are a smooth well oiled machine that isn’t trying to win with their veteran/high paid QB?
1. The first thing I'd say is that those QBs are all significantly better players than Eli at this point. It pains me to say it, but Eli is done as a top shelf QB. There's no insult there...it's just the way it is. Everyone has a limit and I think he's hit his. Roethlisberger's level of play has dropped too, but his physical traits sustain him a little more. Rivers is playing really well. He's also surrounded by better players, IMO, on the OL and skill positions. His WRs are really good. Brees is a tier above all these guys and always has been. He's an all-timer and a master of the position.
2. The franchise QB model is still clearly the dominant model in the NFL. It's not just about wins...marketing and perception play a huge role too. It would take seriously big balls to have traded Aaron Rodgers this past offseason. Maybe only Belichick has that kind of political capital in the NFL...and even he might not have it considering the rumors we heard out of New England with the Garoppolo trade. If anyone is going to be the agent of change from the franchise QB model it has to be the owners. Robert Kraft has to be willing to say to Belichick, "If you think it's time to trade Brady, do it. I'll back you." I'm not sure that's happening anywhere. Before the franchise QB can be discarded he has to exhibit deterioration on the field. Eli and Flacco are two good recent examples...and even then the Giants haven't moved on from Eli yet.
3. I think Seattle is an interesting team to watch. They seem to have learned that Russell Wilson best serves as a complementary player...he isn't good enough to be the centerpiece. This season they have taken the offense out of his hands and put it back into the running game, and even though they have some serious talent deficiencies they will be going to the playoffs. While they're paying Wilson like a franchise guy, he isn't functioning as one and it's been to their benefit. To me Pete Carroll is the coach of the year. I wonder if he'd consider moving Wilson. There's a potential out in his contract after this year. But again, Wilson is very popular and it would take total organizational support to make that move.
Well said. I agree. I do think you are hard on the Barkley pick, but it appears to be more of a lack of confidence in Shurmur to build a game plan which correctly revolves around Barkley.
I think Barkley as a centerpiece can be a fun/dynamic winning offense if coached properly.
Well said. I agree. I do think you are hard on the Barkley pick, but it appears to be more of a lack of confidence in Shurmur to build a game plan which correctly revolves around Barkley.
I think Barkley as a centerpiece can be a fun/dynamic winning offense if coached properly.
There's no doubt. Barkley is incredible. You won't hear me say otherwise. I'm glad we've got the guy. My concerns stem from:
1. I don't believe in Shumur to coach an offense around him.
2. I don't like what I think the draft pick says about the front office's mindset.
3. You don't have to have a running back of Barkley's incredible quality to have a great offense. We're 16th in the NFL in scoring, and our ranking was much worse when the season was still actually in play for us. We're 21st in the league in rushing. We've been outrushed significantly by the teams RBs that are a fraction of what Barkley is...SF, Baltimore, Buffalo, Tennessee, Chicago, Miami, Green Bay. So while Barkley is an incredible talent, it hasn't really mattered. We probably could have gone 5-8 with a pedestrian offense with Gallman at RB.
Well said. I agree. I do think you are hard on the Barkley pick, but it appears to be more of a lack of confidence in Shurmur to build a game plan which correctly revolves around Barkley.
I think Barkley as a centerpiece can be a fun/dynamic winning offense if coached properly.
Incidentally, I'd recommend the Lombardi book, "Gridiron Genius". I'm only about 60 pages in, but he's making some compelling arguments showing some common themes between how Belichick and Walsh operated. It's a good read, and troubling if you're watching these Giants.
GM Street is my favorite current podcast in addition to his contributions on The Athletic.
If there is anything this franchise needs, it’s Belichick. I have no idea if there was any validity to those rumors last year, but if there is ever the slimmest glimmer of possibility, it should be pursued at all costs.
GM Street is my favorite current podcast in addition to his contributions on The Athletic.
If there is anything this franchise needs, it’s Belichick. I have no idea if there was any validity to those rumors last year, but if there is ever the slimmest glimmer of possibility, it should be pursued at all costs.
The chapter I read last night was really interesting. In short, in 1996 he was asked by the Rams GM to put a report together on how a football team should function (the Rams were a mess), and that would recommend some head coach candidates. The list he put together included Belichick, Parcells, Saban, Chan Gailey, Vic Fangio, Steve Mariucci, and one or two other guys. The Rams GM dismissed the report and instead hired Dick Vermeil, which obviously also ended up working out.
This exact process is what the Giants should have done instead of disguising Accorsi's rubber stamping of Gettleman as a legitimate GM search.
the more I realize a good QB can't carry a poor roster, however, a good roster can carry a poor QB.
Give me some examples were a "good roster can carry a poor QB" materialized into something big - which I'm assuming you mean a SB.
Beyond Dilfer and Eli... ;)
Nick Foles
The corpse of Peyton Manning in Denver
Blake Bortles last year
Case Keenum last year
Colin Kaepernick in San Fran
Alex Smith in San Fran
What's misleading or unhelpful about these smattering of examples is that it doesn't show how many times teams with excellent QBs have consistently MADE the playoffs.
Success in the NFL is fragile. Success without an excellent QB is especially so.
Nick Foles
The corpse of Peyton Manning in Denver
Blake Bortles last year
Case Keenum last year
Colin Kaepernick in San Fran
Alex Smith in San Fran
By player...
Not sure Foles works. He replaced the likely MVP. But he’s been a competent QB in the league. So he was well coached by Pedersen who created some great game plans. Let’s be honest - Foles played brilliantly in the NFCC and the SB.
Manning was indeed a passenger on that Bronco team. That year they morphed into a lesser version of the 2000 Ravens. But it’s still Peyton Manning, and he was still a threat to make a play. His decline was a result of the neck injury, not that he was some journeyman guy like Dilfer who really couldn’t put it together...
Bottles - yes.
Keeenum - at least he was statistically really good last year. Not like a Bortles or a Dilfer or a Neil O’Donnell.
Kaepernick was good. He was a legit two way threat. Yes, he declined when Harbaugh left, but he was a real playmaker.
Alex Smith is underrated. I’ve come around on him the last few years. But I see your point...
The key is getting sustained winning from those JAG QBs. And that has proven highly unlikely.
I think what makes Joe Gibbs one of the great all time coaches was getting three SB wins with three different QBs...Theisman, Williams, and Rypien. To me, that is one of the most underrated accomplishments in the game...
Tom Brady made less money by actually playing in the Super Bowl because he had to be taxed by the state of Minnesota. Jimmy G made more by just collecting the game check and never actually "working" in the state.
Is this true? I mean, how do you actually know this?
I ask because I'm curious about the definition of working. It seems that most tax officials consider the number of days to include days spent in practice. In other words, a backup QB would have been determined to "work" in the state because of his practice time and, I imagine, even suiting up for the game.
Anyway, that's how I understand it, so I'd love to hear how come that's wrong. Thanks!
Yes Boomer was going on and in about it last year during the Super Bowl. Jimmy G wasn’t actually on the Patriots team he was with the Niners since he was traded. He didn’t practice during the Super Bowl week because he wasn’t even officially “on” the team. He still got the bonus though.
The argument for cost-controlled salaries for 5 years is a myth. Â
It has been repeated on this thread and is often used in the argument for team building by leveraging the cost-controlled salary window before the QB signs their second contract. There are only 4 years of cost-controlled salary on a rookie contract. While the 5th year option is available to control the player's rights and extend the negotiation for a second contract by another year, it comes with costs that are equivalent to the transition tag on a player.
It is calculated differently for players that are picked in the Top 10 and those that are picked from 11-32. Top 10 picks are set at the Transition Tag tender (average of the Top 10 salaries at a player's position). Those that are picked 11-32 are calculated as the average of the 3rd - 25th salaries at a player's position.
For example, Marcus Mariota who was drafted in 2015 carried a 5th year option salary equal to $21M. No one would consider that cost-controlled for the sake of argument in roster construction while leveraging the rookie contract window. If we had drafted Darnold, you get 4 years of the rookie contract before he would be earning $25M under a 5th year option.
So for those that say you have to get the QB when you have the chance before a team's roster is built to be competitive, you are wrong as you will be flushing a year of that rookie salary. It is also imperative that prospects (especially those in the Top 10) are ready to play. Having them sit and learn is also flushing a year of that rookie salary. If a player is "raw" but with a "ton of upside", you are wasting the cost-controlled years. By the time the player hits their window that aligns with their upside, then they are nearing the end of the rookie contract looking to sign a second contract.
RE: The argument for cost-controlled salaries for 5 years is a myth. Â
It has been repeated on this thread and is often used in the argument for team building by leveraging the cost-controlled salary window before the QB signs their second contract. There are only 4 years of cost-controlled salary on a rookie contract. While the 5th year option is available to control the player's rights and extend the negotiation for a second contract by another year, it comes with costs that are equivalent to the transition tag on a player.
It is calculated differently for players that are picked in the Top 10 and those that are picked from 11-32. Top 10 picks are set at the Transition Tag tender (average of the Top 10 salaries at a player's position). Those that are picked 11-32 are calculated as the average of the 3rd - 25th salaries at a player's position.
For example, Marcus Mariota who was drafted in 2015 carried a 5th year option salary equal to $21M. No one would consider that cost-controlled for the sake of argument in roster construction while leveraging the rookie contract window. If we had drafted Darnold, you get 4 years of the rookie contract before he would be earning $25M under a 5th year option.
So for those that say you have to get the QB when you have the chance before a team's roster is built to be competitive, you are wrong as you will be flushing a year of that rookie salary. It is also imperative that prospects (especially those in the Top 10) are ready to play. Having them sit and learn is also flushing a year of that rookie salary. If a player is "raw" but with a "ton of upside", you are wasting the cost-controlled years. By the time the player hits their window that aligns with their upside, then they are nearing the end of the rookie contract looking to sign a second contract.
If there is a Rookie worthy of the 5th year option, they will negotiate a new long-term deal for the QB which I think is fair.
RE: RE: The argument for cost-controlled salaries for 5 years is a myth. Â
It has been repeated on this thread and is often used in the argument for team building by leveraging the cost-controlled salary window before the QB signs their second contract. There are only 4 years of cost-controlled salary on a rookie contract. While the 5th year option is available to control the player's rights and extend the negotiation for a second contract by another year, it comes with costs that are equivalent to the transition tag on a player.
It is calculated differently for players that are picked in the Top 10 and those that are picked from 11-32. Top 10 picks are set at the Transition Tag tender (average of the Top 10 salaries at a player's position). Those that are picked 11-32 are calculated as the average of the 3rd - 25th salaries at a player's position.
For example, Marcus Mariota who was drafted in 2015 carried a 5th year option salary equal to $21M. No one would consider that cost-controlled for the sake of argument in roster construction while leveraging the rookie contract window. If we had drafted Darnold, you get 4 years of the rookie contract before he would be earning $25M under a 5th year option.
So for those that say you have to get the QB when you have the chance before a team's roster is built to be competitive, you are wrong as you will be flushing a year of that rookie salary. It is also imperative that prospects (especially those in the Top 10) are ready to play. Having them sit and learn is also flushing a year of that rookie salary. If a player is "raw" but with a "ton of upside", you are wasting the cost-controlled years. By the time the player hits their window that aligns with their upside, then they are nearing the end of the rookie contract looking to sign a second contract.
If there is a Rookie worthy of the 5th year option, they will negotiate a new long-term deal for the QB which I think is fair.
Which merely underscores the premise that there are no cost-controlled 5 years for a QB. A team has 4 years. Can't let them sit. Can't wait for them to mature to their upside. Can't build a team around them while wasting the 4 years.
Nick Foles
The corpse of Peyton Manning in Denver
Blake Bortles last year
Case Keenum last year
Colin Kaepernick in San Fran
Alex Smith in San Fran
[/quote]
Vince Farragamo.
QB salaries are pretty consistent with the cap... Â
Yes Boomer was going on and in about it last year during the Super Bowl. Jimmy G wasn’t actually on the Patriots team he was with the Niners since he was traded. He didn’t practice during the Super Bowl week because he wasn’t even officially “on” the team. He still got the bonus though.
Thanks - forgot about the trade and wasn't considering that. Makes sense now.
Yes Boomer was going on and in about it last year during the Super Bowl. Jimmy G wasn’t actually on the Patriots team he was with the Niners since he was traded. He didn’t practice during the Super Bowl week because he wasn’t even officially “on” the team. He still got the bonus though.
Thanks - forgot about the trade and wasn't considering that. Makes sense now.
I also think he mentioned that they might have prorated the taxes for an entire year since they were there working for a week of time. I could be completely off though.
RE: QB salaries are pretty consistent with the cap... Â
Since 1994, max cap hit for a QB that year vs. the salary cap of that year.
Looking at your graph, I would say that starting around 2008 QB salaries have not become proportionate to the salary cap. What percentage of the cap should QB salaries on the second contract account for? 20% should be fair, but the top end of the market exceeds that. Next year, the cap is estimated to be $190M. So with next year's cap, a second contract should be in the $19M/yr range, but we know they exceed that already.
I was at that Super Bowl in New Orleans...Baltimore could not handle him. If Jim Harbaugh had any balls in that last possession they would have won the Super Bowl.
that was plugged into an already established system and roster that had success.
Just because I named him in the list doesn't mean he didn't perform. Alex Smith being on the list isn't a knock, either. He had a great game against New Orleans where he took the game over and won it. But he was not the driving force of that team all season. He was a passenger and occasionally rose to the occasion.
The name of the game is having a strong roster and system in place. Then you can add the QB, and even if he's a miss, or just okay, you can still win in the meantime.
You add the QB when the opportunity arises. You can't conjure him up out of thin air. If I were running a team I'd never stop searching for a QB no matter what my QB depth chart looked like.
It sounds quite a bit like you're trying to say that this is what the Giants are doing. It isn't.
And you're trying just as hard to say there is no other way Â
One of our SB seasons was direct evidence of what an elite QB can do--elevate the play of everyone around him.
Now, since Eli has declined, the story is "balance", "excellence throughout the roster", "team game". Obviously the "nuanced" point combines both, but we have seen how much a great QB can consistently elevate the teams they're on. That we can't put too much blame on a QB.
One of our SB seasons was direct evidence of what an elite QB can do--elevate the play of everyone around him.
Now, since Eli has declined, the story is "balance", "excellence throughout the roster", "team game". Obviously the "nuanced" point combines both, but we have seen how much a great QB can consistently elevate the teams they're on. That we can't put too much blame on a QB.
It's not about Eli. He is the past. It's about the future and how the game is evolving, IMO.
One of our SB seasons was direct evidence of what an elite QB can do--elevate the play of everyone around him.
Now, since Eli has declined, the story is "balance", "excellence throughout the roster", "team game". Obviously the "nuanced" point combines both, but we have seen how much a great QB can consistently elevate the teams they're on. That we can't put too much blame on a QB.
It's not about Eli. He is the past. It's about the future and how the game is evolving, IMO.
It's hard to take anything you have to say about Eli or QBs in good faith.
Because it's hard to have a conversation with people that want to focus on Eli when I haven't mentioned Eli once in this entire thread, yet have given examples and explanations about building a team moving forward and drafting a replacement for Eli.
I can understand if I'm sitting here talking about building around Eli for one more run, but I'm not.
for the word "Eli" and see how many times I mention it.
Secondly, when I do, it's a response to other people and it's about finding his replacement.
Like with your statistical presentation in this case, you cherrypick and selectively frame things so you can obscure your broader history of posting. You're right I shouldn't respond and I won't in the future. I've avoided posting largely because it's the board is clustered into thoughtless critique and older posters who harp on the worst arguments so as to drown out carefully considered criticism of what has been, for the better part of a decade, a losing franchise.
Now your next move will be to say, "Oh go find me an Eli thread that I started or where I was holding a shadow debate about Eli." I'm not going to do that. If that means you win, sure, that's fine. I think there's ample evidence out there that my characterization is fair and honestly I don't care enough to comb BBI archives to support it. Enjoy the "win".
You don't have to comb the archives, just comb this thread. Â
It's not my fault that you didn't read the entire thread and just saw my name on it and assumed that I'm advocating for Eli. That's your problem, not mine.
I think if you read the thread in context and it's entirety, you'd see me strictly talking about building the team up moving forward and how the next QB would factor in to that.
Eli is a placeholder at this point. To what degree is up for debate (not for me to debate because I don't care to, anymore), but a placeholder nonetheless.
RE: RE: QB salaries are pretty consistent with the cap... Â
Since 1994, max cap hit for a QB that year vs. the salary cap of that year.
Looking at your graph, I would say that starting around 2008 QB salaries have not become proportionate to the salary cap. What percentage of the cap should QB salaries on the second contract account for? 20% should be fair, but the top end of the market exceeds that. Next year, the cap is estimated to be $190M. So with next year's cap, a second contract should be in the $19M/yr range, but we know they exceed that already.
That's the max cap number for each year. It's not the average of the top 5 which would probably be a better number but I don't have that data at my finger tips.
RE: People are acting like there will never be another opportunity Â
What's irrational is the way the narrative has flipped since we picked a RB over a QB. In March 2018 the consensus view was that it was harder to find a QB than a RB. That view was universal.
And before you tell me how life changing Barkley has been, note that he has 160 yards more and a lower YPA than Phillip Lindsay, an undrafted free agent out of Colorado State.
As ever, if the Giants drafted an inanimate carbon rod there would be people defending the move.
Using Lindsay as an example of how easy it is to find a great RB without using a high pick on him would be like me using Russell Wilson or Kirk Cousins as an example of how easy it is to find a QB in later rounds.
I can understand if Darnold, Allen, or Rosen.... Â
were lighting the world on fire right now, but they're not. They haven't given any of their respective franchises anything other than hope that they're good.
And hope only lasts so long. Whether they give them something more tangible remains to be seen.
Alvin Kamara
Nick Chubb
James Conner
Kareem Hunt
David Johnson
Chris Carson
Matt Breida
Aaron Jones
Kerryon Johnson
Austin Ekeler
That's guys this year alone that have played well at running back...most of them on teams that have rushed for more yards than we have. None of them is even a first round pick.
And then you can look a RBs in our own recent history:
Ahmad Bradshaw
Brandon Jacobs
Derek Ward
Tiki Barber
BBI gets amnesia when the Giants do something that is stupid. It gets amnesia, and then it bends the narrative to fit what the Giants are doing.
What the Giants did, and are doing, is fucking stupid.
Using Lindsay as an example of how easy it is to find a great RB without using a high pick on him would be like me using Russell Wilson or Kirk Cousins as an example of how easy it is to find a QB in later rounds.
Kamara
Hunt
Conner
Lindsay
Carson
Johnson
Chubb
All in the top 15 in rushing and aren’t first round picks. Right outside the top 15:
Breida, Jones, Howard
But increasingly it doesn't seem to matter that the team is garbage Â
I'm telling you his great season hasn't made a difference. The team is 5-8 and the offense was putrid for most of the year. We're 16th in points scored despite our "generational players", and despite being in a dogshit division we are going nowhere.
I don't care if Barkley has 10000 all purpose yards for the season.
Well we'll agree to disagree that things are changing. Â
If you want to put a shine on that by looking at Barkley's yardage totals that's up to you.
I'm tired of shining shit. This team doesn't deserve our benefit of the doubt. I think it's earned our intense criticism and skepticism until proven otherwise. I can't believe I'm in the minority there but I guess I've underestimated the fans' willingness to eat shit.
And what are going to do about it in the meantime? Â
Since 1994, max cap hit for a QB that year vs. the salary cap of that year.
Look at 2017 and 2018 though...there is a noticeably sharp trend upwards in that graph. We're only at the start too. Those numbers aren't being pushed up by the Aaron Rodgers of the league, it's Kirk Cousins and Matt Stafford. Where teams screw up is that they don't cut bait when faced with a mediocre QB entering a contract extension. Instead they pay them elite money hamstringing their ability to build the dominant roster that these QBs need to succeed.
That said, this is precisely why the ultimate goal should be to find an elite talent at QB and the only shot you have at that is through the draft. If we're talking about helping Barkley, having a cost controlled starter at QB will provide you the resources to build a dominant OL within the structure of your cap. So there are duel benefits to taking this approach at QB. The downside risk of a bust? Sure, but unless they're a Sanchez like bust, they're not killing you because their salaries are so depressed. Winston and Marriotta are busts - but they're the 28th and 29th highest paid players at their position (20m/yr cheaper than Stafford). They're actually bargains in respect to the cap.
When Dak Prescott is demanding 28 million per.... Â
but we got an electrifying talent to plug into the offense and really be the motor of it.
Fact is, it's going to take more than one offseason to really see if they're pointed in the right direction. The OL needs potentially three starters, we lack a #2 WR, OL depth. The defense needs LBs, CBs, and potentially two starting safeties.
That's easily another offseason and potentially two, if they don't retain Collins, OV, Ogletree, to name a few that will be under scrutiny for their contract values.
because Position XYZ is "easy" to find and listing good players at that position is such a lazy argument. You can literally do that with every position. Players in the top 15 (or 30 if 2 start) at their position taken outside the 1st:
QB
Brady
Wilson
Brees
Cousins
WR - looking at the top 30 WR in yards for this season, though 6 of the top 8 were taken in the 2nd or later
Brown
Hill
Thielen
Smith-Schuster
Thomas
Adams
K Allen
Diggs
Hilton
Sanders
Woods
Boyd
Lockett
Landry
Tate
Gordon
Shepard
Pass Rushers - the elite guys are almost exclusively top 10 picks, but these players are all in the top 30 in sacks
Hunter
Lawrence
Clark
Chris Jones
Dunlap
Autry
Fackrell
Bennett
Addison
Ioannidis
Leonard
Campbell
Casey
Judon
LB - drafted in 2nd or later and top 30 in tackles:
Leonard
Smith
Alonso
Martinez
David
Littleton
Whitehead
Davis
Warner
Foster
Williamson
Hitchens
Davis
Smith
Trevathtan
Wagner
Walker
Cunningham
Kendricks
Hicks
Collins
Jack
McMillan
Brown
So clearly the only positions that should ever be drafted in the 1st are QBs and pass rushers. Can find great players at every other position in any round...
In this day and age, it is about coaching more than the QB Â
QBs, schemes, etc work for a few years and get figured out. If the coaches aren't constantly evolving to stay ahead of the game. they are going to be exploited.
I think that has been one of the things that BB has been so good at, exploiting match-ups. Eventually everybody catches up and you need to find the next thing.
The teams that are going to be consistently successful will be because of coaching. Obviously you need to hit on your roster as well, but coaching is a big factor.
I'm telling you his great season hasn't made a difference. The team is 5-8 and the offense was putrid for most of the year. We're 16th in points scored despite our "generational players", and despite being in a dogshit division we are going nowhere.
I don't care if Barkley has 10000 all purpose yards for the season.
Barkley is one of the few reasons to watch this losing team. Relax Terps. Things will get better.
I'm going to let them entertain me and hope they get better.
So true Britt. IMO, Terps should take some time away from watching the Giants and come back when things are going better. It will be better for his health.
RE: They've scored 30 points in 3 of their last 4.... Â
Secondly, the Giants haven't had a 1000 yard rusher since 2012.
Finally, Saquon is also going to be pushing 1000 yards as a RECEIVER!
So Phillip Lindsay being a 1000 yard rusher as a rookie and going undrafted is nice.
Saquon is breaking all kinds of records and is going to have over 2000 yards from scrimmage.
The Giants are trending up. And it's largely on the back of Saquon Barkley.
If you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.
The trend will only be up if they finish well. If they get their asses kicked in the last 3 games, the recent uptrend can be explained away with circumstantial evidence, bad teams and or back up QBS. FWIW I think they win 2 of the last 3 and it is an arrow pointing up situation. I am just not ready to make that claim yet. Might as well get the rest of picture filled out before we make proclamations about the season. Barkley is great, that much is settled.
The Giants offense has lacked a real run threat since 2010.... Â
I dunno. They need a center hopefully from the draft and a RT hopefully a free agent. Worry about upgrading Brown after that. The terrible Oline that could not run or pass block was responsible for the 1-7 start, IMO.
I don't care what the record says at the end of this year, the fact that we now have a run game is a massive improvement.
How was the running game after McAdoo was canned as yards/game compared to this year? 112/game vs 106/game this year. No doubt Barkley is the man, and I am only using 4 games from last year but it is still true. I hope they build the team around Barkley, the recent wins have given me hope. I do not want be a prisoner of the moment though, right after Barkley's best game as a pro. I want to let the season play out, then look at it in its entirety after a few weeks of reflection. I love Barkley, I don't want that to get confused. He was the correct pick.
I'm going to let them entertain me and hope they get better.
Amen.
Not that I have any valid reason to hope that they'll share the same fate, but the Warriors come to mind a bit.
It would largely be forgotten now, but when the Warriors drafted Stephen Curry it wasn't universally regarded as a great pick. Many criticized them for adding another "undersized guard who can't defend" when they already had Monta Ellis. Even when it became apparent he could play, his personal future was clouded by injuries and the Warriors' collective future was clouded by being the Warriors. They continued to make shitty personnel mistakes even after they drafted him -- what reason was there to ever think they'd turn it around.
But then, they turned it around.
Unfortunately, it took a change in ownership and management to precipitate it. Maybe the Giants can pull a transformation off without such a change, but I'm not overly optimistic.
In the meantime I'll at least hope they'll be entertaining, just as I hoped the Warriors would be entertaining when I felt there was no hope in them being elite.
in order to combat the notion that eli is a poor value or more accurately that he is uniquely being singled out for being a poor value.
But the justification for paying some of those players on the list is there. Others are just stupid contracts. The bay area teams in general outclass the Giants in dumb fairly regularly in recent years, as bad as NYG have been.
I would agree that a 'good' qb is more accessible than in the past. Paying a premium for a 'good' qb will go away at some point. Prescott is an example. How Garropolo signed such a ludicrous deal shows the 9ers incompetence.
Very good to elite qb play however, consistently done is hard to find, still seems to require investment in an early pick. Not always, not absolutely but generally speaking yes.
Some of the other discussion around perfectly timing player acquisition, I do have to agree whole heartedly with Terps. The Giants are deficient in several areas, long term qb play being one. They chose to invest in Barkley last offseason. They dont need to wait until everything else is in place to draft another qb. At their pick, if a qb has relative value that makes sense in the first round, they should most likely select that player. they may even pass again this year knowing they can get a game manager performance out of Eli this upcoming year, relative to the talent of available qbs vs what they can draft elsewhere and wait until 2020 but it has to be done soon and it has to be done irrespective of the overall state of the franchise.
The existence of other bad contracts should not change the Giants stance of getting better value from qb IMO. We will see- I doubt they touch Eli's contract.
RE: They've scored 30 points in 3 of their last 4.... Â
Secondly, the Giants haven't had a 1000 yard rusher since 2012.
Finally, Saquon is also going to be pushing 1000 yards as a RECEIVER!
So Phillip Lindsay being a 1000 yard rusher as a rookie and going undrafted is nice.
Saquon is breaking all kinds of records and is going to have over 2000 yards from scrimmage.
The Giants are trending up. And it's largely on the back of Saquon Barkley.
If you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.
Trending up huh? While it’s finally nice to see some points on the board you might want to temper your enthusiasm as to what occurred in those games. We are flawed in so many key positions it’s comical how many different ways we could use our top couple picks in the draft.
What does that have to do with Cousins?
Awfully early out West amigo, you get a break.
A different angle is that 5/10 top paid QBs per 2018 cap cost are in the playoff hunt and 5/10 were not drafted in the 1st.
I like Ryan. He’s having a terrific year actually. But Atlanta has been besieged by injuries on that defense. So they have been playing with a shorthand for most of the year.
As mentioned, JimG has been out for most of the year.
Stafford is a disaster.
Hard to evaluate Carr with the wrecking ball Gruden is taking to that organization...
The facts of the matter are that Minnesota taxes their professional athletes at a very high level.
Tom Brady made less money by actually playing in the Super Bowl because he had to be taxed by the state of Minnesota. Jimmy G made more by just collecting the game check and never actually "working" in the state.
So in order to stay competitive in the QB market, they had to overpay to actually get him at the going rate for a QB.
LMAO!!
I'm not saying you don't pay your QBs either but if you know your QBs level is average or worse, you're better off reinforcing the roster around the position and going back to the well. Teams do it all the time at other positions, they let their mediocre free agents walk, they just have a fear at QB because the stakes are higher. The stakes shouldn't change the decision making though.
This is the point I took from it as well. If anything, this would suggest that keeping Eli around next year at 20M would be a huge mistake.
Of course, that list is extremely flawed for the reasons mentioned above.
LMAO!!
Uh, the word was terrific.
But I suggest you review his production. And I’ll let those numbers speak for themselves.
I’ll take that as a compliment.
I am always fair in my assessments.
Tom Brady made less money by actually playing in the Super Bowl because he had to be taxed by the state of Minnesota. Jimmy G made more by just collecting the game check and never actually "working" in the state.
Is this true? I mean, how do you actually know this?
I ask because I'm curious about the definition of working. It seems that most tax officials consider the number of days to include days spent in practice. In other words, a backup QB would have been determined to "work" in the state because of his practice time and, I imagine, even suiting up for the game.
Anyway, that's how I understand it, so I'd love to hear how come that's wrong. Thanks!
Quote:
A great year...
LMAO!!
Uh, the word was terrific.
But I suggest you review his production. And I’ll let those numbers speak for themselves.
Lol....
Matt Ryan is the ultimate stat padding, least clutch WB in the NFL. But hey... LETS LOOK AT HIS STATS!!!
6 of Ryan’s last 7 TDs have come in the 2nd half when they have been down by 3 Scores or more.
Stat padder.
You can go to any position and find examples of teams with the highest paid at the position not making the playoffs.
There isn't one way to do it. There's where you are, the draftable players and free agents and go from there. But the 5 year cap friendly contract looks like the constant.
Others on that list represent horrendous value. OAK and SF should be flogged for the deals they are in much worse than NYG should. Cousins probably as well in case of MN.
Giants are not alone in bad decisions.
The NFL does not work that way. No team is ever "already built".
Team building is a constant, ongoing process. This is a mistake the Giants have made frequently going well back into the Coughlin years. Roster construction can't be based on, "We're all set in this area, so let's focus our resources in other areas." That kind of reactive approach has characterized the Giants' approach to roster building (and coaching staff construction) going back over a decade. And based on his very recent quotes Coughlin hasn't learned that lesson in Jacksonville:
“So tell me, everyone out there, what they’re going to do in that circumstance about your football team. Aren’t you going to fill other pieces in and try to be as good as you can be? And we tried, didn’t we? Well, the nature of the game got us, so we go back to the drawing board. But I’ll put the gloves on with anybody that wants to talk about what” went awry.
Coughlin still doesn't understand that in the NFL you are always moving forward or backward. Last year is last year; each year requires its own independent objective self-analysis. Shit, each game requires it.
A roster is never "built". There is no rolling out a red carpet for a young QB with a "built up roster".
And the more times you draft a QB in the first round, the higher percentage you're going to pick a bust, because that's what a lot of them end up being.
For instance, if we took Darnold this year, he would be a bad, bad situation. And we would have wasted at least one of those valuable five years. Instead, what we did was take Barkley, start to build our offense around him. Now, when we do anty up this year or next for the first round guy, he will be coming into a much more favorable situation, and perhaps be able to step right in week 1, year 1, and have a successful year. Thus maximizing the so called five year window.
If you're going to pay a guy franchise QB money you'd better be damn sure he can get you to a title. And even then it can blow up in your face...I wonder if Green Bay would pay Rodgers again if they could do it over. He's an incredible player, but age and injury have taken a toll this year. I'd be genuinely worried about whether he can get back to what he was. What would Green Bay have been able to get for him in trade after last season? It's a question worth asking.
The next interesting test case will be Goff in LA. I think if they pay him they're making a big mistake. McVay is the star there, not Goff.
The offense will be different next year. Barkley will be different. Assuming any player will be the same player next year (and/or the year after) is a dangerous game. The forces of attrition in the NFL are enormous and constant.
And who is the next QB? We had good possible answers to those questions this offseason. Now we have no answer. And it continues to drive me nuts that now people seem to think it's easy to find a blue chip QB prospect, when a year ago (before we picked a RB) no one felt that way.
The goal is to gather as many good and inexpensive players over a fluid amount of time while plugging glaring holes with veteran help. Veterans cost money. You pick your spots. You got it all when the time is right. Then you pray. Make no mistake, good LUCK is needed. Some positions are at a premium, some less so. You pick your spots and pray.
The best teams have the best players. After a while the best players get paid. Let them all walk and your business model will crumble. Sign the wrong ones long term and it crumbles. Good luck predicting injuries too because in the real world that’s not possible. If Oliver Vernon doesn’t get hurt in August we might be playoff team right now and he’s our best defensive player all year long rather than just over the last two weeks.
I believe in Shurmur but I know many here don't. Is the outcome for this QB the same with Shurmur vs McVay vs Hue Jackson vs Reid?
So many variables to ever think there is one way. I think you pay attention to the constants and work from there to build your vision.
And the more times you draft a QB in the first round, the higher percentage you're going to pick a bust, because that's what a lot of them end up being.
I don't think you have to pay those guys. You can trade them, you can let them walk. IMO, I think there's a dearth of special QBs but there's actually a good number of capable QBs. The talent flattens out. Teams fear the unknown a little too much and end up paying for mediocre.
The Giants should be on a 5 year plan anyway, so what happens with that second contract with a drafted QB is a down the road problem. Get a QB prospect you like on a cost controlled contract and you have the flexibility you need to build the talent around him.
The only way to win is to excel at something. Being good across the board is nice, but not a fool proof model. Then again there’s no fool proof model. Get to January by any means necessary and then pray.
Quote:
you're going to have to pay. Even for average quality. See Dak Prescott asking for 28 million. See Kirk Cousins. No way they should pay that. But they will, because otherwise they have to start over.
And the more times you draft a QB in the first round, the higher percentage you're going to pick a bust, because that's what a lot of them end up being.
I don't think you have to pay those guys. You can trade them, you can let them walk. IMO, I think there's a dearth of special QBs but there's actually a good number of capable QBs. The talent flattens out. Teams fear the unknown a little too much and end up paying for mediocre.
The Giants should be on a 5 year plan anyway, so what happens with that second contract with a drafted QB is a down the road problem. Get a QB prospect you like on a cost controlled contract and you have the flexibility you need to build the talent around him.
Well there's also risk involved. Like if you miss.
Well there's also risk involved. Like if you miss.
Of course. But teams are paying 30m to skirt that risk. It's past the tipping point to where it's worth it. And like I said, the talent has flattened out. Teams overestimate the downside of a Dak vs. having to settle for a guy like Fitzpatrick. Minus the age, they're pretty fungible.
If I'm designing a bridge I don't count on luck to keep it from collapsing. If I'm going into surgery and the surgeon pray before going to work on me, I want a new surgeon.
The Giants are a $3 billion dollar corporation with access to enormous resources. Relying on prayer and luck at any level is unacceptable.
The idea should be that you build up your roster, defense and running game, then plug a QB in.
Give me some examples were a "good roster can carry a poor QB" materialized into something big - which I'm assuming you mean a SB.
Beyond Dilfer and Eli... ;)
The idea should be that you build up your roster, defense and running game, then plug a QB in.
I think there's something to that if you don't have a Mahomes. I don't think it's a linear build though.
The idea should be that you build up your roster, defense and running game, then plug a QB in.
It seems to me like you're trying to fit a philosophy into what you think the Giants are trying to do. I have a couple problems with that:
1. Like I said above, I don't think you "build up your roster". The roster is a constant pipeline of people coming in and out. You're never static.
2. Waiting for a certain point to "plug a QB in" could result in missing on a better QB now to settle on a poorer one once you've determined the roster is sufficiently "built up".
3. I don't think the Giants are trying to "build up" the roster in preparation for the next QB. I think their plan entering this season was the same as it's been for several seasons: make a run with Eli.
Can you guess??
Point is, contracts are one thing but simply “plugging in” any QB into a good team isn’t a recipe for anything except being the Jags of recent years or Niners of a few years back.
It’s still a QB league and when the dust settles, the last team standing will have an elite QB or have had elite QB play. Nothing has changed.
2. Waiting for a certain point to "plug a QB in" could result in missing on a better QB now to settle on a poorer one once you've determined the roster is sufficiently "built up".
3. I don't think the Giants are trying to "build up" the roster in preparation for the next QB. I think their plan entering this season was the same as it's been for several seasons: make a run with Eli.
Well, I've always believed #3 is drives the decision making at Jints Central. And, I fear, will drive decision making in 2019.
As for #2, I only think that work in college because the of the talent disparity. In the NFL, in my judgment, the talent and coaching are so good and deep you cana't expect such a prime position as QB to be JAG...
Quote:
the more I realize a good QB can't carry a poor roster, however, a good roster can carry a poor QB.
The idea should be that you build up your roster, defense and running game, then plug a QB in.
It seems to me like you're trying to fit a philosophy into what you think the Giants are trying to do. I have a couple problems with that:
1. Like I said above, I don't think you "build up your roster". The roster is a constant pipeline of people coming in and out. You're never static.
That is true, it is fluid, but there are certainly better periods than others. For instance, it would seemingly be a better year next year in terms of stability to insert a new QB rather than have inserted him, at the beginning of this year or last year for that matter.
Passing on a player like Saquon Barkley for a player you consider to be of lesser quality because you are desperate to get that QB isn't a sound roster building strategy either.
I think they are trying to build the future. Period. I think they are satisfied with Eli currently and are addressing other areas. I do not think they are specifically on a mission with blinders of selling out to make another run for Eli specifically.
Terps, you used to be all over the Seattle team building plan. In fact, I think I could even quote you as saying you would rather, after Eli was gone, build an awesome team and just draft QB's to play for periods of time then let them walk. And you would have let Russell Wilson walk, too, at the time.
What changed?
Paying Eli dumb money means we are like all the other losers out there?
Or Eli's not on the list therefore we are smart, even if we don't make the playoffs?
Or it's OK to pay Eli dumb money because everybody does it?
Or since everyone else looks dumb, we are less so?
...
...
Do you really think you should talk about unsurprising posts considering level of bias in your own posts?
The Giants did what they did to try to milk another run out of Eli. They weren't thinking much about a succession plan, as evidenced by their pathetic handling of Lauletta since they drafted him.
If you're inclined to do it this way, you're still better off with a dirt cheap placeholder QB while you assemble the team around him so that you're maximizing the cap space for the rest of the roster that you're trying to build, IMO.
What are the Steelers, Chargers & Saints doing differently with their late 30’s QB’s which wouldn’t categorize as ‘make a run’ with their QB’s. All of these franchises have been successful this year - what are they doing?
What are the teams who just paid huge money to their QB’s recently - SF, ATL, DET, MIN, GB & I’m sure a few others I’m missing doing that wouldn’t be considered ‘making a run’ with their QB?
The Pats are clearly on an island by themselves here. What franchise other than NE do you look at and say, they are a smooth well oiled machine that isn’t trying to win with their veteran/high paid QB?
What are the Steelers, Chargers & Saints doing differently with their late 30’s QB’s which wouldn’t categorize as ‘make a run’ with their QB’s. All of these franchises have been successful this year - what are they doing?
What are the teams who just paid huge money to their QB’s recently - SF, ATL, DET, MIN, GB & I’m sure a few others I’m missing doing that wouldn’t be considered ‘making a run’ with their QB?
The Pats are clearly on an island by themselves here. What franchise other than NE do you look at and say, they are a smooth well oiled machine that isn’t trying to win with their veteran/high paid QB?
1. The first thing I'd say is that those QBs are all significantly better players than Eli at this point. It pains me to say it, but Eli is done as a top shelf QB. There's no insult there...it's just the way it is. Everyone has a limit and I think he's hit his. Roethlisberger's level of play has dropped too, but his physical traits sustain him a little more. Rivers is playing really well. He's also surrounded by better players, IMO, on the OL and skill positions. His WRs are really good. Brees is a tier above all these guys and always has been. He's an all-timer and a master of the position.
2. The franchise QB model is still clearly the dominant model in the NFL. It's not just about wins...marketing and perception play a huge role too. It would take seriously big balls to have traded Aaron Rodgers this past offseason. Maybe only Belichick has that kind of political capital in the NFL...and even he might not have it considering the rumors we heard out of New England with the Garoppolo trade. If anyone is going to be the agent of change from the franchise QB model it has to be the owners. Robert Kraft has to be willing to say to Belichick, "If you think it's time to trade Brady, do it. I'll back you." I'm not sure that's happening anywhere. Before the franchise QB can be discarded he has to exhibit deterioration on the field. Eli and Flacco are two good recent examples...and even then the Giants haven't moved on from Eli yet.
3. I think Seattle is an interesting team to watch. They seem to have learned that Russell Wilson best serves as a complementary player...he isn't good enough to be the centerpiece. This season they have taken the offense out of his hands and put it back into the running game, and even though they have some serious talent deficiencies they will be going to the playoffs. While they're paying Wilson like a franchise guy, he isn't functioning as one and it's been to their benefit. To me Pete Carroll is the coach of the year. I wonder if he'd consider moving Wilson. There's a potential out in his contract after this year. But again, Wilson is very popular and it would take total organizational support to make that move.
I think Barkley as a centerpiece can be a fun/dynamic winning offense if coached properly.
I think Barkley as a centerpiece can be a fun/dynamic winning offense if coached properly.
There's no doubt. Barkley is incredible. You won't hear me say otherwise. I'm glad we've got the guy. My concerns stem from:
1. I don't believe in Shumur to coach an offense around him.
2. I don't like what I think the draft pick says about the front office's mindset.
3. You don't have to have a running back of Barkley's incredible quality to have a great offense. We're 16th in the NFL in scoring, and our ranking was much worse when the season was still actually in play for us. We're 21st in the league in rushing. We've been outrushed significantly by the teams RBs that are a fraction of what Barkley is...SF, Baltimore, Buffalo, Tennessee, Chicago, Miami, Green Bay. So while Barkley is an incredible talent, it hasn't really mattered. We probably could have gone 5-8 with a pedestrian offense with Gallman at RB.
I think Barkley as a centerpiece can be a fun/dynamic winning offense if coached properly.
Incidentally, I'd recommend the Lombardi book, "Gridiron Genius". I'm only about 60 pages in, but he's making some compelling arguments showing some common themes between how Belichick and Walsh operated. It's a good read, and troubling if you're watching these Giants.
If there is anything this franchise needs, it’s Belichick. I have no idea if there was any validity to those rumors last year, but if there is ever the slimmest glimmer of possibility, it should be pursued at all costs.
Quote:
the more I realize a good QB can't carry a poor roster, however, a good roster can carry a poor QB.
Give me some examples were a "good roster can carry a poor QB" materialized into something big - which I'm assuming you mean a SB.
Beyond Dilfer and Eli... ;)
Nick Foles
The corpse of Peyton Manning in Denver
Blake Bortles last year
Case Keenum last year
Colin Kaepernick in San Fran
Alex Smith in San Fran
If there is anything this franchise needs, it’s Belichick. I have no idea if there was any validity to those rumors last year, but if there is ever the slimmest glimmer of possibility, it should be pursued at all costs.
The chapter I read last night was really interesting. In short, in 1996 he was asked by the Rams GM to put a report together on how a football team should function (the Rams were a mess), and that would recommend some head coach candidates. The list he put together included Belichick, Parcells, Saban, Chan Gailey, Vic Fangio, Steve Mariucci, and one or two other guys. The Rams GM dismissed the report and instead hired Dick Vermeil, which obviously also ended up working out.
This exact process is what the Giants should have done instead of disguising Accorsi's rubber stamping of Gettleman as a legitimate GM search.
Quote:
In comment 14216058 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
the more I realize a good QB can't carry a poor roster, however, a good roster can carry a poor QB.
Give me some examples were a "good roster can carry a poor QB" materialized into something big - which I'm assuming you mean a SB.
Beyond Dilfer and Eli... ;)
Nick Foles
The corpse of Peyton Manning in Denver
Blake Bortles last year
Case Keenum last year
Colin Kaepernick in San Fran
Alex Smith in San Fran
What's misleading or unhelpful about these smattering of examples is that it doesn't show how many times teams with excellent QBs have consistently MADE the playoffs.
Success in the NFL is fragile. Success without an excellent QB is especially so.
Nick Foles
The corpse of Peyton Manning in Denver
Blake Bortles last year
Case Keenum last year
Colin Kaepernick in San Fran
Alex Smith in San Fran
By player...
Not sure Foles works. He replaced the likely MVP. But he’s been a competent QB in the league. So he was well coached by Pedersen who created some great game plans. Let’s be honest - Foles played brilliantly in the NFCC and the SB.
Manning was indeed a passenger on that Bronco team. That year they morphed into a lesser version of the 2000 Ravens. But it’s still Peyton Manning, and he was still a threat to make a play. His decline was a result of the neck injury, not that he was some journeyman guy like Dilfer who really couldn’t put it together...
Bottles - yes.
Keeenum - at least he was statistically really good last year. Not like a Bortles or a Dilfer or a Neil O’Donnell.
Kaepernick was good. He was a legit two way threat. Yes, he declined when Harbaugh left, but he was a real playmaker.
Alex Smith is underrated. I’ve come around on him the last few years. But I see your point...
I think what makes Joe Gibbs one of the great all time coaches was getting three SB wins with three different QBs...Theisman, Williams, and Rypien. To me, that is one of the most underrated accomplishments in the game...
Quote:
Tom Brady made less money by actually playing in the Super Bowl because he had to be taxed by the state of Minnesota. Jimmy G made more by just collecting the game check and never actually "working" in the state.
Is this true? I mean, how do you actually know this?
I ask because I'm curious about the definition of working. It seems that most tax officials consider the number of days to include days spent in practice. In other words, a backup QB would have been determined to "work" in the state because of his practice time and, I imagine, even suiting up for the game.
Anyway, that's how I understand it, so I'd love to hear how come that's wrong. Thanks!
Yes Boomer was going on and in about it last year during the Super Bowl. Jimmy G wasn’t actually on the Patriots team he was with the Niners since he was traded. He didn’t practice during the Super Bowl week because he wasn’t even officially “on” the team. He still got the bonus though.
It is calculated differently for players that are picked in the Top 10 and those that are picked from 11-32. Top 10 picks are set at the Transition Tag tender (average of the Top 10 salaries at a player's position). Those that are picked 11-32 are calculated as the average of the 3rd - 25th salaries at a player's position.
For example, Marcus Mariota who was drafted in 2015 carried a 5th year option salary equal to $21M. No one would consider that cost-controlled for the sake of argument in roster construction while leveraging the rookie contract window. If we had drafted Darnold, you get 4 years of the rookie contract before he would be earning $25M under a 5th year option.
So for those that say you have to get the QB when you have the chance before a team's roster is built to be competitive, you are wrong as you will be flushing a year of that rookie salary. It is also imperative that prospects (especially those in the Top 10) are ready to play. Having them sit and learn is also flushing a year of that rookie salary. If a player is "raw" but with a "ton of upside", you are wasting the cost-controlled years. By the time the player hits their window that aligns with their upside, then they are nearing the end of the rookie contract looking to sign a second contract.
It is calculated differently for players that are picked in the Top 10 and those that are picked from 11-32. Top 10 picks are set at the Transition Tag tender (average of the Top 10 salaries at a player's position). Those that are picked 11-32 are calculated as the average of the 3rd - 25th salaries at a player's position.
For example, Marcus Mariota who was drafted in 2015 carried a 5th year option salary equal to $21M. No one would consider that cost-controlled for the sake of argument in roster construction while leveraging the rookie contract window. If we had drafted Darnold, you get 4 years of the rookie contract before he would be earning $25M under a 5th year option.
So for those that say you have to get the QB when you have the chance before a team's roster is built to be competitive, you are wrong as you will be flushing a year of that rookie salary. It is also imperative that prospects (especially those in the Top 10) are ready to play. Having them sit and learn is also flushing a year of that rookie salary. If a player is "raw" but with a "ton of upside", you are wasting the cost-controlled years. By the time the player hits their window that aligns with their upside, then they are nearing the end of the rookie contract looking to sign a second contract.
If there is a Rookie worthy of the 5th year option, they will negotiate a new long-term deal for the QB which I think is fair.
Quote:
It has been repeated on this thread and is often used in the argument for team building by leveraging the cost-controlled salary window before the QB signs their second contract. There are only 4 years of cost-controlled salary on a rookie contract. While the 5th year option is available to control the player's rights and extend the negotiation for a second contract by another year, it comes with costs that are equivalent to the transition tag on a player.
It is calculated differently for players that are picked in the Top 10 and those that are picked from 11-32. Top 10 picks are set at the Transition Tag tender (average of the Top 10 salaries at a player's position). Those that are picked 11-32 are calculated as the average of the 3rd - 25th salaries at a player's position.
For example, Marcus Mariota who was drafted in 2015 carried a 5th year option salary equal to $21M. No one would consider that cost-controlled for the sake of argument in roster construction while leveraging the rookie contract window. If we had drafted Darnold, you get 4 years of the rookie contract before he would be earning $25M under a 5th year option.
So for those that say you have to get the QB when you have the chance before a team's roster is built to be competitive, you are wrong as you will be flushing a year of that rookie salary. It is also imperative that prospects (especially those in the Top 10) are ready to play. Having them sit and learn is also flushing a year of that rookie salary. If a player is "raw" but with a "ton of upside", you are wasting the cost-controlled years. By the time the player hits their window that aligns with their upside, then they are nearing the end of the rookie contract looking to sign a second contract.
If there is a Rookie worthy of the 5th year option, they will negotiate a new long-term deal for the QB which I think is fair.
Which merely underscores the premise that there are no cost-controlled 5 years for a QB. A team has 4 years. Can't let them sit. Can't wait for them to mature to their upside. Can't build a team around them while wasting the 4 years.
Nick Foles
The corpse of Peyton Manning in Denver
Blake Bortles last year
Case Keenum last year
Colin Kaepernick in San Fran
Alex Smith in San Fran
[/quote]
Vince Farragamo.
Yes Boomer was going on and in about it last year during the Super Bowl. Jimmy G wasn’t actually on the Patriots team he was with the Niners since he was traded. He didn’t practice during the Super Bowl week because he wasn’t even officially “on” the team. He still got the bonus though.
Thanks - forgot about the trade and wasn't considering that. Makes sense now.
Quote:
Yes Boomer was going on and in about it last year during the Super Bowl. Jimmy G wasn’t actually on the Patriots team he was with the Niners since he was traded. He didn’t practice during the Super Bowl week because he wasn’t even officially “on” the team. He still got the bonus though.
Thanks - forgot about the trade and wasn't considering that. Makes sense now.
I also think he mentioned that they might have prorated the taxes for an entire year since they were there working for a week of time. I could be completely off though.
Looking at your graph, I would say that starting around 2008 QB salaries have not become proportionate to the salary cap. What percentage of the cap should QB salaries on the second contract account for? 20% should be fair, but the top end of the market exceeds that. Next year, the cap is estimated to be $190M. So with next year's cap, a second contract should be in the $19M/yr range, but we know they exceed that already.
Quote:
In comment 14216058 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
the more I realize a good QB can't carry a poor roster, however, a good roster can carry a poor QB.
Give me some examples were a "good roster can carry a poor QB" materialized into something big - which I'm assuming you mean a SB.
Beyond Dilfer and Eli... ;)
Nick Foles
The corpse of Peyton Manning in Denver
Blake Bortles last year
Case Keenum last year
Colin Kaepernick in San Fran
Alex Smith in San Fran
Kaepernick was carried? He was pretty good in 13 and 14 and was a weapon not many team had in the league.
Quote:
In comment 14216068 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 14216058 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
the more I realize a good QB can't carry a poor roster, however, a good roster can carry a poor QB.
Give me some examples were a "good roster can carry a poor QB" materialized into something big - which I'm assuming you mean a SB.
Beyond Dilfer and Eli... ;)
Nick Foles
The corpse of Peyton Manning in Denver
Blake Bortles last year
Case Keenum last year
Colin Kaepernick in San Fran
Alex Smith in San Fran
Kaepernick was carried? He was pretty good in 13 and 14 and was a weapon not many team had in the league.
That should say 12 and 13
He didn't show anything after Harbaugh left that illustrated he was more than a system player.
He's kinda like a Dak Prescott, IMO.
Just because I named him in the list doesn't mean he didn't perform. Alex Smith being on the list isn't a knock, either. He had a great game against New Orleans where he took the game over and won it. But he was not the driving force of that team all season. He was a passenger and occasionally rose to the occasion.
The name of the game is having a strong roster and system in place. Then you can add the QB, and even if he's a miss, or just okay, you can still win in the meantime.
It sounds quite a bit like you're trying to say that this is what the Giants are doing. It isn't.
You can take either approach. Doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong.
They didn't like the QB value at 2, so they passed.
That's really all there is too it.
So yeah, when they feel like a. they need to and b. the value is there... "then they'll get a QB.
Now, since Eli has declined, the story is "balance", "excellence throughout the roster", "team game". Obviously the "nuanced" point combines both, but we have seen how much a great QB can consistently elevate the teams they're on. That we can't put too much blame on a QB.
Now, since Eli has declined, the story is "balance", "excellence throughout the roster", "team game". Obviously the "nuanced" point combines both, but we have seen how much a great QB can consistently elevate the teams they're on. That we can't put too much blame on a QB.
It's not about Eli. He is the past. It's about the future and how the game is evolving, IMO.
Quote:
One of our SB seasons was direct evidence of what an elite QB can do--elevate the play of everyone around him.
Now, since Eli has declined, the story is "balance", "excellence throughout the roster", "team game". Obviously the "nuanced" point combines both, but we have seen how much a great QB can consistently elevate the teams they're on. That we can't put too much blame on a QB.
It's not about Eli. He is the past. It's about the future and how the game is evolving, IMO.
It's hard to take anything you have to say about Eli or QBs in good faith.
I can understand if I'm sitting here talking about building around Eli for one more run, but I'm not.
Secondly, when I do, it's a response to other people and it's about finding his replacement.
Secondly, when I do, it's a response to other people and it's about finding his replacement.
Like with your statistical presentation in this case, you cherrypick and selectively frame things so you can obscure your broader history of posting. You're right I shouldn't respond and I won't in the future. I've avoided posting largely because it's the board is clustered into thoughtless critique and older posters who harp on the worst arguments so as to drown out carefully considered criticism of what has been, for the better part of a decade, a losing franchise.
Now your next move will be to say, "Oh go find me an Eli thread that I started or where I was holding a shadow debate about Eli." I'm not going to do that. If that means you win, sure, that's fine. I think there's ample evidence out there that my characterization is fair and honestly I don't care enough to comb BBI archives to support it. Enjoy the "win".
I think if you read the thread in context and it's entirety, you'd see me strictly talking about building the team up moving forward and how the next QB would factor in to that.
Eli is a placeholder at this point. To what degree is up for debate (not for me to debate because I don't care to, anymore), but a placeholder nonetheless.
Quote:
Since 1994, max cap hit for a QB that year vs. the salary cap of that year.
Looking at your graph, I would say that starting around 2008 QB salaries have not become proportionate to the salary cap. What percentage of the cap should QB salaries on the second contract account for? 20% should be fair, but the top end of the market exceeds that. Next year, the cap is estimated to be $190M. So with next year's cap, a second contract should be in the $19M/yr range, but we know they exceed that already.
That's the max cap number for each year. It's not the average of the top 5 which would probably be a better number but I don't have that data at my finger tips.
What's irrational is the way the narrative has flipped since we picked a RB over a QB. In March 2018 the consensus view was that it was harder to find a QB than a RB. That view was universal.
And before you tell me how life changing Barkley has been, note that he has 160 yards more and a lower YPA than Phillip Lindsay, an undrafted free agent out of Colorado State.
As ever, if the Giants drafted an inanimate carbon rod there would be people defending the move.
And hope only lasts so long. Whether they give them something more tangible remains to be seen.
Nick Chubb
James Conner
Kareem Hunt
David Johnson
Chris Carson
Matt Breida
Aaron Jones
Kerryon Johnson
Austin Ekeler
That's guys this year alone that have played well at running back...most of them on teams that have rushed for more yards than we have. None of them is even a first round pick.
And then you can look a RBs in our own recent history:
Ahmad Bradshaw
Brandon Jacobs
Derek Ward
Tiki Barber
BBI gets amnesia when the Giants do something that is stupid. It gets amnesia, and then it bends the narrative to fit what the Giants are doing.
What the Giants did, and are doing, is fucking stupid.
Kamara
Hunt
Conner
Lindsay
Carson
Johnson
Chubb
All in the top 15 in rushing and aren’t first round picks. Right outside the top 15:
Breida, Jones, Howard
Something we haven't had in 3 years.
Secondly, the Giants haven't had a 1000 yard rusher since 2012.
Finally, Saquon is also going to be pushing 1000 yards as a RECEIVER!
So Phillip Lindsay being a 1000 yard rusher as a rookie and going undrafted is nice.
Saquon is breaking all kinds of records and is going to have over 2000 yards from scrimmage.
The Giants are trending up. And it's largely on the back of Saquon Barkley.
If you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.
How is it that people not only aren't angry, but continue to be willing to give this team such a large benefit of the doubt?
Given us a running game. And it's opening everything else up.
No offense to Phillip Lindsay, but Saquon Barkley is a lot more like having Ladanian Tomlinson, Marshall Faulk, or Emmitt Smith at your disposal.
I don't care if Barkley has 10000 all purpose yards for the season.
I'm tired of shining shit. This team doesn't deserve our benefit of the doubt. I think it's earned our intense criticism and skepticism until proven otherwise. I can't believe I'm in the minority there but I guess I've underestimated the fans' willingness to eat shit.
There is not other option because you have zero control over it.
Look at 2017 and 2018 though...there is a noticeably sharp trend upwards in that graph. We're only at the start too. Those numbers aren't being pushed up by the Aaron Rodgers of the league, it's Kirk Cousins and Matt Stafford. Where teams screw up is that they don't cut bait when faced with a mediocre QB entering a contract extension. Instead they pay them elite money hamstringing their ability to build the dominant roster that these QBs need to succeed.
That said, this is precisely why the ultimate goal should be to find an elite talent at QB and the only shot you have at that is through the draft. If we're talking about helping Barkley, having a cost controlled starter at QB will provide you the resources to build a dominant OL within the structure of your cap. So there are duel benefits to taking this approach at QB. The downside risk of a bust? Sure, but unless they're a Sanchez like bust, they're not killing you because their salaries are so depressed. Winston and Marriotta are busts - but they're the 28th and 29th highest paid players at their position (20m/yr cheaper than Stafford). They're actually bargains in respect to the cap.
Fact is, it's going to take more than one offseason to really see if they're pointed in the right direction. The OL needs potentially three starters, we lack a #2 WR, OL depth. The defense needs LBs, CBs, and potentially two starting safeties.
That's easily another offseason and potentially two, if they don't retain Collins, OV, Ogletree, to name a few that will be under scrutiny for their contract values.
QB
Brady
Wilson
Brees
Cousins
WR - looking at the top 30 WR in yards for this season, though 6 of the top 8 were taken in the 2nd or later
Brown
Hill
Thielen
Smith-Schuster
Thomas
Adams
K Allen
Diggs
Hilton
Sanders
Woods
Boyd
Lockett
Landry
Tate
Gordon
Shepard
Pass Rushers - the elite guys are almost exclusively top 10 picks, but these players are all in the top 30 in sacks
Hunter
Lawrence
Clark
Chris Jones
Dunlap
Autry
Fackrell
Bennett
Addison
Ioannidis
Leonard
Campbell
Casey
Judon
LB - drafted in 2nd or later and top 30 in tackles:
Leonard
Smith
Alonso
Martinez
David
Littleton
Whitehead
Davis
Warner
Foster
Williamson
Hitchens
Davis
Smith
Trevathtan
Wagner
Walker
Cunningham
Kendricks
Hicks
Collins
Jack
McMillan
Brown
So clearly the only positions that should ever be drafted in the 1st are QBs and pass rushers. Can find great players at every other position in any round...
I think that has been one of the things that BB has been so good at, exploiting match-ups. Eventually everybody catches up and you need to find the next thing.
The teams that are going to be consistently successful will be because of coaching. Obviously you need to hit on your roster as well, but coaching is a big factor.
I don't care if Barkley has 10000 all purpose yards for the season.
Barkley is one of the few reasons to watch this losing team. Relax Terps. Things will get better.
So true Britt. IMO, Terps should take some time away from watching the Giants and come back when things are going better. It will be better for his health.
Something we haven't had in 3 years.
Secondly, the Giants haven't had a 1000 yard rusher since 2012.
Finally, Saquon is also going to be pushing 1000 yards as a RECEIVER!
So Phillip Lindsay being a 1000 yard rusher as a rookie and going undrafted is nice.
Saquon is breaking all kinds of records and is going to have over 2000 yards from scrimmage.
The Giants are trending up. And it's largely on the back of Saquon Barkley.
If you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.
I dunno. They need a center hopefully from the draft and a RT hopefully a free agent. Worry about upgrading Brown after that. The terrible Oline that could not run or pass block was responsible for the 1-7 start, IMO.
Round 2 - RT
Round 4 picks can be used as trading chips to find a center.
Round 2 - RT
Round 4 picks can be used as trading chips to find a center.
This sounds about right for NEED. However, you should use the draft, especially the first 2 rounds to go BPA.
Round 2 - RT
Round 4 picks can be used as trading chips to find a center.
Rd 1 - agreed
Rd 2 - I'd say C or RT, whichever they don't get in FA
Rd 4+ - OL depth, S, LB
Quote:
the more I realize a good QB can't carry a poor roster, however, a good roster can carry a poor QB.
Give me some examples were a "good roster can carry a poor QB" materialized into something big - which I'm assuming you mean a SB.
Beyond Dilfer and Eli... ;)
Come on man. Now you're just trying to activate the Flip Out Primary Directive of the Designated Eli Protectobot Mk 026.
Amen.
Not that I have any valid reason to hope that they'll share the same fate, but the Warriors come to mind a bit.
It would largely be forgotten now, but when the Warriors drafted Stephen Curry it wasn't universally regarded as a great pick. Many criticized them for adding another "undersized guard who can't defend" when they already had Monta Ellis. Even when it became apparent he could play, his personal future was clouded by injuries and the Warriors' collective future was clouded by being the Warriors. They continued to make shitty personnel mistakes even after they drafted him -- what reason was there to ever think they'd turn it around.
But then, they turned it around.
Unfortunately, it took a change in ownership and management to precipitate it. Maybe the Giants can pull a transformation off without such a change, but I'm not overly optimistic.
In the meantime I'll at least hope they'll be entertaining, just as I hoped the Warriors would be entertaining when I felt there was no hope in them being elite.
But the justification for paying some of those players on the list is there. Others are just stupid contracts. The bay area teams in general outclass the Giants in dumb fairly regularly in recent years, as bad as NYG have been.
I would agree that a 'good' qb is more accessible than in the past. Paying a premium for a 'good' qb will go away at some point. Prescott is an example. How Garropolo signed such a ludicrous deal shows the 9ers incompetence.
Very good to elite qb play however, consistently done is hard to find, still seems to require investment in an early pick. Not always, not absolutely but generally speaking yes.
Some of the other discussion around perfectly timing player acquisition, I do have to agree whole heartedly with Terps. The Giants are deficient in several areas, long term qb play being one. They chose to invest in Barkley last offseason. They dont need to wait until everything else is in place to draft another qb. At their pick, if a qb has relative value that makes sense in the first round, they should most likely select that player. they may even pass again this year knowing they can get a game manager performance out of Eli this upcoming year, relative to the talent of available qbs vs what they can draft elsewhere and wait until 2020 but it has to be done soon and it has to be done irrespective of the overall state of the franchise.
The existence of other bad contracts should not change the Giants stance of getting better value from qb IMO. We will see- I doubt they touch Eli's contract.
Something we haven't had in 3 years.
Secondly, the Giants haven't had a 1000 yard rusher since 2012.
Finally, Saquon is also going to be pushing 1000 yards as a RECEIVER!
So Phillip Lindsay being a 1000 yard rusher as a rookie and going undrafted is nice.
Saquon is breaking all kinds of records and is going to have over 2000 yards from scrimmage.
The Giants are trending up. And it's largely on the back of Saquon Barkley.
If you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.
Trending up huh? While it’s finally nice to see some points on the board you might want to temper your enthusiasm as to what occurred in those games. We are flawed in so many key positions it’s comical how many different ways we could use our top couple picks in the draft.