Evan Silva
@evansilva
Releasing Eli Manning before his $5 million bonus comes due on 3/17 would save $17 million vs the cap, but "the sense is the #Giants will keep Manning" & "requesting a straight pay cut from a player beloved within the organization seems unlikely."
The Giants *might* improve vastly. That could happen. As it stands basically every unit on offense outside of RB needs improvement. Every unit, literally every unit on defense needs improvement.
The Giants team that had that little streak of games, has to replace or improve a lot of players. They won't have 4 top 70 picks and they won't have nearly as much cap space to spend.
The Giants had 23 mil in space this time last year and they have at least 27 mil now.
The goal should be to make a move at QB that’s in the best interest of the franchise long term. Not change for the sake of change or cap space. Cap space that no one here earmarked for any notable targets in FA, and not necessary to retain anyone they want to keep.
The Giants will have an opportunity to get a guy they really want at the position in the not so distant future. There’s no need to force the issue and lose out on that opportunity because the franchise is invested in an inferior player.
Back to the Driskell idea.
Driskell’s cap hit is $720K for 2019. Basically, he’s $22M+ cheaper than Eli. He’s mobile and athletic. A guy with some decent NFL experience who could do traditional QB duties, RPOs, and designs out of the pocket.
In other words, probably a better compliment to Barkley.
I’m not at all suggesting anything great with Driskell. But in all likelihood, the difference in win totals isn’t that great between Eli and him. So in each case, we’re likely going nowhere.
So what’s better for the team? We’re losing with both (just playing the odds). However, we’re saving $22M in one case; and in the other case, it’s a chance to see a slower, older Eli play again?
+$22M in cap or walking down memory lane...
I think the answer is fairly clear.
Quote:
The goal should be to make a move at QB that’s in the best interest of the franchise long term. Not change for the sake of change or cap space. Cap space that no one here earmarked for any notable targets in FA, and not necessary to retain anyone they want to keep.
The Giants will have an opportunity to get a guy they really want at the position in the not so distant future. There’s no need to force the issue and lose out on that opportunity because the franchise is invested in an inferior player.
Back to the Driskell idea.
Driskell’s cap hit is $720K for 2019. Basically, he’s $22M+ cheaper than Eli. He’s mobile and athletic. A guy with some decent NFL experience who could do traditional QB duties, RPOs, and designs out of the pocket.
In other words, probably a better compliment to Barkley.
I’m not at all suggesting anything great with Driskell. But in all likelihood, the difference in win totals isn’t that great between Eli and him. So in each case, we’re likely going nowhere.
So what’s better for the team? We’re losing with both (just playing the odds). However, we’re saving $22M in one case; and in the other case, it’s a chance to see a slower, older Eli play again?
+$22M in cap or walking down memory lane...
I think the answer is fairly clear.
1. The Giants would have to trade assets to acquire him, assuming the Bengals are even willing to part ways.
2. He’s entering the last year of his rookie deal. So toss out your economics argument.
3. If the Giants did trade for him, it would be because they view him as a long term solution at QB. That means the Giants are invested in him for a minimum of 3 years, probably more, and pass on every potential franchise QB in the draft during that time span.
What you’re proposing is a tried and failed model that’s completely short sighted. At best the Giants become the Miami Dolphins for the next 10 years.
Any moving away from Eli should be a movement toward a long term solution, NOT hopscotching around with 'ah, what the hell, try X, maybe he'll be better, anybody but Eli'
the boat has a leak in it, and surely needs upgrading. That doesn't mean we should jump out in the middle of the ocean and cling to any old flotsam.
bw said on another thread that he didn't trust one of the draft options (Haskins?) because the talent around him was so good that he had time in the pocket to relax and make thoughtful decisions. The problem with Eli is that he hasn't had the time to relax. He's shell shocked, and the 'it' factor comes and goes. Work on the OL, give Eli a reliable pocket and time to relax. I think you'll see an Eli who is good enough until the right replacement can be found.
If they think a backup, or a draft pick is the right long term solution, then go for it. But the argument should start with 'we found a good replacement', not centered around 'anybody but Eli'.
1. The Giants would have to trade assets to acquire him, assuming the Bengals are even willing to part ways.
2. He’s entering the last year of his rookie deal. So toss out your economics argument.
3. If the Giants did trade for him, it would be because they view him as a long term solution at QB. That means the Giants are invested in him for a minimum of 3 years, probably more, and pass on every potential franchise QB in the draft during that time span.
What you’re proposing is a tried and failed model that’s completely short sighted. At best the Giants become the Miami Dolphins for the next 10 years.
Failed model? The team is failing now with a 38 year old QB at the helm. Basically, we’ve been the Dolphins for the last seven years.
What assets to acquire him? A fourth rounder? It’s Jeff Driskell. And yes, I’m assuming a trade could be worked out. So play along.
As far as I’m concerned, Driskell would be a one year rental. The Patriots make similar moves all of the time, trying to acquire potentially undervalued asses.
Driskell has one year left on his contract at $720K. If he works and we hit on it, great. Then we consider something longer. But here’s what you’re missing - I’m trying to free up money NOW from Eli’s contract to improve other areas of the team. That’s material money to invest.
Meanwhile, I’m also drafting a QB from this draft. Preferably early - say, the second round. So I’m not stopping at Driskell. I’m getting younger and more athletic at QB. I want a QB competition right now.
Again, and let me underscore this, with or without Eli this year, we are very, very likely going nowhere. I know the Eli-always-has-excuses crowd think there is another run there, because they see Eli on the same level as Brees or Brady with poorer management, but I’m siding with the football actuarial tables on this one.
So let’s get younger, save cap dollars, and get into a QB competition to see the future...
You know what would impress me? Honesty. I wish posters would just what they are really thinking - they really want to see Eli keep playing. He’s an important piece of Giants history, so let him go out on his terms. Trying to camouflage that with this other non-sense that I read - mentor the next QB, he’s an oline away from making us a contender, etc - really pushes this organization deeper into a hole.
Let’s start digging out of it now.
Quote:
I think many of you extremely overrate the talent on this team, as did many last year.
The Giants *might* improve vastly. That could happen. As it stands basically every unit on offense outside of RB needs improvement. Every unit, literally every unit on defense needs improvement.
The Giants team that had that little streak of games, has to replace or improve a lot of players. They won't have 4 top 70 picks and they won't have nearly as much cap space to spend.
The Giants had 23 mil in space this time last year and they have at least 27 mil now.
Dave Gettleman dished out ~110M in guaranteed money last offseason -- impacting the medium term cap space across a few years, where money is realistically spent.
It's an almost certainty he will not be spending that type of money this offseason.
If they're going with Eli for the year, it's either give him more money for an extension, or stick with the contract as is.
I'd rather not extend and push dead money on next year.
The question is whether to go with Eli this year, or cut him.
As I've said before, keeping Eli for the last year of his contract does not prevent bringing in FA this year. First year cap hit is typically low, then will be escalating when Eli's hit is coming off the books.
The Giants don't have leverage? 2/3 of his 2019 money is nonguaranteed, and that's assuming they don't use the roster bonus itself as leverage. That's their leverage. It's at least questionable that Eli gets $17MM on the open market, but even if he were to, is he willing to play that game and finish his career with a different team over a couple of million that the Giants would ostensibly be using to fortify the roster around him?
If this is true, I assume that this is exactly what Gettleman was talking about when he said that Eli "took [him] to the low post and won." The conversation about a potential pay cut may have already happened and Eli (or Condon, more likely) already refused.
I don't know what you guys are thinking. Manning is due $17 million this year. Foles got $20 million. Garappolo $18. Alex Smith $18 Keenum $15. After Keenum, you are talking about guys on rookie deals and backups.
Manning is not overpaid as a vet starting qb. His salary and cap hit do not prevent the Giants from drafting a qb or picking up someone's failed #1 pick like Bridgewater or getting someone else's cut in preseason.
Does Manning want to uproot or be away from his infant child and family? Does he want to learn and potentially struggle as he settles into another system? Does he want to face the criticism from a fanbase and media without the benifit of being a Super Bowl hero to them?
Forget about money -- is Eli Manning willing to play football somewhere else.
I don't think the Giants will or should set out to screw Manning. I'd like to see an extension that turns the guarantees into incentives based on success.
If the Giants have a winning year and Manning plays well -- compensate him and create a path to 2020. If the Giants have a losing year and Manning plays poorly, cut down the cost and call it a career.
Quote:
Well, if we don’t need the cap space and Eli has all this gas left in the tank, why not pay him another $90M / 3 yrs?
May as well lock up this still great player who is more mobile than ever, a stronger arm than ever, and stands taller and more poised than ever in the pocket.
Right?
Idiotic argument.
Brady just won the SB and is entering the final year of his deal just like Eli. Why aren’t the Pats extending him? Are the Pats dumb? Does it mean they are locked into drafting his replacement? Does it mean they have to draft his replacement? Does it mean Brady sucks now? No.
When a QB gets to this stage of his career it’s really in the best interest of the organization to take it year by year until you’re certain about the replacement.
With all due respect, comparing Eli to Brady is not your strongest move.
Eli exhibits considerably more signs of his skills eroding than Brady.
Brady is better at 42 than Eli ever was. He’ll be better at 50 than Eli ever was. And the Pats will extend him.
Furthermore, the Pats, well BB, had a succession plan. He tutored JG and had him prime to go. Kraft pulled the owner card, likely via. Brady campaign behind the scenes, and forced the JG trade.
Brady threw 2 td passes in the postseason against 3 picks while being sacked 1 time in 3 games- once. The Pats averaged 160 yards a game rushing in 3 playoff games. You don't think Eli could play behind that line?
Little Bill and the FO know their business. With a 43 y/o qb they re-built the line and running backs so as to protect Brady and not have to rely on him.
Quote:
In comment 14291851 WillVAB said:
Quote:
Well, if we don’t need the cap space and Eli has all this gas left in the tank, why not pay him another $90M / 3 yrs?
May as well lock up this still great player who is more mobile than ever, a stronger arm than ever, and stands taller and more poised than ever in the pocket.
Right?
Idiotic argument.
Brady just won the SB and is entering the final year of his deal just like Eli. Why aren’t the Pats extending him? Are the Pats dumb? Does it mean they are locked into drafting his replacement? Does it mean they have to draft his replacement? Does it mean Brady sucks now? No.
When a QB gets to this stage of his career it’s really in the best interest of the organization to take it year by year until you’re certain about the replacement.
With all due respect, comparing Eli to Brady is not your strongest move.
Eli exhibits considerably more signs of his skills eroding than Brady.
Brady is better at 42 than Eli ever was. He’ll be better at 50 than Eli ever was. And the Pats will extend him.
Furthermore, the Pats, well BB, had a succession plan. He tutored JG and had him prime to go. Kraft pulled the owner card, likely via. Brady campaign behind the scenes, and forced the JG trade.
Bullshit. The Pats have transformed their offense with the line and running backs; Brady got the headlines but the o-line and running game got the Pats the Lombardi- 3rd in rushing attempts, 5th in yardage and 4th in rushing td's on the season. Everyone so fixated on Brady, they didn't look to see what the Pats were actually doing.
Brady threw 2 td passes in the postseason against 3 picks while being sacked 1 time in 3 games- once. The Pats averaged 160 yards a game rushing in 3 playoff games. You don't think Eli could play behind that line?
Little Bill and the FO know their business. With a 43 y/o qb they re-built the line and running backs so as to protect Brady and not have to rely on him.
I personally don't think Eli could. The offensive line was decent, but a big part of him not taking sacks was two things. They played the Chargers, Chiefs, and Rams. Three defenses whose weakness is against the run with a fullback. The Chargers and Chiefs woefully bad. The game plan was to run, run, and run some more. Brady also gets rid of the ball extremely fast. Not that Eli isn't capable of this, but Eli's accuracy is a far cry from where Brady can operate in the short passing game. Brady made the throws when they needed them and moved the chains. Brady's TD total had the potential to be much higher if they decided to throw the ball into the end zone which they never had to.
Also has had better results than the Giants the past seven years.
So instead of trying something new, lets trot out the 38 year old bottom tier QB for one more run.
When the team starts off like shit again and trades away good players for nothing at the trade deadline idiots can call it a rebuilding season again.
Bullshit. The Pats have transformed their offense with the line and running backs; Brady got the headlines but the o-line and running game got the Pats the Lombardi- 3rd in rushing attempts, 5th in yardage and 4th in rushing td's on the season. Everyone so fixated on Brady, they didn't look to see what the Pats were actually doing.
Brady threw 2 td passes in the postseason against 3 picks while being sacked 1 time in 3 games- once. The Pats averaged 160 yards a game rushing in 3 playoff games. You don't think Eli could play behind that line?
Little Bill and the FO know their business. With a 43 y/o qb they re-built the line and running backs so as to protect Brady and not have to rely on him.
Well, this thread isn't about Pats Central v Jints Central. Or Brady v Eli.
But, yes, I think Eli could play behind the Pats oline. Playing and being as productive, however, are two different discussions. It helps that Brady is fearless and has a PhD in pocket skills.
Furthermore, I don't think we have the brainpower or creativity, like the Pats (who really does, right?), to create an optimal situation for Eli. That's why all this talk of keeping him, and continuing to build around him, is a waste of time and money.
For the record, when it mattered most, Brady led the game winning drive in OT in KC converting 3 straight 3rd and tens. Without that, I'm not sure there is trophy #6.
Quote:
In comment 14292094 christian said:
Quote:
I think many of you extremely overrate the talent on this team, as did many last year.
The Giants *might* improve vastly. That could happen. As it stands basically every unit on offense outside of RB needs improvement. Every unit, literally every unit on defense needs improvement.
The Giants team that had that little streak of games, has to replace or improve a lot of players. They won't have 4 top 70 picks and they won't have nearly as much cap space to spend.
The Giants had 23 mil in space this time last year and they have at least 27 mil now.
Dave Gettleman dished out ~110M in guaranteed money last offseason -- impacting the medium term cap space across a few years, where money is realistically spent.
It's an almost certainty he will not be spending that type of money this offseason.
The cap is a non-issue, especially so after he cuts Vernon and Ellison.
Quote:
1. The Giants would have to trade assets to acquire him, assuming the Bengals are even willing to part ways.
2. He’s entering the last year of his rookie deal. So toss out your economics argument.
3. If the Giants did trade for him, it would be because they view him as a long term solution at QB. That means the Giants are invested in him for a minimum of 3 years, probably more, and pass on every potential franchise QB in the draft during that time span.
What you’re proposing is a tried and failed model that’s completely short sighted. At best the Giants become the Miami Dolphins for the next 10 years.
Failed model? The team is failing now with a 38 year old QB at the helm. Basically, we’ve been the Dolphins for the last seven years.
What assets to acquire him? A fourth rounder? It’s Jeff Driskell. And yes, I’m assuming a trade could be worked out. So play along.
As far as I’m concerned, Driskell would be a one year rental. The Patriots make similar moves all of the time, trying to acquire potentially undervalued asses.
Driskell has one year left on his contract at $720K. If he works and we hit on it, great. Then we consider something longer. But here’s what you’re missing - I’m trying to free up money NOW from Eli’s contract to improve other areas of the team. That’s material money to invest.
Meanwhile, I’m also drafting a QB from this draft. Preferably early - say, the second round. So I’m not stopping at Driskell. I’m getting younger and more athletic at QB. I want a QB competition right now.
Again, and let me underscore this, with or without Eli this year, we are very, very likely going nowhere. I know the Eli-always-has-excuses crowd think there is another run there, because they see Eli on the same level as Brees or Brady with poorer management, but I’m siding with the football actuarial tables on this one.
So let’s get younger, save cap dollars, and get into a QB competition to see the future...
You know what would impress me? Honesty. I wish posters would just what they are really thinking - they really want to see Eli keep playing. He’s an important piece of Giants history, so let him go out on his terms. Trying to camouflage that with this other non-sense that I read - mentor the next QB, he’s an oline away from making us a contender, etc - really pushes this organization deeper into a hole.
Let’s start digging out of it now.
Great, let’s waste a 2 and a 4 on lottery tickets with a close to zero percent chance the Giants will end up appreciably better at the QB position relative to the rest of the league.
And for the 10th time, who exactly are you buying with Eli’s money?
And if the Giants are in a position to draft Fromm, Tua, Herbert, etc — that’s gone. Now you’re committed to the next Tannehill.
It’s a terrible plan. The Giants should be looking for a long term answer that gives them a competitive advantage at the position, not simply treading water.
Quote:
In comment 14292105 WillVAB said:
Quote:
In comment 14292094 christian said:
Quote:
I think many of you extremely overrate the talent on this team, as did many last year.
The Giants *might* improve vastly. That could happen. As it stands basically every unit on offense outside of RB needs improvement. Every unit, literally every unit on defense needs improvement.
The Giants team that had that little streak of games, has to replace or improve a lot of players. They won't have 4 top 70 picks and they won't have nearly as much cap space to spend.
The Giants had 23 mil in space this time last year and they have at least 27 mil now.
Dave Gettleman dished out ~110M in guaranteed money last offseason -- impacting the medium term cap space across a few years, where money is realistically spent.
It's an almost certainty he will not be spending that type of money this offseason.
The cap is a non-issue, especially so after he cuts Vernon and Ellison.
Hmmmmm ... So adding an additional ~17M via cuts helps the cap situation? It's almost like that's been brought up somewhere.
I think your second sentence is a straw man. No one is saying build around him. The only issue is the stated necessity of cutting him now and not letting him play out the last year of his contract. On that one, I disagree for the reasons previously stated.
Eventually we will have a good team with talent everywhere. Barkley was a sure thing, the QB's weren't, so we did the right thing. Eventually we will get a QB too.
Eventually we will have a good team with talent everywhere. Barkley was a sure thing, the QB's weren't, so we did the right thing. Eventually we will get a QB too.
Patiently building up a team is the right approach -- but at some point you have to get the QB who's a cornerstone for your run.
I tend to believe a good quarterback is much more the product of the situation than the inverse.
A young, skillsy QB, with the requisite talent can build into a winner in the NFL. Doesn't need to be a top 5 pick as repeatedly shown all over the league.
The Giants themselves are just many players away right now -- and it's going to take this and likely another offseason for the "window" to begin.
Quote:
In comment 14292159 christian said:
Quote:
In comment 14292105 WillVAB said:
Quote:
In comment 14292094 christian said:
Quote:
I think many of you extremely overrate the talent on this team, as did many last year.
The Giants *might* improve vastly. That could happen. As it stands basically every unit on offense outside of RB needs improvement. Every unit, literally every unit on defense needs improvement.
The Giants team that had that little streak of games, has to replace or improve a lot of players. They won't have 4 top 70 picks and they won't have nearly as much cap space to spend.
The Giants had 23 mil in space this time last year and they have at least 27 mil now.
Dave Gettleman dished out ~110M in guaranteed money last offseason -- impacting the medium term cap space across a few years, where money is realistically spent.
It's an almost certainty he will not be spending that type of money this offseason.
The cap is a non-issue, especially so after he cuts Vernon and Ellison.
Hmmmmm ... So adding an additional ~17M via cuts helps the cap situation? It's almost like that's been brought up somewhere.
The point is they don’t need Eli’s money. Vernon is the worst contract on the team, maybe the worst in the league. Vernon and Ellison also have multiple years left on their deals. If there’s a FA interested in coming here and the Giants need space to acquire him, those two contracts are the ones to cut first.
If the Giants had multiple studs up for a new contracts I could see the reasoning behind fretting over Eli’s cap hit, but they don’t. Anyone they could target in FA is speculative and there’s teams with more space even if the Giants cut Eli.
Eventually we will have a good team with talent everywhere. Barkley was a sure thing, the QB's weren't, so we did the right thing. Eventually we will get a QB too.
Agreed that the overall roster comes before any individual need...its the prudent play in building value and longer term stability. However, not all positions are created equal in determining success and the time it takes to reach it. "Eventually" at QB portrays a time-line that is unacceptable though and needs to incorporate a better combination of risk/reward. That doesn't mean forcing poor QB decisions but it certainly requires taking some actions on that front as it isn't going to just show up on our doorstep some day...
Brady threw 2 td passes in the postseason against 3 picks while being sacked 1 time in 3 games- once. The Pats averaged 160 yards a game rushing in 3 playoff games. You don't think Eli could play behind that line?"
and yet, when people suggest improving the lines and the running game, they get derided as wasting another year and a top pick going all in on Eli.
Keeping him either makes sense or it doesn't. It doesn't.
How on earth under any and all scenarios does it make no sense to keep Eli if we draft a kid this April? What if the kid isn’t ready? What if the team IS ready?
You don’t allow for any middle ground thinking. That’s insane.
The giants have been flushing this roster for a full calendar year now. Many more high priced vets are slowly if not swiftly being phased out here, and yes that includes Eli. You sure here and talk about cap room and Eli’s cap hit and how much space this year vs last year and it’s all garbage to me. It’s useless conjecture being delivered as fact. Save it.
DG and Shurmur are flushing out the old and changing the entire dynamic of this roster. You might not see it but it’s as clear as day. This isn’t an all in on Eli thing. The cap is the least of our concerns. Tons of money is opening up these next two years.
If you cut him after the roster bonus you are saving 12 million and still need to bring in a veteran starter because Haskins is a one year starter. Highly unlikely he'll be ready to be an opening day starter, maybe not even ready at all his rookie year. So let's say you bring in a guy at about 5 million. That's savings of 7 million. Drafting a QB is a franchise changing investment. I think that 7 million is worth the type of knowledge and wisdom Eli can impart on him.
bw said on another thread that he didn't trust one of the draft options (Haskins?) because the talent around him was so good that he had time in the pocket to relax and make thoughtful decisions. The problem with Eli is that he hasn't had the time to relax. He's shell shocked, and the 'it' factor comes and goes. Work on the OL, give Eli a reliable pocket and time to relax. I think you'll see an Eli who is good enough until the right replacement can be found.
If they think a backup, or a draft pick is the right long term solution, then go for it. But the argument should start with 'we found a good replacement', not centered around 'anybody but Eli'.
Just saw this after re-reading some of the content.
What I said, or have said but maybe I didn't make it clear, was that I wouldn't take Haskins at #6. Later in the draft? Sure.
As much as Murray scares me with his size, and believe it or not I actually find him more interesting than Haskins, Haskins scares me having played in such a club-med offense at OSU.
1) Keep Manning and the core talent on the roster and try and win now
2) Keep Manning as a placeholder, trim costs elsewhere and build toward the future
3) Cut Manning and trim costs elsewhere and build towards the future
On paper right now the Giants don't have a lot of cap room comparatively. If this is a "win now" team they'll need to add a decent amount of talent and keep the talent they have.
It's easy to say cut Vernon, Ellison etc. but you have to replace that talent while adding more talent. Is that likely or easy? Of course not.
The Giants just aren't that talented -- and it's going to take more fiscal discipline, with the current and future roster.
It's going to take a major miracle to get that imbalance right in the time Manning is the QB.
The giants have been flushing this roster for a full calendar year now. Many more high priced vets are slowly if not swiftly being phased out here, and yes that includes Eli. You sure here and talk about cap room and Eli’s cap hit and how much space this year vs last year and it’s all garbage to me. It’s useless conjecture being delivered as fact. Save it.
DG and Shurmur are flushing out the old and changing the entire dynamic of this roster. You might not see it but it’s as clear as day. This isn’t an all in on Eli thing. The cap is the least of our concerns. Tons of money is opening up these next two years.
When you say the next two years, do you mean 19 & 20, or 20 & 21 -- if it's the former -- what is your definition of a "ton?"
The Giants would need to cut a number of players to be in the neighborhood of the teams with the most cap room.
1) Keep Manning and the core talent on the roster and try and win now
2) Keep Manning as a placeholder, trim costs elsewhere and build toward the future
3) Cut Manning and trim costs elsewhere and build towards the future
On paper right now the Giants don't have a lot of cap room comparatively. If this is a "win now" team they'll need to add a decent amount of talent and keep the talent they have.
It's easy to say cut Vernon, Ellison etc. but you have to replace that talent while adding more talent. Is that likely or easy? Of course not.
The Giants just aren't that talented -- and it's going to take more fiscal discipline, with the current and future roster.
It's going to take a major miracle to get that imbalance right in the time Manning is the QB.
I wouldn’t call Vernon and Ellison “talent.” Vernon hasn’t done shit in two years and Ellison plays a role that’s usually occupied by a late round draft pick. Vernon’s upgrade will come in the form of a cost controlled ER via the draft. Wouldn’t be surprised to see the Giants come away w two ER’s in the draft.
The Giants don’t have many bad contracts on the books. Space will open up as they need it.
1) Keep Manning and the core talent on the roster and try and win now
2) Keep Manning as a placeholder, trim costs elsewhere and build toward the future
3) Cut Manning and trim costs elsewhere and build towards the future
On paper right now the Giants don't have a lot of cap room comparatively. If this is a "win now" team they'll need to add a decent amount of talent and keep the talent they have.
It's easy to say cut Vernon, Ellison etc. but you have to replace that talent while adding more talent. Is that likely or easy? Of course not.
The Giants just aren't that talented -- and it's going to take more fiscal discipline, with the current and future roster.
It's going to take a major miracle to get that imbalance right in the time Manning is the QB.
I don't see a difference between #1 and #2.
Manning IS a placeholder in either scenario. He is 38. Two years or so realistically left. He is also capable of winning games if the roster is improved.
Do we all agree the Giants need more talent to eclipse the 5-11 mark and compete for the playoffs?
So hypothetically let's say the Giants eat and cut every bad contract -- the Giants get closer but aren't near the top of cap room over the next two years. They also create more holes to fill.
So let's say some of those contracts underperformed. Don't you need to exceed the contributions at those positions and upgrade the contribution at other positions to actually get better?
It doesn't have to be all or nothing. It can be strategic.
It doesn't have to be all or nothing. It can be strategic.
Sure -- so what are some of those strategic moves?
I'm all for moving away from Vernon and Ellison. I'm also all for moving on from Martin.
But that creates positions where starters need to be replaced, where the replacements aren't guaranteed to be cheaper nor more productive than the incumbents.
So just practically the Giants need a center, right guard, right tackle, WR2, TE2 on offense.
Defensively a DE, 2 Edge Rushers, SS, FS, CB, nickle corner.
In my estimate that's an incredibly big task in a year.
Dave Gettleman started the purge midseason this year after the 1-7 start.
That shows me the guy isn't afraid to make hard moves. And on that same token, it shows me he'll cut Eli or move on from him when he strategically thinks it's time to do so.
So why the urgency to grab at temporary fixes? Why the disparaging of the Giants over picking Barkley?
Instead of berating the Giants and being a prime cheerleader of the 'dump Eli' club, some of your comments indicate that you should be applauding the Giants for attempting to stay relevant and that they don't need to be desperate in the search for Eli's replacement.
Dave Gettleman started the purge midseason this year after the 1-7 start.
That shows me the guy isn't afraid to make hard moves. And on that same token, it shows me he'll cut Eli or move on from him when he strategically thinks it's time to do so.
I think Manning does and should garner more consideration than any other player.
Even for a fan like me who's never had much personal connection to him -- I want to see the organization treat him well. And I suspect ownership and management know it's in their business and financial interest to do so.
I don't envy Gettleman. Especially when Manning shows up like he did in the back half of the season and shows he still belongs in the NFL.
If Manning was truly shot it would be much easier. He's not shot, I just think the Giants are in too deep of a hole to be a winner next year.
I hope no matter who is at QB Gettleman continues to be patient and builds up talent as the value presents itself.
Quote:
you can cut some and save others that are useful to you in the meantime. It's all about managing your assets.
It doesn't have to be all or nothing. It can be strategic.
Sure -- so what are some of those strategic moves?
I'm all for moving away from Vernon and Ellison. I'm also all for moving on from Martin.
But that creates positions where starters need to be replaced, where the replacements aren't guaranteed to be cheaper nor more productive than the incumbents.
So just practically the Giants need a center, right guard, right tackle, WR2, TE2 on offense.
Defensively a DE, 2 Edge Rushers, SS, FS, CB, nickle corner.
In my estimate that's an incredibly big task in a year.
Yes, there are plenty of needs, but think about it like this: you don't need stars at all of those spots. You don't need young and upcoming players everywhere. You just need guys who will give you an acceptable level of play.
Yes, we need to hit big on a few picks, as well, but you just need acceptable levels of play at some of these spots.
Yes, we need to hit big on a few picks, as well, but you just need acceptable levels of play at some of these spots.
Do you think the incumbents were playing at an acceptable level? I assume not, given 5-11.
I think finding even just acceptable at all those spots, not to mention the depth needed to survive a season is a tough task in one year.
Put it this way -- with 4 top 70 picks, and spending 110M in guaranteed money, how many positions did Gettleman upgrade to acceptable last offseason?
Quote:
Yes, we need to hit big on a few picks, as well, but you just need acceptable levels of play at some of these spots.
Do you think the incumbents were playing at an acceptable level? I assume not, given 5-11.
I think finding even just acceptable at all those spots, not to mention the depth needed to survive a season is a tough task in one year.
Put it this way -- with 4 top 70 picks, and spending 110M in guaranteed money, how many positions did Gettleman upgrade to acceptable last offseason?
The Giants can be a playoff team with scrub starters at some areas if they’re strong in the right areas. The Eagles had a garbage secondary and were potentially a dropped pass away from the NFCC.
Can they turn the OL into a strength? Can they improve the front 7 on D enough this off-season? We’ll see, but it’s certainly possible given what’s likely to be available in FA and the talent in the draft.
Quote:
or whatever exorbitant price is healthy for the team with his production. Imagine what the other players think making less then a 10th of that .
Take our lumps now. We will not be any worse in fact we will likely get better quicker
Yeah Curtis Riley, Chad Wheeler, and Spencer Pulley would be all pros if it wasn’t for that way overpaid asshole making 20+ million a year.
Here’s a novel concept. Give current version of Eli a decent line and a defense that can make a stop in the 4th quarter, and maybe things are improved. Last off-season was a good draft. Let’s have another one and hit on a few FA’s so that when we do get the next Giants quarterback, he can succeed without the weight of the world on his shoulders.
The whole team matters. Old guys like Brady, Brees, Ben, and Rivers don’t have their fan bases clamoring for their replacements. Why? They’re old and make a lot of money too. But, the teams around them are good enough and they continue to achieve and add to their HOF reputations.
Whereas, our Eli, he gets surrounded by stooges for about 7 years of bad drafts and our fan base has members like you in it who ignore basic obvious facts about the sport and question what the locker room thinks of him when about everyone on the current team has said he’s their leader.
Yes, let's pay Eli like a franchise QB but give him the supporting cast that a rookie QB would need, and do so without the low cap cost of that rookie QB. 38 year old athletes get better than they were at 36 or 37 all the time. Shouldn't be a problem.
This is completely untrue. His salary can be converted into unlikely-to-achieve incentives, which translates into immediate cap space (which would then be docked against the team in 2020 if any of those incentives are actually achieved). The Broncos did this recently with Peyton, so it's not something that the Mannings are unfamiliar with.
This idea that the only way to trim salary is by extending is a total myth.
The gap between Brady, Brees, Ben, Rivers, and Eli has been pretty large from 2016-2018 save for Rivers' 2016 season.
The combination of getting the right team in place and having faith that doing so will catapult Eli back into the top ten of QBs - before he ages out of effectiveness - is pretty risky.
Not many QBs play well past age 38, save for Brady, Moon, and Brees (who fell off in the latter half of 2018 regardless).
Quote:
The whole team matters. Old guys like Brady, Brees, Ben, and Rivers don’t have their fan bases clamoring for their replacements. Why? They’re old and make a lot of money too. But, the teams around them are good enough and they continue to achieve and add to their HOF reputations.
The gap between Brady, Brees, Ben, Rivers, and Eli has been pretty large from 2016-2018 save for Rivers' 2016 season.
The combination of getting the right team in place and having faith that doing so will catapult Eli back into the top ten of QBs - before he ages out of effectiveness - is pretty risky.
Not many QBs play well past age 38, save for Brady, Moon, and Brees (who fell off in the latter half of 2018 regardless).
Brees arm has been an issue two years in a row in the second half of the season. He refuses to pull the trigger deep anymore because he knows he can't get it there anymore.
Millions that could be spent shoring up the OL, or to fill one of the many other holes, will go to Eli as a lifetime achievement award.
This is how losing franchises operate, and lo and behold, the Giants have been losers for a long time. Get ready for 6-10 at best in 2019.