There has been talk that Eli's $17M cap money really can't significantly improve the team, and is still best used to stick with Eli.
So I decided to take a a look at the free agent signings reported by Spotrac and their AAV value. Using that as a simple baseline, and assuming we could have offered and finalized the same contract, here are a few 3 player packages we could have created with the savings from Eli's contract:
Package A
C: Matt Paradis at $9.7M
S: Eric Weddle at $5.3M
TE: Charles Clay at $2M
Total: $17M
Package B
DE: Henry Anderson at $8.4M
RT: Daryl Williams at $6M
CB: Jason Verrett at $3M
Total: $17M+
Package C
C: Spencer Long at $4.2M
S: Jimmie Ward at $4.5M
CB: Pierre Nasir at $7.5M
Total: $16M+
Now, this doesn't even include other available cap money. And it certainly illustrates there are several ways to take Eli's money and upgrade in key areas like OL, DL, secondary, etc.
As for solving for QB, and this has been discussed at great length, there are several potential solutions: Rosen, QB at #6, Lauletta, trade (Driskel-type), etc.
Unfortunately, this is all academic. But the point is that money was/is very useful in getting an early jump with new assets that would help build a better all-around team; versus keeping a 38 year old QB who has seen his better days.
Imagine the Chiefs put Mahomes on the market. What would they pull back?
Yet Brady has been there for almost 20 years. So there are some exceptions.
I keep coming back to Belichick: the talent margin in the NFL is really pretty slim. These guys are all way more fungible than the marketing wants us to think.
He was 34, they had just finished a third straight losing season and was cuttable after 2018. They should have made the plan then with 2018 or 2019 as the target year for a new QB to be starting.
They chose instead to over spend and go all in on Eli in 16-17. Despite the warning signs in 16-17 they still felt they could win with him in 17-18, which they didn’t. But there they were the year after over spending and thinking they could win with Eli again.
That’s what I’m mad about.
I’ve read some dumb takes on this board, but you take the cake. What team has a 5 year QB succession plan? What the fuck do you this this is, a CEO retiring from a Fortune 500? EVERY SINGLE TEAM moves on from their QB when the time is opportune. You are banging on the table about taking a QB after 2015/2016!? Are you batshit out of your mind when you contexualize how those years played out.
The opportunity was after 2017....And yes as alluded to you are still pissed about Barkley over a QB...get over it.
Quote:
Cutting Eli really is the right move. After he is gone, I never want to pay another quarterback a second contract.
Imagine the Chiefs put Mahomes on the market. What would they pull back?
I keep coming back to Belichick: the talent margin in the NFL is really pretty slim. These guys are all way more fungible than the marketing wants us to think.
Yet Brady has been there for almost 20 years, So there are some exceptions.
I constantly see it’s the right move but i’m not sure where some of you are coming from. Is it to tank this year to pick high again in 2020? Because what this BS exercise proves is that not one FA hasn’t signed here because the Giants needed Eli’s cap space...but keep using that logic.
Quote:
To starting to make a succession plan. You’re still acting like I said cut him.
He was 34, they had just finished a third straight losing season and was cuttable after 2018. They should have made the plan then with 2018 or 2019 as the target year for a new QB to be starting.
They chose instead to over spend and go all in on Eli in 16-17. Despite the warning signs in 16-17 they still felt they could win with him in 17-18, which they didn’t. But there they were the year after over spending and thinking they could win with Eli again.
That’s what I’m mad about.
I’ve read some dumb takes on this board, but you take the cake. What team has a 5 year QB succession plan? What the fuck do you this this is, a CEO retiring from a Fortune 500? EVERY SINGLE TEAM moves on from their QB when the time is opportune. You are banging on the table about taking a QB after 2015/2016!? Are you batshit out of your mind when you contexualize how those years played out.
The opportunity was after 2017....And yes as alluded to you are still pissed about Barkley over a QB...get over it.
Your math is a little off there pal. Starting a succession plan after the 2015 season which is Spring of 2016, and playing said QB in 2018 or 2019 is a 2-3 succession plan. Which is the exact fucking timeline we’re looking at now.
Lol, I see your point, but Miami has been the better team the past several seasons.
Jesus Christ man. Where does it say that? Stop picking out certain words and twisting them. Starting plan what to do a Thing QB two years before you do it isn’t the same as sitting a QB for 2-3 years.
If they had taken a QB in 17 or 18 they would have sat for a year and then played.
In his version, he wants to acquire his QB of the future this year, and allow Eli to try to hold on as the starter until either The team is not winning or Eli is cooked (maybe both the same thing). In DG’s version, Eli’s contract is extended for a year, reducing his cap, with incentives that will allow him to recoup his full pay for as long as he remains the starter, into 2020 if things work out that way.
The Giants don’t want to release Eli but can if he doesn’t agree to the extension. His guaranteed money may kick in tomorrow but the release won’t come until they get another QB, maybe after the draft. His guaranteed money will be his severance.
(besides getting value from a string of 2nd and 3rd tier back ups sold to the rest of the NFL)
If they don't have one and they are the uncrowned analytics champions...what does that tell you?
Pittsburgh? San Diego? Green Bay? New Orleans?
None of them drafted a 1st or 2nd round QB and they all have aging franchise QB's
But uniquely the Giants are behind and stupid?
you're going to introduce new offensive players into the system this year. in addition to other benefits, Eli running the offense will help them to learn it and function better in it.
Don't give Eli a contract, don't extend him - much stronger argument. but to just jettison him t bring in other players and take a flier on QB, no thanks
But here is the risk to keeping Eli - we have a good year.
Here's what I mean. Let's say we win 9 or 10 games this year. Maybe even get into the playoffs. And maybe even sneak out a playoff win, but nothing beyond that. You know, one of those typical one-off years in the NFL where a team comes out of nowhere and exceeds expectations. But one where most recognize it's an aberration.
You can't put it past Jints Central at that point to feel the vibe and re-up in Eli, and extend this circular error even longer. It's just their nature. Which is why it was critical to hire a GM that had ZERO ties to Eli and Jints Central. Someone who could make the call on the QB purely based on performance, economics, and opportunity.
I think the answer is that the odds of a franchise Qb is so low to begin with combined with the odds that even a declining franchise Qb would be on a team so bad it would be in the lowest 5 slots
Every year in a 32 team league you run into 4 games against 2nd string or rookie Qbs so its hard to lose 4 times or less.
Then once drafted the odds of a top franchise possibility making it to top franchise Qb is not great. Among the toughest things to overcome is the transition to NFL speed with a bad line in front of you.
The correlation you look for to increase the odds of a new QB succeeding? A good OL
So the teams that do well after a franchise QB leaves are the ones with a solid OL except the QB?
Sound like the Giants the last two years?
Quote:
Regarding the money and what we can do with it, that’s obvious. The reason to do this is to finally move on. I get why they aren’t, he’s the best option if we happened to get hot and make a run, but outside of that he really should be cut.
I constantly see it’s the right move but i’m not sure where some of you are coming from. Is it to tank this year to pick high again in 2020? Because what this BS exercise proves is that not one FA hasn’t signed here because the Giants needed Eli’s cap space...but keep using that logic.
It’s the right move, IMO, because I no longer have the confidence in his ability to be close to a top 10 or even 15 QB. Maybe he will surprise me with a new OLine, which is what Mara is banking on. I realize you don’t just come out and tank but I don’t see much good coming with the money we will be paying him.
My logic isn’t about losing players because of lack of cap space, it never had been.
1) They cannot prove they don't
2) They never issued a denial
3) There is no independent entity willing to say they don't beat their dog
4) There are no pictures of a healthy dog
5) No vet or public health official will vouch for them
6) The Dobermans walking near the gates at each game only have a Non Jints Central walker
7) If asked if they beat their dog since Wednesday they would say no
Proof: Jints Central beat their dog prior to Wednesday
All the data leads to that conclusion. All of it
I say take that 17M and get Tyrod or anyone else.. with the remaining money sign the RT.. or save the money to get a Center next year and go with it.. that we better off long term if we don't pay Eli the $17M..
They're either keeping him based on sentiment or unrealistic expectations. IMO sentiment is actually the better answer than believing this team "can win" (whatever the hell that means) and Eli is critical to our chances. Just say it's that. Not wanting to cut the face of your franchise that brought 2 unlikely SB trophies to your organization for some cap relief in a lost year does make SOME sense. The rest of it makes none.
Quote:
You can’t forget the names...your point is that Manning’s cap number is preventing the Giants from improving their team.
SOMETHING YOU CANT PROVE.
It’s an utter bullshit take. Criticize the guys play all you want, but this fairy tale point of view is bad even for you.
Here’s what I can prove - Eli’s play has dimished. He’s 38. So paying him doesn’t improve the team because there is no dividend. Which means you have a better chance to actually improve the team by re-allocating his cap dollars. Not sure why this is hard to grasp.
I think what Blitz is getting at is that even if the Giants were to increase their cap space by 17 mil with an Eli cut, you can't prove that they'd use that cap space effectively and would likely wind up just squandering it.
They're either keeping him based on sentiment or unrealistic expectations. IMO sentiment is actually the better answer than believing this team "can win" (whatever the hell that means) and Eli is critical to our chances. Just say it's that. Not wanting to cut the face of your franchise that brought 2 unlikely SB trophies to your organization for some cap relief in a lost year does make SOME sense. The rest of it makes none.
And yet, Bill, here I am!
Keeping Eli or not was not the initial issue argued in THIS thread. It was "look what we could have done with his 17M". I'd like someone to point out when was the last time we lost out on a FA because we didn't have enough money to sign him...as opposed to not wanting to overpay, or the player wanting to go somewhere else. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN! And WHEN we have overpaid for someone, guys like bw (and nothing against you personally) are always ready to argue that "Gints Central" are bumbling idiots a few years down the road, if not sooner.
You can't have it both ways, but apparently some of you can.
They're either keeping him based on sentiment or unrealistic expectations. IMO sentiment is actually the better answer than believing this team "can win" (whatever the hell that means) and Eli is critical to our chances. Just say it's that. Not wanting to cut the face of your franchise that brought 2 unlikely SB trophies to your organization for some cap relief in a lost year does make SOME sense. The rest of it makes none.
"Just say it's that."
Indeed, I have asked the same question. And waited and waited and waited for the honesty. Because it would make things so much easier moving forward. Alas, crickets.
So when you don't get this simply, easy confession, it leads to the very mental gymnastics you mention.
AcesUp, and if you think that was done because of $ you'd be mistaken. He CAN'T COVER anyone. So it was a consideration related to his play vs. his salary demands. Sure, we could sign or re-sign anyone. But are you suggesting that we shouldn't consider their value in making that determination?
What would you say two years from now if Collins was continuing to get beaten like a drum in coverage, as opposed to his play in 2015? You'd say the team was moronic to re-sign him when they could have used that $84 million on some other player who, in hindsight, played better in these next few years.
I think what Blitz is getting at is that even if the Giants were to increase their cap space by 17 mil with an Eli cut, you can't prove that they'd use that cap space effectively and would likely wind up just squandering it.
Okay, so they misspend the money. And worst case, all of it. But that's a different story. It doesn't offset that they did the right thing to to free-up the money.
If that happens, I don't think he would be willing to give Eli the long term security he wants. And, what's to say that Eli won't get a better offer?
Your post prior to this one was genius!
We only had to pay 11m, for 1 year.
Quote:
In Landon Collins averaged 0 sacks and 1 INT which is surely worth 15 million a year... right aces???
We only had to pay 11m, for 1 year.
Or you move on. 11 million for a one dimensional player who is exposed is still too much. We have someone now that costs 2.2 million who will bring more to the table.
Quote:
In comment 14342092 dep026 said:
Quote:
In Landon Collins averaged 0 sacks and 1 INT which is surely worth 15 million a year... right aces???
We only had to pay 11m, for 1 year.
Or you move on. 11 million for a one dimensional player who is exposed is still too much. We have someone now that costs 2.2 million who will bring more to the table.
Or you tag him and let him play out his last year on a discounted rate. Or you tag him try to trade him. Do you think the Browns may be have been interested in Collins on a year deal and exclusive negotiating rights with Peppers on the table?
They did not commit to either of those options because they could not afford to carry his tag number this year. Which brings us back to yat's question, which I answered.
Eli's 17M doesn't get in the way of our signing anyone that we WANT to sign. We're a rebuilding team, and aside from a FA young QB, there has been no one on the market this year that made sense for us on a huge deal. If Andre Luck were an UFA we'd be happy to cut Eli were he willing to sign with us. But should we do so for freakin' Foles or someone of that ilk?
Whether LC was good enough to DESERVE an 84M contract is debatable. Whether Eli's money stopped us from doing so isn't, imo.
You can argue about their ability to assess OL talent, but you can't tell me that we couldn't have manipulated our cap in order to sign any of them without cutting Eli. Furthermore, we got a great OG this offseason while UNLOADING a former big money signing that in hindsight was a poor decision.
And I'm not arguing to either keep Eli or not. I'm saying that bw's premise is without merit. That's two different things.
Forget the issue of whether his cap figure matches his current ability. That wasn't the argument bw raised. I agree that it doesn't. But the argument that his 17M stopped us from signing other people this year is bogus, imo.
I'm not saying that's the right call. I am saying that they did a cost/benefit analysis and chose to go the way they did. If he was someone they wanted to keep they would have manipulated the cap in order to re-sign him. One of those calculations might have been to cut someone (Eli or whomever). But they decided to move on. Again, Eli's cap hit wasn't the deciding factor in keeping him or not. His play was.
The salary cap matters and financials impact decisions. It's silly to argue otherwise and you will end up contradicting yourself when you do. I'm sorry to be so flippant but it just is. Like I said in my initial post, there are other arguments that make more sense for keeping Eli, play that card. Saying "the financial benefits of cutting Eli do not warrant embarrassing a guy that brought so much to this organization when he only has 1 year left on his deal" is one that I don't agree with but I get.
I don't think it's unreasonable to think Mara would rather keep Eli happy over winning.
If that happens, I don't think he would be willing to give Eli the long term security he wants. And, what's to say that Eli won't get a better offer?
Do you really think DG has finally say on Eli?
:) I like ya, bw, even if you are a little bonkers :)
:) I like ya, bw, even if you are a little bonkers :)
Don't give up on me fkap. I'm trying... ;)
Quote:
There are so many holes in your argument that I don't know where to start. I think the jist of it is that Eli's contract value relative to ability doesn't matter but everybody else's does? And that his cap number isn't at all connected to other financial decisions in a salary cap league?
Forget the issue of whether his cap figure matches his current ability. That wasn't the argument bw raised. I agree that it doesn't. But the argument that his 17M stopped us from signing other people this year is bogus, imo.
The dynamics and planning of an offseason with a 17M difference is significant. To say otherwise seems pretty disingenuous.
The Giants absolutely could have acquired better players than they did with an additional 17M dollars.
The Giants can acquire better players next offseason with it as well. Any significant dollars poorly invested is to the detriment of the team.
It's surprising to me a fan base that's faced the type of losing and overpaid players over the last 8 seasons isn't more sick of it.
Again, this is the last year of his contract. I really think another team will offer him a contract.
There's a lot of people involved in this decision. I suspect if they're going in a different direction - out of respect to Eli and in anticipation of fan reaction - they give him a warning prior to letting him go.
And, if you fix the OLine = team will truly be run first. That takes a lot of pressure off of Eli.
I have no idea what they are going to do. You have several QBs in the league older than Eli. None of them played behind an offensive line anywhere close as awful as the one he played behind.
There are a lot of moving parts here - I think predicting Eli get another long term contract is not likely. I think, at best, he gets a short extension. I also think he will have other options. Time will tell.