So now they start talks and see two things, how he plays the next few weeks and what it will take to get it done. Franchising him is an undesirable route as it eats up a massive chunk of cap room for a single season.
Yes, the tag is undesirable and a new deal could be structured with a minimized 2020 cap hit. It will give us maximum flexibility to hopefully get the remaining peices to turn this team into a contender.
Grady Jarrett got 4/68 but hes been a more productive player
Stephon Tuitt, who I think is a comparable player, got 5 yrs/60mil in 2017.
My guess is 14 or 15 mil a year over 5 years.
Could be. And a lesser 2020 hit. Solders trouble has been more with speed than with power I think and his cap hit is not favorable for next year should we trade or cut him (could be wrong). Move him to RT and get another LT via draft or FA? Very big question mark should he continue to stink at LT.
Further, the Giants aren't mandated to offer a long-term extension at all. They could simply franchise him and play it on a year to year basis for now and kick the can down the road.
Nothing is forcing NYG to overpay Williams before Thanksgiving.
I still don't know what to think of this deal as I really favor draft picks. However, isn't everything good Williams does at this point only adding to his counter-offer? And its not like anything bad is really going to lower it as he can just wait it out. Therefore isnt it better to sign him sooner vs later if that is the plan?
people on here defended the trade like it was a good move and now everyone on this site appears concerned about paying him
can't have you cake and eat it too. it's one of the issues of trading for someone in a walk year. you have to pay him. this should have been factored into the trade in the first place
you can't trade 2 good picks for a guy and then be apprehensive about signing him before he plays a down. the only logical move at this point is to sign him long-term
Further, the Giants aren't mandated to offer a long-term extension at all. They could simply franchise him and play it on a year to year basis for now and kick the can down the road.
Nothing is forcing NYG to overpay Williams before Thanksgiving.
I still don't know what to think of this deal as I really favor draft picks. However, isn't everything good Williams does at this point only adding to his counter-offer? And its not like anything bad is really going to lower it as he can just wait it out. Therefore isnt it better to sign him sooner vs later if that is the plan?
Am i missing this...happy to discuss if I am
Sort of - there's probably a sweet spot after a few weeks. If it's closer to Thanksgiving, it makes a little more sense provided the contract itself is 'fair'
I think the major concern for me is just paying him before we even feel confident enough that he's a good fit here. We have the keys and can take a test drive here to get some stuff on tape and get a better look at him in Bettcher's defense rather than Williams' - might as well utilize that opportunity.
If he kicks ass and looks like a great fit, so be it. I'm not so worried about that part.
I'd be more worried jumping at the opportunity to get this deal done ASAP, only to turn around and have him play sort of poorly or underwhelm the rest of the way and see Gettleman feeling his patented buyers remorse yet again.
Maybe but isnt the same concern there if he has 8 good games Â
Yeah, there's that too... I just wouldn't rush. We don't necessarily have to sign him long-term. And if they're still not totally sold, the franchise option seems fine to me. It prevents the long-term mistake and more dead money.
Obviously they're making the connection between the Bowles defense he played in prior to Bowles being fired, and the Bettcher defense being run here. It seems he's less of a fit in whatever Gregg Williams is doing there now. So, I think they're already pretty convinced he's a better fit here. But, I don't see the harm in giving it a few weeks to see.
Unfortunately, I think you can share that same concern with any player you hand more of a long-term deal to, no? That they may rest on their laurels now that they've cashed in.
As much as I'd love to populate the majority of the team with short-term, hungry players - it's tough to do. It also benefits you when you can identify really good players and lock them up for what will turn out to be below-market as the contract progresses.
Of course, in the NFL, it doesn't take a player long to realize they're playing @ under-market and start asking for more... a-la Julio Jones.
'But, I don't see the harm in giving it a few weeks to see.' Â
That's expected isn't it? Opening talks now doesn't foreshadow an imminent deal. These things take time. Are you anticipating a whirlwind negotiation for some reason? That would be unnecessary and a mistake to rush things.
Further, the Giants aren't mandated to offer a long-term extension at all. They could simply franchise him and play it on a year to year basis for now and kick the can down the road.
Nothing is forcing NYG to overpay Williams before Thanksgiving.
No, but the Giants have shown they're willing to overpay whether forced to or not.
Further, the Giants aren't mandated to offer a long-term extension at all. They could simply franchise him and play it on a year to year basis for now and kick the can down the road.
Nothing is forcing NYG to overpay Williams before Thanksgiving.
No, but the Giants have shown they're willing to overpay whether forced to or not.
Well, they either learn from prior error or they don't. But, as it stands now, what I said is true... there's no deadline to get a deal done this month. Or next, for that matter.
people on here defended the trade like it was a good move and now everyone on this site appears concerned about paying him
can't have you cake and eat it too. it's one of the issues of trading for someone in a walk year. you have to pay him. this should have been factored into the trade in the first place
you can't trade 2 good picks for a guy and then be apprehensive about signing him before he plays a down. the only logical move at this point is to sign him long-term
+1. You traded for him now write the check. at.
I actually think there is risk if we don't get it done soon, he's Â
going to flourish in this one gap system and his 14-15 million price tag is going to be more like 18-19 million at seasons end and DG knows it. Leonard's agent also knows that while it seems like LW likes NY and wants to stay, he'll be able to shop offers back to Giants because they really can't just let him go unless its an insane overpay because we'd pretty much won't get anything in return as we are going to be players in FA.
If his agent has half a brain he'll wait this one out. LW isn't hard up for money as he was a high pick.
people on here defended the trade like it was a good move and now everyone on this site appears concerned about paying him
can't have you cake and eat it too. it's one of the issues of trading for someone in a walk year. you have to pay him. this should have been factored into the trade in the first place
you can't trade 2 good picks for a guy and then be apprehensive about signing him before he plays a down. the only logical move at this point is to sign him long-term
Ah yes... "people" and "everyone" - these are great ways to make an argument. Take random groups of people, specify nothing, and conflate everyone's opinion and assume that 'everyone' has the same take.
Of course they're going to pay him. But they don't necessarily have to do it right now. And they don't necessarily have to make it a long-term deal.
But sure, just open up the checkbook and give him whatever he wants... that'll make it all worth it.
Many seem to be overvaluing the compensation in this trade Â
If you trade for Jalen Ramsey, Khalil Mack, or Laremy Tunsil of course you need to be ready to pay up. No way can any team give up a 1 first round pick let alone 2 and play any negotiating games.
But for a 3rd and 4th or 5th, you are not pot committed in any sense. Just like the Seahawks and Clowney. If they like him they can resign him, if they don't like they can let him walk and recoup a similar comp pick to what they gave up for him in the first place. It's a roll of the dice.
Obviously the Giants added Williams because they like him and want him on the D for multiple years, not just to roll the dice. I hope their evaluation is right but I see no urgency to rush a big $ decision. I'd rather see him earn it and pay a little more than get a discount sight unseen (or minimally seen).
RE: Many seem to be overvaluing the compensation in this trade Â
If you trade for Jalen Ramsey, Khalil Mack, or Laremy Tunsil of course you need to be ready to pay up. No way can any team give up a 1 first round pick let alone 2 and play any negotiating games.
But for a 3rd and 4th or 5th, you are not pot committed in any sense. Just like the Seahawks and Clowney. If they like him they can resign him, if they don't like they can let him walk and recoup a similar comp pick to what they gave up for him in the first place. It's a roll of the dice.
Obviously the Giants added Williams because they like him and want him on the D for multiple years, not just to roll the dice. I hope their evaluation is right but I see no urgency to rush a big $ decision. I'd rather see him earn it and pay a little more than get a discount sight unseen (or minimally seen).
Except we won't be getting a comp pick so that comparison isn't good
RE: RE: Many seem to be overvaluing the compensation in this trade Â
If you trade for Jalen Ramsey, Khalil Mack, or Laremy Tunsil of course you need to be ready to pay up. No way can any team give up a 1 first round pick let alone 2 and play any negotiating games.
But for a 3rd and 4th or 5th, you are not pot committed in any sense. Just like the Seahawks and Clowney. If they like him they can resign him, if they don't like they can let him walk and recoup a similar comp pick to what they gave up for him in the first place. It's a roll of the dice.
Obviously the Giants added Williams because they like him and want him on the D for multiple years, not just to roll the dice. I hope their evaluation is right but I see no urgency to rush a big $ decision. I'd rather see him earn it and pay a little more than get a discount sight unseen (or minimally seen).
Except we won't be getting a comp pick so that comparison isn't good
If they let Williams walk at the EOY wouldn't they get a comp pick? Or if they tagged him next year and then decided to let him walk the following year? Or if they tagged him the next 2 years and then let him walk the following year after that?
Not saying any of those scenarios are particularly likely but either they have him here or they get a comp pick if he leaves, no?
If you trade for Jalen Ramsey, Khalil Mack, or Laremy Tunsil of course you need to be ready to pay up. No way can any team give up a 1 first round pick let alone 2 and play any negotiating games.
But for a 3rd and 4th or 5th, you are not pot committed in any sense. Just like the Seahawks and Clowney. If they like him they can resign him, if they don't like they can let him walk and recoup a similar comp pick to what they gave up for him in the first place. It's a roll of the dice.
Obviously the Giants added Williams because they like him and want him on the D for multiple years, not just to roll the dice. I hope their evaluation is right but I see no urgency to rush a big $ decision. I'd rather see him earn it and pay a little more than get a discount sight unseen (or minimally seen).
Except we won't be getting a comp pick so that comparison isn't good
If they let Williams walk at the EOY wouldn't they get a comp pick? Or if they tagged him next year and then decided to let him walk the following year? Or if they tagged him the next 2 years and then let him walk the following year after that?
Not saying any of those scenarios are particularly likely but either they have him here or they get a comp pick if he leaves, no?
They didnt do what they did to let him walk. They have thoroughly done their homework and obviously like what they see in this kid. Character, wants to play in NY , very disruptive as a young and still developing player in Bowles D (which is more similar to Bettchers). Still young but has 4 years experience. Full breadth of prime years ahead.
Lastly the comp picks would be lost due to all our likely incoming FA signings next year
Further, the Giants aren't mandated to offer a long-term extension at all. They could simply franchise him and play it on a year to year basis for now and kick the can down the road.
Nothing is forcing NYG to overpay Williams before Thanksgiving.
I still don't know what to think of this deal as I really favor draft picks. However, isn't everything good Williams does at this point only adding to his counter-offer? And its not like anything bad is really going to lower it as he can just wait it out. Therefore isnt it better to sign him sooner vs later if that is the plan?
That sums up my feelings about the whole deal.
Now, if JonC is correct and the Giants look at Williams as a core player they can build around, then my guess is that they'll try and re-sign him ASAP, and that that was their plan from the get-go.
We are almost certainly signing more players than letting go guys that Â
And tagging LW at the defensive end tag cost is asinine. Transition tag is useless in this situation because he likes it in NY and apparently wants to stay so he's going to shop any offer he gets back to us.
Zeke, I don't necessarily think a tag would be asinine. It's a chunk commit, but it's one year - and we have space. It's a way to kick the can down the road for a year if we don't want to go long-term just yet - or at all.
I'm pretty sure we could potentially let Williams walk after that and still be in line for a comp pick the following year - and that may keep the 5th rounder from becoming a 4, since I believe that part is contingent upon LW signing a LT deal here.
The alternative is probably a 4-5 year commit (or letting him walk after this year, which would be a pretty big egg on Gettleman's face)
The long-term deal just worries me either in that we'll grossly overpay, or that we'll wind up with another contract we're looking to get out of after 2 years.
If Gettleman really sees LW as a building block and a guy who will be a solution for the life of a new contract... so be it. But he sure as hell better be right - because we surrendered valuable draft capital for this.
If he signs a FA and he's wrong.. it hurts our cap situation, but it doesn't damage our draft ammo. This one will hurt both if his gamble goes south.
people on here defended the trade like it was a good move and now everyone on this site appears concerned about paying him
can't have you cake and eat it too. it's one of the issues of trading for someone in a walk year. you have to pay him. this should have been factored into the trade in the first place
you can't trade 2 good picks for a guy and then be apprehensive about signing him before he plays a down. the only logical move at this point is to sign him long-term
Ah yes... "people" and "everyone" - these are great ways to make an argument. Take random groups of people, specify nothing, and conflate everyone's opinion and assume that 'everyone' has the same take.
Damn arc, you and I sound more alike everyday! I often post here about the nonsense extrapolations of certain opinions across the masses...
Clearly the Giants under Gettleman are attempting to build a superior, Â
perhaps even a dominant defensive line. Given their immediate division rivals the Eagles and Cowboys both have top flight offensive lines, it would seem a bare minimum bar to set for the Giants' defense.
I don't get faulting Gettleman for this whatsoever- at least in theory. Yes they have a boatload of talent deficiences all over the team, especially at LB, but there's nothing wrong with taking one area they're not bad at, and trying to turn it into a bona fide strength. Especially since they face superior OLs 4x per year. A 2020 third and a 2021 4th ain't a lot to pay for what they think Williams can be, I imagine.
Somehow I think a top FS or top ILB are in the upcoming Â
people on here defended the trade like it was a good move and now everyone on this site appears concerned about paying him
can't have you cake and eat it too. it's one of the issues of trading for someone in a walk year. you have to pay him. this should have been factored into the trade in the first place
you can't trade 2 good picks for a guy and then be apprehensive about signing him before he plays a down. the only logical move at this point is to sign him long-term
Ah yes... "people" and "everyone" - these are great ways to make an argument. Take random groups of people, specify nothing, and conflate everyone's opinion and assume that 'everyone' has the same take.
Damn arc, you and I sound more alike everyday! I often post here about the nonsense extrapolations of certain opinions across the masses...
We do.. perhaps Hell is freezing over!
Kidding, of course.. we've butted heads at times, but I'm learning the Googs MO and have a better read now, I think. :)
Disappointing player gets traded for in last year of contract, performs well for half a year for new team, new team rewards him with huge contract, said player then reverts to being a ....disappointing player.
Figure 19 million next year, its overpaying by about 4 million in my eyes. I guess a plus is it you do it and want to let him go you can probably guarantee a comp pick for him that year,but thats a bit too much projection.
RE: Arc I thought the franchise tag was a lot higher than it is Â
Figure 19 million next year, its overpaying by about 4 million in my eyes. I guess a plus is it you do it and want to let him go you can probably guarantee a comp pick for him that year,but thats a bit too much projection.
I figure an overpay for 1 year when we have cap room is better than a long-term overpay where we decide in year two that it's not working out, and then we're trying to figure out how we can get out of the contract while leaving the smallest dead money footprint possible. We've seen enough of that lately.
If they can lock him up on a relatively team-friendly deal, that's one thing - but, if the ask is too much, I feel like the tag is a good way to push it down the road. Williams could choose to be pissed about not getting a long-term deal if he wants, but he'd only be hurting himself if he doesn't perform since he'd be looking for a new contract the following year.
Probably moot... I think Gettleman is going to pay him before this season ends. So, I'm just going to hope the contract is reasonable and that they're right about him being the fit they think he is.
Disappointing player gets traded for in last year of contract, performs well for half a year for new team, new team rewards him with huge contract, said player then reverts to being a ....disappointing player.
So, I take it you're not buying that whole "change of scenery" thing, huh.
It seems as though the consensus on the board is that this was a bad move but imv it was a gamble worth taking. He’s disruptive vs the run and pass which is in line w the rest of the front. Now the Giants just need LBs to step up and the front 7 is looking pretty strong. Bud Dupree and/or Shaq Thompson would be nice additions in the off-season.
This is the kind of guy you go get and pay for. Young with a ton of upside who fits philosophically w what you’re trying to do.
Disappointing player gets traded for in last year of contract, performs well for half a year for new team, new team rewards him with huge contract, said player then reverts to being a ....disappointing player.
So, I take it you're not buying that whole "change of scenery" thing, huh.
Not really, would be great if it happens, but at this point he is what he is. Isn’t it bad enough that they have a bunch of Arizona castoffs, now we are thinking of “franchising a player that the Jets don’t even want.
It seems as though the consensus on the board is that this was a bad move but imv it was a gamble worth taking. He’s disruptive vs the run and pass which is in line w the rest of the front. Now the Giants just need LBs to step up and the front 7 is looking pretty strong. Bud Dupree and/or Shaq Thompson would be nice additions in the off-season.
This is the kind of guy you go get and pay for. Young with a ton of upside who fits philosophically w what you’re trying to do.
I seriously don't get the hate. Adding talented 25 year olds is exactly what you want to do with a rookie QB on contract.
Also an underrated point is that when you run a one gapping 3/4 you don't necessarily need a bunch a few superstars with some scrubs. What you really need is solid players manning every spot. Thats what Betcher had in Zona and had success. I don't particularly like Betcher because he is very married to his scheme and refuses to make adjustments, however if you give him a bunch of B talent he can put together a playmaking D. We have proof of that at least, unlike Shurmur who has never showed competency as HC.
Right or wrong, They feel this is a 3 year rebuild. The key season is next year.
-A rookie QB will be now with 14 games experience.
-A team will be in the 3rd year of a 4-3 to 3-4 makeover
-Many young highly drafted players will now have some seasoning. Dex, Baker, Ximines etc.
-Coaching staff will have some continuity.
I think short of something really catastrophic to change their minds Shurm/Betch stay on for next year.
My thoughts exactly. I expect to be in the playoffs next year.
RE: RE: RE: DG should make him the highest paid player Â
In giving me examples of "what not do if you are GM of the NY Giants"...
The jury is still out on that to say the least. He may go down as a failure or he may some day be known as the guy who completely rebuilt our team from the ground up and found our next franchise QB.
It seems as though the consensus on the board is that this was a bad move but imv it was a gamble worth taking. He’s disruptive vs the run and pass which is in line w the rest of the front. Now the Giants just need LBs to step up and the front 7 is looking pretty strong. Bud Dupree and/or Shaq Thompson would be nice additions in the off-season.
This is the kind of guy you go get and pay for. Young with a ton of upside who fits philosophically w what you’re trying to do.
I seriously don't get the hate. Adding talented 25 year olds is exactly what you want to do with a rookie QB on contract.
Also an underrated point is that when you run a one gapping 3/4 you don't necessarily need a bunch a few superstars with some scrubs. What you really need is solid players manning every spot. Thats what Betcher had in Zona and had success. I don't particularly like Betcher because he is very married to his scheme and refuses to make adjustments, however if you give him a bunch of B talent he can put together a playmaking D. We have proof of that at least, unlike Shurmur who has never showed competency as HC.
Because the mouthbreathing idiots on this site can only comprehend sacks as production. They aren’t bright enough to know what the job of interior linemen in a 3-4 is. But it won’t stop them from throwing their temper tantrums on every single thread.
The only thing worse than watching Giants football right now is logging on to BBI.
Right now, the opinion is they traded for a core piece Â
I tend to agree with those who question the wisdom of $12-15M per season for a 3-4 DL, but it is what it is.
If you watch how they used him last night, he was at 3T, 5T, and DT in four-man fronts.
It makes sense if we keep Becher or bring in a one gapping 3/4 defensive coach in his stead, but if we go with a guy that runs a more tradional 3/4 this trade is going to look really bad. Thats what worried me most about this trade, it wasn't LW, it was the fact that it seemed to signal this coaching staff is safe regardless of what happens this season, which is bullshit.
last night? I saw him with a pressure or two, but was honestly raging a bit too much at our LBs and the referees to give an objective take?
I'd be interested in seeing any sort of PFF grade, or Sy's write-up on him when its ready.
I thought he was the best player in our front 7 last night, which is admittedly not a high bar to clear.
If not for the borderline penalty on him (especially since Lawrence got away with a helmet-to-helmet hit on DJ), I think he would've had 2 QB Hits and maybe another pressure or 2.
Yes, the tag is undesirable and a new deal could be structured with a minimized 2020 cap hit. It will give us maximum flexibility to hopefully get the remaining peices to turn this team into a contender.
Grady Jarrett got 4/68 but hes been a more productive player
Stephon Tuitt, who I think is a comparable player, got 5 yrs/60mil in 2017.
My guess is 14 or 15 mil a year over 5 years.
Could be. And a lesser 2020 hit. Solders trouble has been more with speed than with power I think and his cap hit is not favorable for next year should we trade or cut him (could be wrong). Move him to RT and get another LT via draft or FA? Very big question mark should he continue to stink at LT.
Nothing is forcing NYG to overpay Williams before Thanksgiving.
I still don't know what to think of this deal as I really favor draft picks. However, isn't everything good Williams does at this point only adding to his counter-offer? And its not like anything bad is really going to lower it as he can just wait it out. Therefore isnt it better to sign him sooner vs later if that is the plan?
Am i missing this...happy to discuss if I am
can't have you cake and eat it too. it's one of the issues of trading for someone in a walk year. you have to pay him. this should have been factored into the trade in the first place
you can't trade 2 good picks for a guy and then be apprehensive about signing him before he plays a down. the only logical move at this point is to sign him long-term
Quote:
Further, the Giants aren't mandated to offer a long-term extension at all. They could simply franchise him and play it on a year to year basis for now and kick the can down the road.
Nothing is forcing NYG to overpay Williams before Thanksgiving.
I still don't know what to think of this deal as I really favor draft picks. However, isn't everything good Williams does at this point only adding to his counter-offer? And its not like anything bad is really going to lower it as he can just wait it out. Therefore isnt it better to sign him sooner vs later if that is the plan?
Am i missing this...happy to discuss if I am
Sort of - there's probably a sweet spot after a few weeks. If it's closer to Thanksgiving, it makes a little more sense provided the contract itself is 'fair'
I think the major concern for me is just paying him before we even feel confident enough that he's a good fit here. We have the keys and can take a test drive here to get some stuff on tape and get a better look at him in Bettcher's defense rather than Williams' - might as well utilize that opportunity.
If he kicks ass and looks like a great fit, so be it. I'm not so worried about that part.
I'd be more worried jumping at the opportunity to get this deal done ASAP, only to turn around and have him play sort of poorly or underwhelm the rest of the way and see Gettleman feeling his patented buyers remorse yet again.
I don't know how we gave up what we did without already being very confident he will work really well in our scheme.
whatever scheme that is :-)
Obviously they're making the connection between the Bowles defense he played in prior to Bowles being fired, and the Bettcher defense being run here. It seems he's less of a fit in whatever Gregg Williams is doing there now. So, I think they're already pretty convinced he's a better fit here. But, I don't see the harm in giving it a few weeks to see.
Unfortunately, I think you can share that same concern with any player you hand more of a long-term deal to, no? That they may rest on their laurels now that they've cashed in.
As much as I'd love to populate the majority of the team with short-term, hungry players - it's tough to do. It also benefits you when you can identify really good players and lock them up for what will turn out to be below-market as the contract progresses.
Of course, in the NFL, it doesn't take a player long to realize they're playing @ under-market and start asking for more... a-la Julio Jones.
Williams just needs to be a good player. If he’s a B+/A- player or better the money won’t matter.
Nothing is forcing NYG to overpay Williams before Thanksgiving.
No, but the Giants have shown they're willing to overpay whether forced to or not.
Quote:
Further, the Giants aren't mandated to offer a long-term extension at all. They could simply franchise him and play it on a year to year basis for now and kick the can down the road.
Nothing is forcing NYG to overpay Williams before Thanksgiving.
No, but the Giants have shown they're willing to overpay whether forced to or not.
Well, they either learn from prior error or they don't. But, as it stands now, what I said is true... there's no deadline to get a deal done this month. Or next, for that matter.
I'd take my time, personally.
can't have you cake and eat it too. it's one of the issues of trading for someone in a walk year. you have to pay him. this should have been factored into the trade in the first place
you can't trade 2 good picks for a guy and then be apprehensive about signing him before he plays a down. the only logical move at this point is to sign him long-term
If his agent has half a brain he'll wait this one out. LW isn't hard up for money as he was a high pick.
can't have you cake and eat it too. it's one of the issues of trading for someone in a walk year. you have to pay him. this should have been factored into the trade in the first place
you can't trade 2 good picks for a guy and then be apprehensive about signing him before he plays a down. the only logical move at this point is to sign him long-term
Ah yes... "people" and "everyone" - these are great ways to make an argument. Take random groups of people, specify nothing, and conflate everyone's opinion and assume that 'everyone' has the same take.
Of course they're going to pay him. But they don't necessarily have to do it right now. And they don't necessarily have to make it a long-term deal.
But sure, just open up the checkbook and give him whatever he wants... that'll make it all worth it.
But for a 3rd and 4th or 5th, you are not pot committed in any sense. Just like the Seahawks and Clowney. If they like him they can resign him, if they don't like they can let him walk and recoup a similar comp pick to what they gave up for him in the first place. It's a roll of the dice.
Obviously the Giants added Williams because they like him and want him on the D for multiple years, not just to roll the dice. I hope their evaluation is right but I see no urgency to rush a big $ decision. I'd rather see him earn it and pay a little more than get a discount sight unseen (or minimally seen).
But for a 3rd and 4th or 5th, you are not pot committed in any sense. Just like the Seahawks and Clowney. If they like him they can resign him, if they don't like they can let him walk and recoup a similar comp pick to what they gave up for him in the first place. It's a roll of the dice.
Obviously the Giants added Williams because they like him and want him on the D for multiple years, not just to roll the dice. I hope their evaluation is right but I see no urgency to rush a big $ decision. I'd rather see him earn it and pay a little more than get a discount sight unseen (or minimally seen).
Except we won't be getting a comp pick so that comparison isn't good
Quote:
If you trade for Jalen Ramsey, Khalil Mack, or Laremy Tunsil of course you need to be ready to pay up. No way can any team give up a 1 first round pick let alone 2 and play any negotiating games.
But for a 3rd and 4th or 5th, you are not pot committed in any sense. Just like the Seahawks and Clowney. If they like him they can resign him, if they don't like they can let him walk and recoup a similar comp pick to what they gave up for him in the first place. It's a roll of the dice.
Obviously the Giants added Williams because they like him and want him on the D for multiple years, not just to roll the dice. I hope their evaluation is right but I see no urgency to rush a big $ decision. I'd rather see him earn it and pay a little more than get a discount sight unseen (or minimally seen).
Except we won't be getting a comp pick so that comparison isn't good
If they let Williams walk at the EOY wouldn't they get a comp pick? Or if they tagged him next year and then decided to let him walk the following year? Or if they tagged him the next 2 years and then let him walk the following year after that?
Not saying any of those scenarios are particularly likely but either they have him here or they get a comp pick if he leaves, no?
So, if we let Williams walk and Gettleman goes on a FA spending spree, we either get minimal compensation, or more likely, none.
We are eligible, though - it's a possibility. It just depends a bit on free agency and how active we are.
Quote:
In comment 14658870 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
If you trade for Jalen Ramsey, Khalil Mack, or Laremy Tunsil of course you need to be ready to pay up. No way can any team give up a 1 first round pick let alone 2 and play any negotiating games.
But for a 3rd and 4th or 5th, you are not pot committed in any sense. Just like the Seahawks and Clowney. If they like him they can resign him, if they don't like they can let him walk and recoup a similar comp pick to what they gave up for him in the first place. It's a roll of the dice.
Obviously the Giants added Williams because they like him and want him on the D for multiple years, not just to roll the dice. I hope their evaluation is right but I see no urgency to rush a big $ decision. I'd rather see him earn it and pay a little more than get a discount sight unseen (or minimally seen).
Except we won't be getting a comp pick so that comparison isn't good
If they let Williams walk at the EOY wouldn't they get a comp pick? Or if they tagged him next year and then decided to let him walk the following year? Or if they tagged him the next 2 years and then let him walk the following year after that?
Not saying any of those scenarios are particularly likely but either they have him here or they get a comp pick if he leaves, no?
They didnt do what they did to let him walk. They have thoroughly done their homework and obviously like what they see in this kid. Character, wants to play in NY , very disruptive as a young and still developing player in Bowles D (which is more similar to Bettchers). Still young but has 4 years experience. Full breadth of prime years ahead.
Lastly the comp picks would be lost due to all our likely incoming FA signings next year
Quote:
Further, the Giants aren't mandated to offer a long-term extension at all. They could simply franchise him and play it on a year to year basis for now and kick the can down the road.
Nothing is forcing NYG to overpay Williams before Thanksgiving.
I still don't know what to think of this deal as I really favor draft picks. However, isn't everything good Williams does at this point only adding to his counter-offer? And its not like anything bad is really going to lower it as he can just wait it out. Therefore isnt it better to sign him sooner vs later if that is the plan?
That sums up my feelings about the whole deal.
Now, if JonC is correct and the Giants look at Williams as a core player they can build around, then my guess is that they'll try and re-sign him ASAP, and that that was their plan from the get-go.
And tagging LW at the defensive end tag cost is asinine. Transition tag is useless in this situation because he likes it in NY and apparently wants to stay so he's going to shop any offer he gets back to us.
I'm pretty sure we could potentially let Williams walk after that and still be in line for a comp pick the following year - and that may keep the 5th rounder from becoming a 4, since I believe that part is contingent upon LW signing a LT deal here.
The alternative is probably a 4-5 year commit (or letting him walk after this year, which would be a pretty big egg on Gettleman's face)
The long-term deal just worries me either in that we'll grossly overpay, or that we'll wind up with another contract we're looking to get out of after 2 years.
If Gettleman really sees LW as a building block and a guy who will be a solution for the life of a new contract... so be it. But he sure as hell better be right - because we surrendered valuable draft capital for this.
If he signs a FA and he's wrong.. it hurts our cap situation, but it doesn't damage our draft ammo. This one will hurt both if his gamble goes south.
Quote:
people on here defended the trade like it was a good move and now everyone on this site appears concerned about paying him
can't have you cake and eat it too. it's one of the issues of trading for someone in a walk year. you have to pay him. this should have been factored into the trade in the first place
you can't trade 2 good picks for a guy and then be apprehensive about signing him before he plays a down. the only logical move at this point is to sign him long-term
Ah yes... "people" and "everyone" - these are great ways to make an argument. Take random groups of people, specify nothing, and conflate everyone's opinion and assume that 'everyone' has the same take.
Damn arc, you and I sound more alike everyday! I often post here about the nonsense extrapolations of certain opinions across the masses...
I don't get faulting Gettleman for this whatsoever- at least in theory. Yes they have a boatload of talent deficiences all over the team, especially at LB, but there's nothing wrong with taking one area they're not bad at, and trying to turn it into a bona fide strength. Especially since they face superior OLs 4x per year. A 2020 third and a 2021 4th ain't a lot to pay for what they think Williams can be, I imagine.
Let's hope Beal can be an upgrade at slot corner.
Quote:
In comment 14658754 GiantsFan84 said:
Quote:
people on here defended the trade like it was a good move and now everyone on this site appears concerned about paying him
can't have you cake and eat it too. it's one of the issues of trading for someone in a walk year. you have to pay him. this should have been factored into the trade in the first place
you can't trade 2 good picks for a guy and then be apprehensive about signing him before he plays a down. the only logical move at this point is to sign him long-term
Ah yes... "people" and "everyone" - these are great ways to make an argument. Take random groups of people, specify nothing, and conflate everyone's opinion and assume that 'everyone' has the same take.
Damn arc, you and I sound more alike everyday! I often post here about the nonsense extrapolations of certain opinions across the masses...
We do.. perhaps Hell is freezing over!
Kidding, of course.. we've butted heads at times, but I'm learning the Googs MO and have a better read now, I think. :)
Might as well be consistent...
Lol. Come on now he’s non getting Donald $$$, it’s only gonna take 17 per to get it done!
Get 'em in free agency. Cluster-draft OL.
Let's hope Beal can actually make it onto the playing field first.
Might as well be consistent...
Consistent in what sense?
Quote:
at his position as soon as possible.
Might as well be consistent...
Consistent in what sense?
He made both OBJ and Solder the highest paid at they’re respective positions.
Quote:
at his position as soon as possible.
Might as well be consistent...
Consistent in what sense?
In giving me examples of "what not do if you are GM of the NY Giants"...
He signs his deal and is just ok
He signs his deal and he is a bust
I figure an overpay for 1 year when we have cap room is better than a long-term overpay where we decide in year two that it's not working out, and then we're trying to figure out how we can get out of the contract while leaving the smallest dead money footprint possible. We've seen enough of that lately.
If they can lock him up on a relatively team-friendly deal, that's one thing - but, if the ask is too much, I feel like the tag is a good way to push it down the road. Williams could choose to be pissed about not getting a long-term deal if he wants, but he'd only be hurting himself if he doesn't perform since he'd be looking for a new contract the following year.
Probably moot... I think Gettleman is going to pay him before this season ends. So, I'm just going to hope the contract is reasonable and that they're right about him being the fit they think he is.
So, I take it you're not buying that whole "change of scenery" thing, huh.
This is the kind of guy you go get and pay for. Young with a ton of upside who fits philosophically w what you’re trying to do.
Quote:
Disappointing player gets traded for in last year of contract, performs well for half a year for new team, new team rewards him with huge contract, said player then reverts to being a ....disappointing player.
So, I take it you're not buying that whole "change of scenery" thing, huh.
Not really, would be great if it happens, but at this point he is what he is. Isn’t it bad enough that they have a bunch of Arizona castoffs, now we are thinking of “franchising a player that the Jets don’t even want.
This is the kind of guy you go get and pay for. Young with a ton of upside who fits philosophically w what you’re trying to do.
I seriously don't get the hate. Adding talented 25 year olds is exactly what you want to do with a rookie QB on contract.
Also an underrated point is that when you run a one gapping 3/4 you don't necessarily need a bunch a few superstars with some scrubs. What you really need is solid players manning every spot. Thats what Betcher had in Zona and had success. I don't particularly like Betcher because he is very married to his scheme and refuses to make adjustments, however if you give him a bunch of B talent he can put together a playmaking D. We have proof of that at least, unlike Shurmur who has never showed competency as HC.
-A rookie QB will be now with 14 games experience.
-A team will be in the 3rd year of a 4-3 to 3-4 makeover
-Many young highly drafted players will now have some seasoning. Dex, Baker, Ximines etc.
-Coaching staff will have some continuity.
I think short of something really catastrophic to change their minds Shurm/Betch stay on for next year.
My thoughts exactly. I expect to be in the playoffs next year.
Quote:
In comment 14658645 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
at his position as soon as possible.
Might as well be consistent...
Consistent in what sense?
In giving me examples of "what not do if you are GM of the NY Giants"...
The jury is still out on that to say the least. He may go down as a failure or he may some day be known as the guy who completely rebuilt our team from the ground up and found our next franchise QB.
Quote:
It seems as though the consensus on the board is that this was a bad move but imv it was a gamble worth taking. He’s disruptive vs the run and pass which is in line w the rest of the front. Now the Giants just need LBs to step up and the front 7 is looking pretty strong. Bud Dupree and/or Shaq Thompson would be nice additions in the off-season.
This is the kind of guy you go get and pay for. Young with a ton of upside who fits philosophically w what you’re trying to do.
I seriously don't get the hate. Adding talented 25 year olds is exactly what you want to do with a rookie QB on contract.
Also an underrated point is that when you run a one gapping 3/4 you don't necessarily need a bunch a few superstars with some scrubs. What you really need is solid players manning every spot. Thats what Betcher had in Zona and had success. I don't particularly like Betcher because he is very married to his scheme and refuses to make adjustments, however if you give him a bunch of B talent he can put together a playmaking D. We have proof of that at least, unlike Shurmur who has never showed competency as HC.
Because the mouthbreathing idiots on this site can only comprehend sacks as production. They aren’t bright enough to know what the job of interior linemen in a 3-4 is. But it won’t stop them from throwing their temper tantrums on every single thread.
The only thing worse than watching Giants football right now is logging on to BBI.
If you watch how they used him last night, he was at 3T, 5T, and DT in four-man fronts.
If you watch how they used him last night, he was at 3T, 5T, and DT in four-man fronts.
It makes sense if we keep Becher or bring in a one gapping 3/4 defensive coach in his stead, but if we go with a guy that runs a more tradional 3/4 this trade is going to look really bad. Thats what worried me most about this trade, it wasn't LW, it was the fact that it seemed to signal this coaching staff is safe regardless of what happens this season, which is bullshit.
I'd be interested in seeing any sort of PFF grade, or Sy's write-up on him when its ready.
I'd be interested in seeing any sort of PFF grade, or Sy's write-up on him when its ready.
I thought he was the best player in our front 7 last night, which is admittedly not a high bar to clear.
If not for the borderline penalty on him (especially since Lawrence got away with a helmet-to-helmet hit on DJ), I think he would've had 2 QB Hits and maybe another pressure or 2.