No big surprise, of course. The "I'm sick of losing" angle seems like a real thing with hin. It's been beaten to death around here, but the thought of Gettleman renting him for part of a year when we are in rebuilding/non-contending mode and badly needed the picks he traded away is infuriating.
Now Leonard Williams is talking - (
New Window )
Fire Gettleman. Enough is enough already with this clown.
Stupid then, stupid now.
NEWS AT 11!!
***yawn***
His actual quotes weren't as bad as the headline, in fact they were pretty measured and thoughtful.
“I like to be committed to where I’m at," Williams said. “I like the fact that the GM and the owner wanted me here. I think it speaks volumes that they were willing to trade for me in a rebuilding year. I think that shows that they want me to be a part of this program."
“I definitely think I’m a top-tier interior defensive lineman, in that top percentage of the d-linemen. I wouldn’t say Aaron Donald [level]. But I would definitely put myself up there with a lot of those other top guys.”
“This has definitely been one of the hardest years,” Williams said. “I want to win, and I think it’s time. I want to be able to have some winning years, even if that’s just making it to the playoffs. I at least want to do that. I think it would be hard for me to sit back in retirement and think about never being able to have played in the playoffs.”
Franchising him as a DT vs. DE is a big difference.
Giants only recourse is the FT, which would make a bad trade worse.
This organization is a dumpster fire.
Stupid then, stupid now.
Agreed he completely lost me with this trade.
NEWS AT 11!!
***yawn***
this, too. Just because he wants to get paid does not mean there will be a robust market for him.
Either way it doesn't matter. It's a few $M difference in a year we project to have $80m+ cap room and by the time we get to march there will be very few appealing targets for it. Certainly not very many 25/26 year old starters with a healthy track record, a top pedigree, and upside willing to take a 1 year deal.
Pay him for 1 year at the top tier like he wants, and motivate him to get that big deal he wants and help this team build a winner.
LW basically said, I don't like losing AND I want to get paid.
He's coming over his rookie contract and for most of these guys, it's there one chance at a big pay day.
LW has played very well, especially against the run, since he got here.
In the words of Teddy KGB, "Pay that man his money!"
Stupid then, stupid now.
Yep.
Either way it doesn't matter. It's a few $M difference in a year we project to have $80m+ cap room and by the time we get to march there will be very few appealing targets for it. Certainly not very many 25/26 year old starters with a healthy track record, a top pedigree, and upside willing to take a 1 year deal.
Pay him for 1 year at the top tier like he wants, and motivate him to get that big deal he wants and help this team build a winner.
There are two notes of distinction in that quote:
1. He considers himself an interior lineman, and mentions Donald. So I think it's fair to assume he could get tagged as a DT.
2. He considers himself really good, but also not in Donald's class. That shows me that he's open to negotiation yet not unreasonable. Had he said "I consider myself in Donald's class..." I might be more worried about it than I am.
I think the transition tag is what happens here.
Quote:
“I definitely think I’m a top-tier interior defensive lineman, in that top percentage of the d-linemen. I wouldn’t say Aaron Donald [level]. But I would definitely put myself up there with a lot of those other top guys.”
Franchising him as a DT vs. DE is a big difference.
The interior vs exterior lineman difference was about 2M last year.
There are some big DT numbers this and next year, so I'd expect it to narrow a bit.
That sounds pretty damn good to me.
That is nice, but we can stop him for a one year deal. Do you think he wants to sign a multi year deal not in the top 5 of interior lineman? We can get him for that price for one year unless he agrees to a long term multi year deal. It is amazing to me how people think LW has us over a barrel.
Which is why franchising him for 15 million is a decent move for us, and not a world is ending move as some are describing it.
I somewhat agree but it is more of a risk if someone does something stupid and there are stupid owners in the NFL. The leverage is that if we sign him for a one year deal (an look this guy is looking for top 5 money on the open market) he is at total risk for the extra guaranteed millions next year and risks a long term deal by aging a year and not having as good a year. So, why let some idiot like Daniel Synder set the terms for us when we can just franchise tag him.
The projected, general DT tag is $16M. For DEs, $19M+.
Nevertheless,a lot of time obsessing over something that has not played out yet.
That sounds pretty damn good to me.
I mean - if there's a reason to get excited about the defense moving forward - this has to be it...right?
Giants can already stop the run now that they've got LW, if they can rush the passer from the edges - all of sudden LW gets some sacks when the QB has to step up in the pocket and he looks a lot better on paper and all those millions look well spent.
If Williams has a great season next year then the Giants can give him the long term deal he wants. If not then they can just move on and let him sign with another team and collect a comp pick.
Just for the record, there is NO compensation for losing a player after not matching another bidder. Essentially, that situation outcome is GM suicide...
Lost draft picks and said player leaves.
If we lose him we likely get a #3 compensatory pick at best. We lose out in terms of overall gain if we lose him and just get a comp pick in return.
And if we over-pay a run stuffer, well, what does that say about our judgment as a team???
Quote:
And if I'm not mistaken, his number would be at a minimum of 17.2M for a tag, as 120% of his previous salary.
The projected, general DT tag is $16M. For DEs, $19M+.
The franchise tag distinction states it's the greater of either 1) the average top 5 salaries or 2) 120% of the player's previous year salary.
Williams made 14.2M last year, so the greater number would be 120% if last year. I'm pretty sure that 17.2M will be the number.
Agree. Historically, teams don't go all out to sign guys that are transition tagged. I'm pretty sure (not 100%) of that.
LW is seeking at least $18M/yr. I’ve predicted this for a month.
The best outcome is this, and it’s a long shot to salvage this incompetent trade by our moronic GM:
Sign LW and then trade him. And try to scrape back similar comp to what we originally wasted...
What a catastrophe...
DG will have used a 1st (Dlaw), a high 3rd (BJ Hill), replaced that high third with another high third PLUS a 4th PLUS paying LW 10% our our cap space. (in addition to the 2017 2nd rounder)
For positions that theyre supposed to eat blockers and make room for the LBs to make tackles.
Any people still dont understand what I mean when I say DG does not understand asset allocation and positional value.
He is the worst general manager in the NFL. He has to go.
Quote:
In comment 14708299 christian said:
Quote:
And if I'm not mistaken, his number would be at a minimum of 17.2M for a tag, as 120% of his previous salary.
The projected, general DT tag is $16M. For DEs, $19M+.
The franchise tag distinction states it's the greater of either 1) the average top 5 salaries or 2) 120% of the player's previous year salary.
Williams made 14.2M last year, so the greater number would be 120% if last year. I'm pretty sure that 17.2M will be the number.
I was just providing the general projections.
But I agree with your math.
No. He thinks he’s as good as Grady Jarrett, who signed this summer for $17M/yr.
And their stats are eerily similar.
its all the old people who get excited when Gettleman says things like hog mollies, smash mouth football, talks about the culture and being adults and remember the time when football was played by men who were tough.
our defense ypc average is 2.7 since he is been there, it amazes me how people do not see this guy's absolute worth in transforming our defensive line. In fact, while our Lbs and Secondary have been dreadful, the one good thing we have done recently is stop the run (a prereq to winning in this league). Rome was not built in a day and you have to start somewhere, this was a good opportunity to upgrade by giving away a 3rd and a 5th (crapshoots that rarely work out) vs a legitimate run stuffer in this league. So, if we wanted to pay him in the off season, giving a 3 and 5 was certainly worth it considering that we now have various options to retain his services. If we do not somehow keep him, then you can criticize this, but from a football perspective this was not a stupid move (it is yet to be determined whether it was a good one though). I am critical of Gettleman in many areas, but the criticism of this trade to me is simply mind-boggling or at least the criticsm of it at this time.
Quote:
in the class of DL just below Aaron Donald. Those guys make around $18M/year.....so it's pretty obvious he'll be looking for at least that much...which is precisely what many of the smarter posters here predicted as soon as the trade was made.
No. He thinks he’s as good as Grady Jarrett, who signed this summer for $17M/yr.
And their stats are eerily similar.
Grady Jarrett 2020: 5.5 sacks. Leonard Williams 2020: 0 sacks
Quote:
me that even one person on here defends this trade on any level. Yet here we are with many people defending it.
our defense ypc average is 2.7 since he is been there, it amazes me how people do not see this guy's absolute worth in transforming our defensive line. In fact, while our Lbs and Secondary have been dreadful, the one good thing we have done recently is stop the run (a prereq to winning in this league). Rome was not built in a day and you have to start somewhere, this was a good opportunity to upgrade by giving away a 3rd and a 5th (crapshoots that rarely work out) vs a legitimate run stuffer in this league. So, if we wanted to pay him in the off season, giving a 3 and 5 was certainly worth it considering that we now have various options to retain his services. If we do not somehow keep him, then you can criticize this, but from a football perspective this was not a stupid move (it is yet to be determined whether it was a good one though). I am critical of Gettleman in many areas, but the criticism of this trade to me is simply mind-boggling or at least the criticsm of it at this time.
please name one other team that has traded picks away for a free agent at 2-6. I'll wait.
Good teams dont make idiotic moves like this. If you like him, sign him as a FA.
a) it would have to be at least 120% of his current 2019 salary ($14.2M), so basically same as the Franchise Tag.
b) if he does sign an offer elsewhere and the Giants don't match, he walks and they get nothing.
The Giants would be better off non-exclusive franchise tag, signing him long term or letting him walk.
All better options than transition tag which would be the worst option.
and some continue to try to do so, maybe squint at it, hold one eye shut.
just terrible
Ogletree, Kareem Martin, Beathea, and Ellison = another $20m saved which brings the number around $80m (with the possibility to go further if they trade Jenkins, but that's uncertain so lets keep him).
Now let's tag LW at $17m to bring the cap room to $63m.
And add in the rookie pool that's projected at $13m which brings us down to $50m.
Which other big money, multi-year, ($10m+ AAV) players are you looking to some of that $50m on? And not looking for exact contracts or anything, just who you like and think may be available and not resigned by their existing team like Shaq Thompson or tagged like Ngakwe is widely expected to be.
Question is if Williams is 1) worth the Jarret market rate he will command in UFA 2) is he worth a 17.2M hit to the Giants spending power this year, and the uncertainty it puts on resources 3) is he worth the potential of a pissing match if he's franchised and not happy about it.
My POV is consistent this isn't the type of player to go in circles over. Consternation should be reserved for better players.
They wouldn't have traded him without the intent to resign him, so I'm looking forward to the defensive line next year, especially if we add Chase
and some continue to try to do so, maybe squint at it, hold one eye shut.
just terrible
Yup. I generally lean to the optimistic, wait and see side, but I just can’t think of one good reason a team stuck in the mud and going nowhere should surrender multiple draft picks for a guy who could reasonably be a solid starter, but doesn’t seem to remotely be a pro-Bowl caliber building block.
Quote:
In comment 14708329 MookGiants said:
Quote:
me that even one person on here defends this trade on any level. Yet here we are with many people defending it.
our defense ypc average is 2.7 since he is been there, it amazes me how people do not see this guy's absolute worth in transforming our defensive line. In fact, while our Lbs and Secondary have been dreadful, the one good thing we have done recently is stop the run (a prereq to winning in this league). Rome was not built in a day and you have to start somewhere, this was a good opportunity to upgrade by giving away a 3rd and a 5th (crapshoots that rarely work out) vs a legitimate run stuffer in this league. So, if we wanted to pay him in the off season, giving a 3 and 5 was certainly worth it considering that we now have various options to retain his services. If we do not somehow keep him, then you can criticize this, but from a football perspective this was not a stupid move (it is yet to be determined whether it was a good one though). I am critical of Gettleman in many areas, but the criticism of this trade to me is simply mind-boggling or at least the criticsm of it at this time.
please name one other team that has traded picks away for a free agent at 2-6. I'll wait.
Good teams dont make idiotic moves like this. If you like him, sign him as a FA.
so what you are basically saying is that you would rather get into a bidding war versus another team but retain the 3rd and 5th round picks. Maybe so, but I definitely think there is a price tag that I would pay to save cap space and give up a 3rd and a 5. I have no idea what that is at this point, but cap space is also an asset. In addition, we won't be able to evaluate this until the ink is dry on the contract.
Quote:
In comment 14708290 Tesla said:
Quote:
in the class of DL just below Aaron Donald. Those guys make around $18M/year.....so it's pretty obvious he'll be looking for at least that much...which is precisely what many of the smarter posters here predicted as soon as the trade was made.
No. He thinks he’s as good as Grady Jarrett, who signed this summer for $17M/yr.
And their stats are eerily similar.
Grady Jarrett 2020: 5.5 sacks. Leonard Williams 2020: 0 sacks
Look at their career stats over 5 years.
Jarrett: 19.5 sacks/238 tackles/128 solos/5 FF / 0 PDs
LW: 17 sacks/250 tackles/125 solos/3 FFs/4 PDs
So Jackson signed his contract for $17M BEFORE his 5.5 sacks THIS YEAR.
That sounds pretty damn good to me.
Not with Bettcher running the D
Giants will pay him his market value. Did Eli give a home discount? Strahan? Snee?
The important thing what ever he is paid...he earns it imo.
That sounds pretty damn good to me.
If they draft Chase Young and are staying in a 3-4 playing him with his hand in the dirt would be a waste.
Quote:
to get behind this trade.
and some continue to try to do so, maybe squint at it, hold one eye shut.
just terrible
Yup. I generally lean to the optimistic, wait and see side, but I just can’t think of one good reason a team stuck in the mud and going nowhere should surrender multiple draft picks for a guy who could reasonably be a solid starter, but doesn’t seem to remotely be a pro-Bowl caliber building block.
its very simple... if they wanted him, they could sign him in the off-season, or at least see how the season, offseason evolves and make a decision. instead they traded draft capital (a top 70 pick) for the right to have a stubborn GM pay up for the guy because you know he wont want egg on his face for not resigning him.
nice
Yes, absolutely an under discussed aspect of this trade. What would be the attraction of the Giants for LW? Poor record, shaky GM situation, high taxes and cost of living, not a very clear future at all. If anything should concern people it’s that LW wants to be on a winning team. That ain’t the Giants. Not this year and not next year either.
Dumbest trade ever.
Giants will pay him his market value. Did Eli give a home discount? Strahan? Snee?
The important thing what ever he is paid...he earns it imo.
And he hasn't earned what he'll likely get on the open market because of the abundance of cap space.
This spring will be similar to the 2016 NBA Offseason. Tons of teams with cap space, not enough elite talent to go around so marginal players will get top end money.
Any more than 15 a year and this is a horrific trade.
If the Patriots or Chiefs offer him 15M per and he comes to the Giants say I need $18M a year to stay because you fucking suck, what does Gettleman do? You lose either way, overpay or lose picks for nothing!!!
To those that say he’s a good player, has he made a difference this year and is he worth an overpay to retain? Any of you think he’d take a hometown discount because he’s here? After seeing how this team is run?
Browsing some additional indicating stats, LW seems to crush GJ in QB hits (97 for his career 53) though GJ has more TFL (40 vs. 33).
our defense ypc average is 2.7 since he is been there, it amazes me how people do not see this guy's absolute worth in transforming our defensive line. In fact, while our Lbs and Secondary have been dreadful, the one good thing we have done recently is stop the run (a prereq to winning in this league). Rome was not built in a day and you have to start somewhere, this was a good opportunity to upgrade by giving away a 3rd and a 5th (crapshoots that rarely work out) vs a legitimate run stuffer in this league. So, if we wanted to pay him in the off season, giving a 3 and 5 was certainly worth it considering that we now have various options to retain his services. If we do not somehow keep him, then you can criticize this, but from a football perspective this was not a stupid move (it is yet to be determined whether it was a good one though). I am critical of Gettleman in many areas, but the criticism of this trade to me is simply mind-boggling or at least the criticsm of it at this time.
I believe you left the Cowboys game out of your statistic.
I'd add that the Bears and Jets are two of the worst rushing offenses in the league (3.5 and 3.3 YPC, respectively) and both had huge days in the passing game against the Giants.
And every time the Packers went play-action they hit a big play downfield in the passing game.
Even if Williams has had a positive impact on the run defense, so what? The Giants were 2-6 when they made the trade, giving up draft assets to acquire a pending UFA. That's a preposterous move for a team with as many holes as the Giants.
Now people are going to talk themselves into tagging Williams for 2020. How does that help the Giants going forward?
That sounds pretty damn good to me.
it certainly does. I like Young, Williams, Lawrence AND my 3rd round pick this year and my 4th round pick next year even better though. And that's the point.
would have been better to go after him in the offseason. even if we had then overpaid we wouldn't be giving up draft picks. it would have made overpaying a little less painful.
Quote:
and all the sudden we're looking at a line that involves Young, Williams, and Lawrence.
That sounds pretty damn good to me.
it certainly does. I like Young, Williams, Lawrence AND my 3rd round pick this year and my 4th round pick next year even better though. And that's the point.
Young has played in a 4-3.
Quote:
our defense ypc average is 2.7 since he is been there, it amazes me how people do not see this guy's absolute worth in transforming our defensive line. In fact, while our Lbs and Secondary have been dreadful, the one good thing we have done recently is stop the run (a prereq to winning in this league). Rome was not built in a day and you have to start somewhere, this was a good opportunity to upgrade by giving away a 3rd and a 5th (crapshoots that rarely work out) vs a legitimate run stuffer in this league. So, if we wanted to pay him in the off season, giving a 3 and 5 was certainly worth it considering that we now have various options to retain his services. If we do not somehow keep him, then you can criticize this, but from a football perspective this was not a stupid move (it is yet to be determined whether it was a good one though). I am critical of Gettleman in many areas, but the criticism of this trade to me is simply mind-boggling or at least the criticsm of it at this time.
I believe you left the Cowboys game out of your statistic.
I'd add that the Bears and Jets are two of the worst rushing offenses in the league (3.5 and 3.3 YPC, respectively) and both had huge days in the passing game against the Giants.
And every time the Packers went play-action they hit a big play downfield in the passing game.
Even if Williams has had a positive impact on the run defense, so what? The Giants were 2-6 when they made the trade, giving up draft assets to acquire a pending UFA. That's a preposterous move for a team with as many holes as the Giants.
Now people are going to talk themselves into tagging Williams for 2020. How does that help the Giants going forward?
Lets also not leave out that the Jets run defense has stayed the same/improved since he got traded.
Yes, absolutely an under discussed aspect of this trade. What would be the attraction of the Giants for LW? Poor record, shaky GM situation, high taxes and cost of living, not a very clear future at all. If anything should concern people it’s that LW wants to be on a winning team. That ain’t the Giants. Not this year and not next year either.
Dumbest trade ever.
The trade is galacticlly stupid on various levels. Here are five:
1. We should have been sellers, not buyers at 2-6.
2. We actually have a nice supply of DTs currently on the team. And at reasonable salaries.
3. LW is a solid player, but not great. And we already have those players.
4. We have away a 3rd and 5th draft picks for: see #2 and #3.
5. LW's salary demands, as expected, are going to be high. We could use that money for much bigger needs.
Gettleman is an absolute imbecile for making this move.
Quote:
in the class of DL just below Aaron Donald. Those guys make around $18M/year.....so it's pretty obvious he'll be looking for at least that much...which is precisely what many of the smarter posters here predicted as soon as the trade was made.
Which is why franchising him for 15 million is a decent move for us, and not a world is ending move as some are describing it.
First of all, you're locked onto him getting the DT tag, which seems unlikely regardless of which player he referenced - the NFL determined he was a DE a year ago for the purposes of his 5th year option. And even if they change course and consider him a DT this time around, his 2019 salary will still be a basis number for his 2020 tag, so he'll get more than the standard DT franchise tag salary.
Either way, it's starting to shape up in such a fashion that the only thing our draft picks bought us was the ability to tag Williams. And I don't think it's nearly the sure thing benefit that you're making it out to be.
If he was our own player for the past 5 years and everything else was equal, would we legitimately be considering tagging him? Or are you chasing the sunk cost of the draft picks by tagging him so that acquiring him in the first place had any value at all in a lost season?
I think it's the latter, but am interested in your view on it.
Yup, totally agree.
i have defended Gettleman but I think that this trade might be it for me
We'd be stuck with him for another year. And probably set back even further.
You're entering 'hopeful' territory at that salary, as in 'the Giants are hopeful that in a different system with more talent around him he'll be better than he has been to date'.
Does that sound like 'pay me as the best DT on the market' play to you?
And even if it does - does it sound like something that it should have cost picks to sign him for?
It was a bad move - it's indefensible. Paying him top dollar by itself would be curious, but you could say 'wait to see if he earns it'. Here, they traded picks for the right to overpay him.
Go look at past superbowl participants. Some were great at stopping the run, some were mediocre, a few were even bad (2016 ATL Falcons). Most (if not all) superbowl teams great at stopping the run were also great at stopping the pass.
How about we try to build a great defense at all three levels instead of overstuffing the roster with DTs to occupy space for playmaking linebackers that don't exist.
Quote:
In comment 14708352 hitdog42 said:
Quote:
to get behind this trade.
and some continue to try to do so, maybe squint at it, hold one eye shut.
just terrible
Yup. I generally lean to the optimistic, wait and see side, but I just can’t think of one good reason a team stuck in the mud and going nowhere should surrender multiple draft picks for a guy who could reasonably be a solid starter, but doesn’t seem to remotely be a pro-Bowl caliber building block.
its very simple... if they wanted him, they could sign him in the off-season, or at least see how the season, offseason evolves and make a decision. instead they traded draft capital (a top 70 pick) for the right to have a stubborn GM pay up for the guy because you know he wont want egg on his face for not resigning him.
nice
The obvious footnote being, since we’re cruising to another top 3 pick, the picks we gave up will be at the top of their respective rounds
Fook
You are basically saying I made a couple mistakes with
my own draft picks on the defensive front...
Stupid then, stupid now.
I absolutely wanted to keep DG until this trade. He should be, by no means, in charge of a franchise after that trade. Williams has legit sucked for 2 years and he get's Dolan'd by the Jets.
Quote:
In comment 14708338 Essex said:
Quote:
In comment 14708329 MookGiants said:
Quote:
me that even one person on here defends this trade on any level. Yet here we are with many people defending it.
our defense ypc average is 2.7 since he is been there, it amazes me how people do not see this guy's absolute worth in transforming our defensive line. In fact, while our Lbs and Secondary have been dreadful, the one good thing we have done recently is stop the run (a prereq to winning in this league). Rome was not built in a day and you have to start somewhere, this was a good opportunity to upgrade by giving away a 3rd and a 5th (crapshoots that rarely work out) vs a legitimate run stuffer in this league. So, if we wanted to pay him in the off season, giving a 3 and 5 was certainly worth it considering that we now have various options to retain his services. If we do not somehow keep him, then you can criticize this, but from a football perspective this was not a stupid move (it is yet to be determined whether it was a good one though). I am critical of Gettleman in many areas, but the criticism of this trade to me is simply mind-boggling or at least the criticsm of it at this time.
please name one other team that has traded picks away for a free agent at 2-6. I'll wait.
Good teams dont make idiotic moves like this. If you like him, sign him as a FA.
so what you are basically saying is that you would rather get into a bidding war versus another team but retain the 3rd and 5th round picks. Maybe so, but I definitely think there is a price tag that I would pay to save cap space and give up a 3rd and a 5. I have no idea what that is at this point, but cap space is also an asset. In addition, we won't be able to evaluate this until the ink is dry on the contract.
The only way LW doesn't go FA is if the giants OVERPAY for him, nobody gives the home team discount when FA $ is coming!
I was too, I thought we were making moves we needed to make but we're still the same...maybe worse. I don't know if it's his fault or Bettcher's but 3rd and long is a given anymore. We stop very few teams when we have to.
DG will be on his way at some point, by retirement or otherwise, but Giants will still have the man in charge of football operations who thought "Hey, yeah, that sounds like a good idea."
Browsing some additional indicating stats, LW seems to crush GJ in QB hits (97 for his career 53) though GJ has more TFL (40 vs. 33).
You are presupposing that I think Jarrett was a good, smart signing by Atlanta. I'm merely using him, based on his stats, as the benchmark for LW's contract demands.
Like I said, I actually think we have a nice young blend of DTs on reasonable contracts. And players who look to be as good as LW. So essentially we added a clone.
An enormously expensive clone.
Giants only recourse is the FT, which would make a bad trade worse.
Can't he be transition tagged? He is not worth the FT....
Quote:
has all the leverage.
Giants only recourse is the FT, which would make a bad trade worse.
Can't he be transition tagged? He is not worth the FT....
Same $$$.
Both tags need to be "at least" 20% more than his prior year salary.
You mean two-time Super Bowl MVP Eli? You mean Hall of Famer Strahan? You mean four-time Pro Bowler Chris Snee?
You include Leonard Williams in that group because...?
I personally would have had no problem tagging LC last year at the expense of some of the FA moves they made (or if they had to cut some others like Jenkins to make room).
The differences between the decisions make me think it's even more of a no-brainer for LW though, starting with the facts that 1) they have more room to afford it, 2) he's only played half a season here, and 3) they may not be able to get a good comp pick out of it like they presumably will for LC.
I personally would have had no problem tagging LC last year at the expense of some of the FA moves they made (or if they had to cut some others like Jenkins to make room).
The differences between the decisions make me think it's even more of a no-brainer for LW though, starting with the facts that 1) they have more room to afford it, 2) he's only played half a season here, and 3) they may not be able to get a good comp pick out of it like they presumably will for LC.
Collins had been an All Pro and a multiple Pro Bowl selection - to that point in his career, he had exhibited more than Leonard Williams.
And that still just skips past the most galling part of all this - that Gettleman TRADED 2 PICKS for the right to tag Williams. That's why people are upset - it's not 'consistent' because it's a completely different situation.
I personally would have had no problem tagging LC last year at the expense of some of the FA moves they made (or if they had to cut some others like Jenkins to make room).
The differences between the decisions make me think it's even more of a no-brainer for LW though, starting with the facts that 1) they have more room to afford it, 2) he's only played half a season here, and 3) they may not be able to get a good comp pick out of it like they presumably will for LC.
The situations are nowhere near the same.
One player was All Pro who had seasons were he played well.
The other player was acquired using draft capital and will command a big deal regardless of whether you franchise tag him.
Neither player should be tagged but tagging Williams is worse and doesn't make the trade any better.
Quote:
would be nice if there was some consistency because I'd imagine there's plenty of crossover between the people who think DG was a moron for letting LC walk and yet think tagging Williams would be blasphemy.
I personally would have had no problem tagging LC last year at the expense of some of the FA moves they made (or if they had to cut some others like Jenkins to make room).
The differences between the decisions make me think it's even more of a no-brainer for LW though, starting with the facts that 1) they have more room to afford it, 2) he's only played half a season here, and 3) they may not be able to get a good comp pick out of it like they presumably will for LC.
Collins had been an All Pro and a multiple Pro Bowl selection - to that point in his career, he had exhibited more than Leonard Williams.
And that still just skips past the most galling part of all this - that Gettleman TRADED 2 PICKS for the right to tag Williams. That's why people are upset - it's not 'consistent' because it's a completely different situation.
Collins was a liability while he was out there because he could not cover. So, yeah, he could be All-Pro all you want, Collins more often than not hurt his team. Williams, even if he is not an elite pass rusher or an all pro, is not a liability at all. The going rate for older, benched Defensive Lineman like Malik Jackson was 10 million a year. So what if we franchise him and pay him 17+ million next year. There is so much to legitimately criticize Gettleman about, this, to me, seems to be last on the list until we, at least, see how it plays out.
Williams is going to get paid, whether by us or someone else this offseason. We did gain the inside track with the trade and probably the majority of top tier players (excluding head cases and malcontents) wind up staying put in the long run.
The uncertainty with the coaching staff is obviously a negative.
2) Arguing about Williams true worth does us not good, the bigger question is what else can we do with the money we would be paying him. Would we rather have Leonard Williams for 12m a year, or an offensive tackle who can actually block? Or how about that money nets us a starting center and high end depth at LB? In other words, can it net us starters at thinner positions or even multiple starters.
3) For those looking at the potential comp picks for him, those would be for the 2021 draft and would probably be negated if we decide to spend big in free agency. So they really aren't worth even looking at.
Set a value for him, it goes over that, let him walk.
Collins was a liability while he was out there because he could not cover. So, yeah, he could be All-Pro all you want, Collins more often than not hurt his team. Williams, even if he is not an elite pass rusher or an all pro, is not a liability at all. The going rate for older, benched Defensive Lineman like Malik Jackson was 10 million a year. So what if we franchise him and pay him 17+ million next year. There is so much to legitimately criticize Gettleman about, this, to me, seems to be last on the list until we, at least, see how it plays out.
A few questions...
1. What exactly does LW do that we haven't been able to get from our current DTs at much cheaper contracts?
2. So that $17M FT on LW is more important for LW's skills than other needs we have?
because he would pay more money in Free Agency than if you had him now with some leverage to get a team friendly deal. And, if Williams isn't willing to take less money, you franchise him until he will. The cost of this trade is the cap savings we make vs the value of the picks we gave up. Obviously, they can't be quantified directly against each other but if we save a whole bunch of cap money than losing the picks might be worth it because then we can spend the savings elsewhere on a proven NFL player as opposed to crapshoot.
He is saying what he's supposed to say. Why on Earth would he be a moron and tell the media he doesn't want to be paid well? Let it play out.
Or continue hyperventilating over everything which is typical with sports and politics anymore.
Your choice.
1. What exactly does LW do that we haven't been able to get from our current DTs at much cheaper contracts?
He does do some pretty obvious things our cheaper DT's don't. I'm surprised BBI's crystal ball-toting draft expert slash cap expert slash analytics expert even has to ask.
Quote:
....so why again didn’t Gettleman just wait for him to be a FA?
because he would pay more money in Free Agency than if you had him now with some leverage to get a team friendly deal. And, if Williams isn't willing to take less money, you franchise him until he will. The cost of this trade is the cap savings we make vs the value of the picks we gave up. Obviously, they can't be quantified directly against each other but if we save a whole bunch of cap money than losing the picks might be worth it because then we can spend the savings elsewhere on a proven NFL player as opposed to crapshoot.
That "team friendly deal" is never going to happen, and if you believed it I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Williams doesn't have an idiot for an agent, and the Giants never had any actual leverage because they're the ones who have already made the investment to acquire LW's rights.
Quote:
In comment 14708582 sb from NYT Forum said:
Quote:
....so why again didn’t Gettleman just wait for him to be a FA?
because he would pay more money in Free Agency than if you had him now with some leverage to get a team friendly deal. And, if Williams isn't willing to take less money, you franchise him until he will. The cost of this trade is the cap savings we make vs the value of the picks we gave up. Obviously, they can't be quantified directly against each other but if we save a whole bunch of cap money than losing the picks might be worth it because then we can spend the savings elsewhere on a proven NFL player as opposed to crapshoot.
That "team friendly deal" is never going to happen, and if you believed it I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Williams doesn't have an idiot for an agent, and the Giants never had any actual leverage because they're the ones who have already made the investment to acquire LW's rights.
Maybe so, but if LW never gets to the market that is a win for us. Second, in the NFL when a career can be over in a flash nobody is going to want to wait a year before the second contract--so I think the Giants have quite a bit of leverage given that the worst case scenario is we pay the franchise tag. I am not saying Gettleman can't--or won't--mess this up, but I see enough here to let it play out before I make that judgment.
any sane person should have known this was going to be the case from the start.
any sane person knows players/agents enter the process by expressing a desire to be well compensated.
I don't think DG is such a huge idiot that he didn't know LW was going to want top dollar. I'd be surprised if a dollar range wasn't agreed to before the trade. with that in mind, DG and Co decided before the trade that the picks and contract were going to be worth it. I'm a believer that DG does not act in a vacuum, so Mara has put his stamp of approval on it. Whether we, the fans, think it's worth it is immaterial.
There's nothing new to see here.
Its GM malpractice worthy of termination.
As Brett in particular has pointed out repeatedly, it's that the trade represents a poor allocation of resources.
And that still just skips past the most galling part of all this - that Gettleman TRADED 2 PICKS for the right to tag Williams. That's why people are upset - it's not 'consistent' because it's a completely different situation.
I'm specifically talking about the hyperbolic insistence on not utilizing the tag now, after the trade has already been made. That's basically arguing into the necessity of a long term deal which I think would be a more needless risk than making the deal in the first place.
Had they tagged LC for 2019 they surely would have listened to trade offers for him at the deadline as they did in 2018, same as they can do for LW next year if he's on a 1 year deal. That would give them the opportunity to recoup the picks traded in the first place if he doesn't work out on the field. Making this move in the first place was a gamble but there is a very easy way to mitigate that gamble at the expense of nothing but a little cap room for 1 season.
This pretty much sums up my thoughts.
His play is what was expected.
His contract demands are what was expected.
What did you guys expect? that he was going to come in and single handedly change the defense and/or sign for a song?
2) The Giants actually have a lot of negotiating leverage. The franchise tag (better than the transition tag) can be used and will give Williams every incentive to sign a market price deal. In fact, the tag makes it likely that having Williams on the roster for 2019 will help them save some money.
3) The Giants have no players to spend money on, the results of years of drawing failure. And there will be few good players on the market in the spring. With Williams, at least they can spend the money on a good young player who can help the team's depleted talent base instead of Nate Solder Part II.
There's a continual delusion on the part of fans that a cheap vet will fall into our laps during free agency. I guess there are examples of good economical signings out there, but they are few and far between. The trade market has been really important the last few years as a way for teams to get value of players that they won't be extending. Example: Dee Ford was traded last March by the Chiefs to the 49ers after the Chiefs applied a franchise tag.
I'm not a fan of all of Gettleman's moves, but I thought this was a transaction that makes sense.
In return for that option year, we had to give up 1 pick this year and 1 the following. But picks can be recouped if decide to not extend him by next year's trade deadline. Or if we tag again next year. This is a safe gamble - unless we overpay needlessly.
In return for that option year, we had to give up 1 pick this year and 1 the following. But picks can be recouped if decide to not extend him by next year's trade deadline. Or if we tag again next year. This is a safe gamble - unless we overpay needlessly.
How does signing Williams to 1 year at $17+M help the Giants and justify a 3rd round pick and a 4th round pick?
How does that make sense to anyone as a good option and cause you to say good trade?
and Giants gonna give him 18 million a year!
How does signing Williams to 1 year at $17+M help the Giants and justify a 3rd round pick and a 4th round pick?
How does that make sense to anyone as a good option and cause you to say good trade?
The same way signing players to a 1 year deal (or acquiring players with 1 option year left on their contract) would help any other team in any other sport? By having the player's rights for 1 year.
This isn't a great comparison bc you know I hate the other deal but the reason I hated the other deal is different here (mets not spending $), but this is a lot like the Stroman trade by the Mets. Adding a player for the following season when he is available at the trade deadline in season when you aren't in the playoff race. Adding Stroman for 2020 was fine, the issue I had was the Wilpons wouldn't spend to resign him long term even if he's great and let him walk like Wheeler. And they could have just resigned Wheeler who is a better player. We don't have a better player here and I don't think there would have been a better player available in FA (definitely not on a 1 year deal).
Its GM malpractice worthy of termination.
He has bungled the rebuild at every opportunity.
DG will have used a 1st (Dlaw), a high 3rd (BJ Hill), replaced that high third with another high third PLUS a 4th PLUS paying LW 10% our our cap space. (in addition to the 2017 2nd rounder)
For positions that theyre supposed to eat blockers and make room for the LBs to make tackles.
Any people still dont understand what I mean when I say DG does not understand asset allocation and positional value.
He is the worst general manager in the NFL. He has to go.
^^^THIS^^^
And this entire situation with Williams was 100% predictable to anyone with a brain.
And those of you saying mid round picks don't matter have no clue what you are talking about.
There is no defending this. There never was a valid reason to do it. It alone is a fireable offense.
Quote:
I
How does signing Williams to 1 year at $17+M help the Giants and justify a 3rd round pick and a 4th round pick?
How does that make sense to anyone as a good option and cause you to say good trade?
The same way signing players to a 1 year deal (or acquiring players with 1 option year left on their contract) would help any other team in any other sport? By having the player's rights for 1 year.
This isn't a great comparison bc you know I hate the other deal but the reason I hated the other deal is different here (mets not spending $), but this is a lot like the Stroman trade by the Mets. Adding a player for the following season when he is available at the trade deadline in season when you aren't in the playoff race. Adding Stroman for 2020 was fine, the issue I had was the Wilpons wouldn't spend to resign him long term even if he's great and let him walk like Wheeler. And they could have just resigned Wheeler who is a better player. We don't have a better player here and I don't think there would have been a better player available in FA (definitely not on a 1 year deal).
Bad comparison because the NFL has a salary cap and you can front load contracts differently so when you do have space you can control to an extent when you realize the cap hit, making future years less risky (for example).
You (or someone) even said franchise him for a couple years.
It's a terrible use of resources. That would be $37M guaranteed dollars over 2 years.
Most likely that would be close to the total guarantees on a 5 year deal (or close).
I don't know how you can say that with absolute certainty. Let's say Dallas was the team that traded for him. Are they using their FT on Williams with Prescott and Cooper about to become FAs? I think it's very possible that a team other than the Giants could have traded for Williams as a rental for this season, with the hopes that they might re-sign him, but with no intent or realistic ability to tag him.
Let's say that the cost in trade would have to start with a 3rd round pick, since that's the presumed comp pick that the Jets could project (even though they're also unlikely to get comp picks next year due to their available cap space), or that the team receiving Williams could project to receive. In that case, the trade negotiations start with a 3rd rounder, although the comp pick you're trying to beat is a 2021 late 3rd rounder, not a 2020 early 3rd. So if you're Gettleman, you're already well ahead of the comp pick calculus giving up your 2020 early 3rd round pick. I'm not sure you need to go any further than that, even if you're completely locked onto the need to trade for him in the first place.
I still think Williams is a good player, but not the type of player that you sacrifice draft picks for solely to get the inside track for him as a FA. He's good enough to be one of your primary FA targets. Or he's good enough to trade for if he has multiple years left on his contract. But he's not good enough, IMO, to trade multiple picks just for the right to be the team with the tag in your pocket.
All that said, I'll even throw a bone to those that feel like the trade itself is defensible - I'd feel significantly better if the terms of the trade were reversed - if the 2020 pick was the 4th/5th with the re-signing condition attached to it and the 3rd round pick was for 2021. At least then the Giants would have an additional season to improve their record and hope to lower that pick's value, and it's still fair to the Jets since 2021 is when any comp pick for LW would occur. That would also mean that if the Giants do use the tag and then lose LW in 2021, they'd be better positioned to get a comp pick in 2022 which would only be one year removed from the 3rd round pick that they traded, instead of two years removed.
Those are all little details that probably feel like nitpicking to many fans, but I think those are the little nuances that our front office has been ignoring for too long. And do I know for sure that Gettleman ignored those details or didn't try to flip the terms of the trade in the way that I suggest? Of course not - this is definitely coming from a cynical view of this front office. But in the context of none of us knowing how the negotiations went, if you had a gun to your head, are you confident in saying that Gettleman definitely worked through every iterative computation?
2) The Giants actually have a lot of negotiating leverage. The franchise tag (better than the transition tag) can be used and will give Williams every incentive to sign a market price deal. In fact, the tag makes it likely that having Williams on the roster for 2019 will help them save some money.
For a minimum of $17M/yr, which is what the franchise tag will cost, what extra value does LW bring that we really need?
What force multiplier impact does he bring at that cost?
Quote:
2) The Giants actually have a lot of negotiating leverage. The franchise tag (better than the transition tag) can be used and will give Williams every incentive to sign a market price deal. In fact, the tag makes it likely that having Williams on the roster for 2019 will help them save some money.
For a minimum of $17M/yr, which is what the franchise tag will cost, what extra value does LW bring that we really need?
What force multiplier impact does he bring at that cost?
Well, he's a big body that you'd be pairing up with possibly our current linemen and also the kid from Ohio State.........that could be imposing from a run and pass defense standpoint.
I think DG made the trade with the idea they would sign him, but also have a period of negotiating w/ him exclusively.
The narrative that you let him go to FA from the Jets and simply sign him doesn't hold true.........there's no guarantee.
In fact there's no guarantee either way but you might slightly improve your chances once you get him in the locker room, culture, etc....but of course that's sorta be thrown out the window too given our nose dive........
Bad comparison because the NFL has a salary cap and you can front load contracts differently so when you do have space you can control to an extent when you realize the cap hit, making future years less risky (for example).
You (or someone) even said franchise him for a couple years.
It's a terrible use of resources. That would be $37M guaranteed dollars over 2 years.
Most likely that would be close to the total guarantees on a 5 year deal (or close).
The ability to manipulate cap hit in a long term deal is not lost on me but I disagree with the bolded statement for 2 reasons:
1- this year in particular we have more cap room than we can spend - so tagging LW this year is pretty painless. The 1 year/17m will be a smaller contract than every other comparable UFA that hits the market and they will still have $50m+ to spend on others (of which I doubt there will be many appealing options). And that's because...
2- ...unlike baseball, Rendon/Cole/Harper/Machado types do not hit FA. And the few prime aged tier 2 guys who get there (like Zack Wheeler) get paid what the Rendon/Cole types do because the competition is so fierce. That's how Solder and Vernon and Trent Brown and Trey Flowers end up with record setting contracts even though they are not nearly record setting players. So spending big via FA is sometimes necessary (as it probably was with Solder) but also an extremely risky use of significant resources that can set you back farther than any 1 year deal can. Cap space is generally better to use to lock down your own core on their 2nd year contracts as early as possible to get favorable terms, of which hopefully LW can prove he's worthy of becoming part of next year.
So if the cap room is there (as it is this year, and may be next year) I have no problem fully guaranteeing a 1 year deal at an inflated AAV in return for not having the future liability of dead cap space and lack of maneuverability. For LW it is a 'rent to own' and if we don't want to own we can trade him away or let him walk in 2021 (possibly for a comp pick).
I think this is the crux of the argument. Those who criticize the deal are well aware that there's no guarantee that he makes it to FA. And given his career production to date, they're ok with taking that chance.
For me personally, I'd have rolled the dice that he'd make to FA and then pursue him aggressively as one of the main UFA targets. And if he didn't make it to FA, so be it. It would mean that someone else made the inefficient move to sacrifice draft picks for the exclusive negotiating window with a player that is good but not great.
It's not just about each move improving the roster in a vacuum. It's about construction of the roster and the overall state of the rebuild. Those draft picks are important, whether they're used to choose players or to trade for other players who are under contract, or to trade up/down in the draft. And I like LW as a player, but not enough to want him at the exclusion of the added benefit of having those picks to do more for the rebuild in addition to LW.
It's become increasingly clear that the only thing the trade bought us was the opportunity to be the team who can tag LW. And IMO, he's not even good enough to be a tag candidate, so what it really comes down to was making one inefficient move (trading picks) solely for the right to make another (tagging LW).
he's a buffoon
So let’s say you franchise tag Williams, and he still wants to get his long term deal at $18 million per.
He’s either going to hold out or play under the tag and the Giants will have to either tag him at more money or again hand him a long term contract. Where’s the benefit for the Giants?
It's important to remember that unused cap space carries over. So issuing excessive short term guaranteed dollars to avoid future dead money isn't really more efficient - you're just guaranteeing that you're going to burn that money this year instead of hoping that you don't have to burn it as dead money in the future.
And worse yet, by tagging a player that you might ultimately want to keep beyond that one year, you're overspending for one year and then following it up with the same dead money risk that you're trying to avoid in the first place, but now doing it with a player that's another year older than he was before.
If aversion to future dead money and a desire to preserve cap maneuverability for the future is your goal, your approach should be to avoid bad contracts at all, regardless of whether they're for one year or for five. Wasting money just because you have it is still wasting money, and you're effectively still wasting future cap space if you overpay a player on a one-year deal.
Fools pay 17 million a year for run defenders. And I don't want to hear "he gets a lot of pressures".
Fools pay 17 million a year for run defenders. And I don't want to hear "he gets a lot of pressures".
Brandon Graham has never gotten ten sacks in his entire NFL career and all I hear is that he is one of the most valuable edge rushers because of his pressures. So, what is it? I understand a sack finishes it off, but is there no value in forcing the qb to throw it quickly?
Quote:
You don't pay top of the market, top of the position pay scale for guys who aren't proven pass rushers.
Fools pay 17 million a year for run defenders. And I don't want to hear "he gets a lot of pressures".
Brandon Graham has never gotten ten sacks in his entire NFL career and all I hear is that he is one of the most valuable edge rushers because of his pressures. So, what is it? I understand a sack finishes it off, but is there no value in forcing the qb to throw it quickly?
If the Giants get LW to sign the same exact contract as Graham (3 yrs/$40M), I'll gladly commend DG for his strategy on this one.
I don't see it playing out like that, though. I think we end up paying full price, which will be closer to double that in total contract value, and give up picks on top of it.
In three years, he will be traded for a 5th round pick by the next GM.
The few who are actually defending Gettleman are just trying to rationalizing something this supposedly professional GM did. It’s one thing to do that at the time of the trade, it’s another to do it now, we’ve lost four straight games with him and the team looks as bad as ever. I can understand if a contender traded for him for a playoff push. But we were/are fucking tanking for all intents and purposes?!?! This is as idiotic as it gets!! I’d feel better if Gettleman just comes out and says he was trying to save his job by mortgaging the future, which is probably the truth.
Let’s blame everything on Reese even though 80% of the roster is his making. Gettleman needs to go.
Current Proj. = $60m
Proj. vet cuts = +$20m ($80m total space)
Proj. draft pool = $13m ($67m space)
LW Tag = $17m ($50m space)
Below is a list of the top 50 free agents and frankly i's hard to pin point where they will be able to spend $40m. Among BBI's favorite FA targets:
Shaq Thompson - resigned
Ngakwe, Scherff, Barrett - likely to be tagged or resigned
Justin Simmons - Fangio indicated yesterday he's getting resigned long term
The best players I can envision being realistic as multi-year targets are probably Joe Schubert, James Bradberry, and Jack Conklin. And I personally don't have any interest in being the team to overpay Matt Judon, Kyle Van Noy, or Bud Dupree. Hunter Henry would be a great target too but I suspect he will get tagged by SD.
Top 50 2020 free agents - ( New Window )
Current Proj. = $60m
Proj. vet cuts = +$20m ($80m total space)
Proj. draft pool = $13m ($67m space)
LW Tag = $17m ($50m space)
Below is a list of the top 50 free agents and frankly i's hard to pin point where they will be able to spend $40m. Among BBI's favorite FA targets:
Shaq Thompson - resigned
Ngakwe, Scherff, Barrett - likely to be tagged or resigned
Justin Simmons - Fangio indicated yesterday he's getting resigned long term
The best players I can envision being realistic as multi-year targets are probably Joe Schubert, James Bradberry, and Jack Conklin. And I personally don't have any interest in being the team to overpay Matt Judon, Kyle Van Noy, or Bud Dupree. Hunter Henry would be a great target too but I suspect he will get tagged by SD. Top 50 2020 free agents - ( New Window )
I'm not sure what your point is. Because there are fewer impact free agents available, the Giants should overpay for one of them simply because they traded for him? Or is it that because the league average in cap carryover is a certain amount, that should be some sort of guiding light for how an efficient team should operate?
The Giants don't have a lot of players on their own roster worth extending right now (especially among those that are eligible for an extension), but they can absolutely stockpile their cap room for when they do have players worth extending and have a huge war chest at their disposal to add reinforcements for a roster that will be a lot closer to being a contender. That doesn't mean don't spend, but they don't have to be swimming in the Top 50 pool if they want to be assembling depth and balance for their roster. Especially if they're going to piss away mid-round picks that usually represent that depth and balance.
I stand by my reasoning that paying more up front to avoid dead money later is just paying cash for your cap inefficiencies instead of using your credit card. Just because it doesn't show up on the ledger later on as dead money doesn't mean you didn't waste some money along the way.
Also, it's DUNK. No R.
So let’s say you franchise tag Williams, and he still wants to get his long term deal at $18 million per.
He’s either going to hold out or play under the tag and the Giants will have to either tag him at more money or again hand him a long term contract. Where’s the benefit for the Giants?
The benefit to the Giants next year is if Williams helps them win games. Period. That is the immediate return on the $17m franchise tag investment. So if he holds out the trade was a disaster, though I doubt that happens since it rarely does outside the RB position. Next year is year 3 of a near complete roster turnover. Just because it will likely be a new head coach, the expectations should be in accordance with year 3 of any multi-year rebuild and year 2 of any potential franchise QB.
If they get to week 7 and the team is still a doormat they should trade him the same way the Jets did this year. The move will have been a failure to a certain degree depending on what kind of compensation they receive it could be close to zero sum. If that's the worst case scenario I don't think that's so bad given there's a best case that he's a very good DL.
In three years, he will be traded for a 5th round pick by the next GM.
The few who are actually defending Gettleman are just trying to rationalizing something this supposedly professional GM did. It’s one thing to do that at the time of the trade, it’s another to do it now, we’ve lost four straight games with him and the team looks as bad as ever. I can understand if a contender traded for him for a playoff push. But we were/are fucking tanking for all intents and purposes?!?! This is as idiotic as it gets!! I’d feel better if Gettleman just comes out and says he was trying to save his job by mortgaging the future, which is probably the truth.
Let’s blame everything on Reese even though 80% of the roster is his making. Gettleman needs to go.
Yeah, the Gettleman is good Reese is bad narrative should die now. This was a stupid trade, and I don't understand why we made it.
But don't compound it by overpaying Williams. Have a dollar amount, if he wants too much, you let him hit the market.
Well, he's a big body that you'd be pairing up with possibly our current linemen and also the kid from Ohio State.........that could be imposing from a run and pass defense standpoint.
I think DG made the trade with the idea they would sign him, but also have a period of negotiating w/ him exclusively.
The narrative that you let him go to FA from the Jets and simply sign him doesn't hold true.........there's no guarantee.
In fact there's no guarantee either way but you might slightly improve your chances once you get him in the locker room, culture, etc....but of course that's sorta be thrown out the window too given our nose dive........
Before LW arrived, after 8 games we had a total of 21 sacks. An average of 2.6 sacks per game.
Since LW arrived, we've played 4 games and totaled 4 sacks. An average of 1 per game.
Before LW arrived, our points allowed per game was 27+.
Since LW arrived, our points allowed per game is 30+.
I know it's a small sample, and there are other levers involved in this, but on just basic stats I think LW's addition to the same is negligible...
Does that feel like a good $18M/yr investment?
Also, it's DUNK. No R.
I've been misreading your handle for months and now you tell me? Don't know if I've done that before but if so my b.
Re: the rest - the main point was that as is almost always the case with teams who have a lot of cap room, there aren't enough good players who reach FA in the NFL to use it all effectively. This year appears to be no exception.
I agree that we need to be prudent with reserving future cap space to resign our own drafted players worthy of 2nd contracts, but that's why to me it makes a lot more sense to have LW on a 1 year deal than a large 4 or 5 year deal. At least until we know for sure that he is (or isn't) a core player. I don't like having to give up a 3rd round pick to do it, but they can get that pick back if they don't sign him long term either next deadline or via comp pick or via tag & trade next year.
Quote:
You don't pay top of the market, top of the position pay scale for guys who aren't proven pass rushers.
Fools pay 17 million a year for run defenders. And I don't want to hear "he gets a lot of pressures".
Brandon Graham has never gotten ten sacks in his entire NFL career and all I hear is that he is one of the most valuable edge rushers because of his pressures. So, what is it? I understand a sack finishes it off, but is there no value in forcing the qb to throw it quickly?
Is there? Olivier Vernon is Mr. QB Pressure, and we couldn't wait to run him out of town and lament how ineffective he is considering his contract. Pay the most money to guys who make plays. Let your younger, cheaper players worry about making the QB throw quickly.
Williams is a better run defender by some measure, but this league doesn't pay run defenders, because pass rush is a premium resource. You can find run pluggers. Good teams do.
If you're David Gettleman, you do it happily, that's how.
Quote:
Franchise tagged?
So let’s say you franchise tag Williams, and he still wants to get his long term deal at $18 million per.
He’s either going to hold out or play under the tag and the Giants will have to either tag him at more money or again hand him a long term contract. Where’s the benefit for the Giants?
The benefit to the Giants next year is if Williams helps them win games. Period. That is the immediate return on the $17m franchise tag investment. So if he holds out the trade was a disaster, though I doubt that happens since it rarely does outside the RB position. Next year is year 3 of a near complete roster turnover. Just because it will likely be a new head coach, the expectations should be in accordance with year 3 of any multi-year rebuild and year 2 of any potential franchise QB.
If they get to week 7 and the team is still a doormat they should trade him the same way the Jets did this year. The move will have been a failure to a certain degree depending on what kind of compensation they receive it could be close to zero sum. If that's the worst case scenario I don't think that's so bad given there's a best case that he's a very good DL.
What? Leonard Williams has yet to show in 5 years he impacts games enough to win games.
If you tag Williams and trade him the move won’t be seen as a failure to a degree, it will be an abject disaster. Trading will net less than a top 60 pick, so they would have essentially traded a top 60 pick for a lesser pick and wasted $17 million.
I didn’t think he should be fired earlier but clean house w him and this staff ASAP please