A case for the value Williams brings

No problem with the trade. It allowed the Giants a first crack at re-signing him after watching him perform on a losing team. He�s a young solid player who fortifies what could become a terrific DL.

I agree.

The hoopla over this move makes little sense to me. The GM stated he wants beef up front on both sides. Resources were dedicated to bring more to the defensive front so the Giants were not steamrolled on the ground week in and week out.

Also, we run a 3 - 4 now as a base, the d lineman are not the primary pass rushers in this type setup, so focusing on total sack numbers for Williams seems silly.

but pressure is more important as it changes the timing of the play. The continuing focus on sacks alone is a bit lazy. The question from that position is if you disrupt the play - which seems to statistically true. He is not just a run stuffer, although he is quite accomplished at that as well.

The defense is fill with 1st and 2nd years guys.

More then likely and well deserved, the defense senior members, Bethea and Ogeltree will be cut, so lack of leadership.

Adding talent is a must...

Makes Williams a no brainer

here's their grading scale - Williams ranks a 70.6:

Quote:

The Player Grading Scale: 100-90 Elite 89-85 Pro Bowler 84-70 Starter 69-60 Backup 59-0 Replaceable

He's a 70.6 - barely above 'backup'.

The Giants gave up a high 3rd and 4th rounder to pay him upwards of $15M a year.

And then some people are surprised they stink.

That's why Reese had to go. That's why Gettleman has done a bad job. These players might not amount to HoFers, but they're at least supposed to provide solid roster depth with the occasional starter. Saying 'what guarantees do you get in the 3rd round' is plain stupidity.

Even if you decide you want to light 3rd and 4th round picks on fire - they can easily be used to move up in the 1st or 2nd rounds to get better players.

A dumb move that just gets worse any time someone tries to support it.

In comment 14779812 rocco8112 said:

Quote:

I agree. The hoopla over this move makes little sense to me. The GM stated he wants beef up front on both sides. Resources were dedicated to bring more to the defensive front so the Giants were not steamrolled on the ground week in and week out. Also, we run a 3 - 4 now as a base, the d lineman are not the primary pass rushers in this type setup, so focusing on total sack numbers for Williams seems silly.

Most of BBI only knows how to look at number to evaluate talent sadly, they don�t watch games. He helped tremendously in the run game and would be a great fit to return. Just not at $20M a year.

Then everyone else on the d line looks great
Get two edge rushers and you have a top 5 defense
Plus a great front makes your secondary look even better

Moral of story. Get the edge rushers

Williams has warning track power. Hits the ball deep but it usually gets caught for an out.

So he gets real, real close to the QB...but can�t get the sack.

And what jcn said.

In comment 14779820 jcn56 said:

Quote:

That's why Reese had to go. That's why Gettleman has done a bad job. These players might not amount to HoFers, but they're at least supposed to provide solid roster depth with the occasional starter. Saying 'what guarantees do you get in the 3rd round' is plain stupidity. Even if you decide you want to light 3rd and 4th round picks on fire - they can easily be used to move up in the 1st or 2nd rounds to get better players. I get your point. But the difference is you seem to believe your opinion is fact, or at least that s how it is presented. You might be right in the end, but right now, I repeat: mocking this move, as has been done by many, as if there is no other positive side to consider, seems a bit myopic. A dumb move that just gets worse any time someone tries to support it.

add a pass rusher to front 7 and he�ll have an even bigger impact.

In comment 14779829 joeinpa said:

Quote:

In comment 14779820 jcn56 said: Quote: That's why Reese had to go. That's why Gettleman has done a bad job. These players might not amount to HoFers, but they're at least supposed to provide solid roster depth with the occasional starter. Saying 'what guarantees do you get in the 3rd round' is plain stupidity. Even if you decide you want to light 3rd and 4th round picks on fire - they can easily be used to move up in the 1st or 2nd rounds to get better players. I get your point. But the difference is you seem to believe your opinion is fact, or at least that s how it is presented. You might be right in the end, but right now, I repeat: mocking this move, as has been done by many, as if there is no other positive side to consider, seems a bit myopic. A dumb move that just gets worse any time someone tries to support it.

Fair enough - that is obviously my opinion that it's a dumb move.

What I'd suggest though, in the future - if you quote a source to support your position, pick one that doesn't believe Williams hasn't amounted to much more than a high end backup.

I don't think he's as bad as PFF does - but I don't think he's much better. Neither did the Jets, or the rest of the market - where another team with playoff aspirations that needed someone presumably as disruptive as you think Williams is could have traded a 2nd rounder (probably less than 10 picks away from the Giants) in an attempt to fuel a playoff run.

Williams hangs his hat on his draft status, which to this date has been proven unwarranted. The Giants repeated their classic FA blunder of overpaying someone who doesn't have the production to justify it, in the process hoping they'll outperform moving forward.

for self labeling opinion as opinion.

Site needs more of that.

In comment 14779839 Bill2 said:

Quote:

for self labeling opinion as opinion. Site needs more of that.

👍

In comment 14779835 jcn56 said:

Quote:

In comment 14779829 joeinpa said: Quote: In comment 14779820 jcn56 said: Quote: That's why Reese had to go. That's why Gettleman has done a bad job. These players might not amount to HoFers, but they're at least supposed to provide solid roster depth with the occasional starter. Saying 'what guarantees do you get in the 3rd round' is plain stupidity. Even if you decide you want to light 3rd and 4th round picks on fire - they can easily be used to move up in the 1st or 2nd rounds to get better players. I get your point. But the difference is you seem to believe your opinion is fact, or at least that s how it is presented. You might be right in the end, but right now, I repeat: mocking this move, as has been done by many, as if there is no other positive side to consider, seems a bit myopic. A dumb move that just gets worse any time someone tries to support it. Fair enough - that is obviously my opinion that it's a dumb move. What I'd suggest though, in the future - if you quote a source to support your position, pick one that doesn't believe Williams hasn't amounted to much more than a high end backup. I don't think he's as bad as PFF does - but I don't think he's much better. Neither did the Jets, or the rest of the market - where another team with playoff aspirations that needed someone presumably as disruptive as you think Williams is could have traded a 2nd rounder (probably less than 10 picks away from the Giants) in an attempt to fuel a playoff run. Williams hangs his hat on his draft status, which to this date has been proven unwarranted. The Giants repeated their classic FA blunder of overpaying someone who doesn't have the production to justify it, in the process hoping they'll outperform moving forward.

Jcn I don�t really know much about PFF, and didn�t intend to use them as a source to support my opinion. I was just quoting the numbers, which I believe are facts, to support my belief of Williams value.

I try always to consider other opinions on most issues, helps me to evaluate my own beliefs, But as stated I wouldn�t use PFF s opinion to support my own, I don�t know much about what they do.

In comment 14779819 jcn56 said:

Quote:

here's their grading scale - Williams ranks a 70.6: Quote: The Player Grading Scale: 100-90 Elite 89-85 Pro Bowler 84-70 Starter 69-60 Backup 59-0 Replaceable He's a 70.6 - barely above 'backup'. The Giants gave up a high 3rd and 4th rounder to pay him upwards of $15M a year. And then some people are surprised they stink.

Why are you talking about PFF ratings here? That's what people debate.

joeinpa wasn't referencing PFF ratings he was referencing their quantitative data on pressures. That's the area that PFF actually brings value - in their data compilation on snap counts by total and by position, their formation and personnel grouping % breakdown, and stats on pressures, defended passes, and other items.

I don't know many people who like PFF - but it sure would be damn nice to see an understanding of what's being shown. Quoting their ratings means nothing.

and concerted effort to bring one (or two) home via FA and/or the draft. Championship defenses oft times have a strong interior from which much can evolve. That we have talent at such young ages, gives me comfort as a fan as we continue to build towards being competitive

In comment 14779820 jcn56 said:

Quote:

That's why Reese had to go. That's why Gettleman has done a bad job. These players might not amount to HoFers, but they're at least supposed to provide solid roster depth with the occasional starter. Saying 'what guarantees do you get in the 3rd round' is plain stupidity. Even if you decide you want to light 3rd and 4th round picks on fire - they can easily be used to move up in the 1st or 2nd rounds to get better players. A dumb move that just gets worse any time someone tries to support it.

Thank you. This team has burned through 3s and 4s for years and now look at the roster. Those picks fortify the backend of your roster.

In comment 14779830 UberAlias said:

Quote:

add a pass rusher to front 7 and he�ll have an even bigger impact.

LW played the last 8 games for us. I listed the teams yesterday. I keep hearing this �big impact� he had on the rush defense. Well, of those 8 teams we played, 6 were in the bottom half of the league already in yards/game, 5 of those 6 were in the bottom third, and 3 of those 6 were in the bottom 5 overall.

Only Philly, who we played twice, was basically in the top ten at #11. Their league average was 121 yards per game. In game 1 against us, they got 118 yards. In game 2, they rushed for 121. In other words, we really didn�t do much to stop them. Especially the Boston Scott, who they pulled off the street because they were decimated with injuries...

In comment 14779846 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

In comment 14779819 jcn56 said: Quote: here's their grading scale - Williams ranks a 70.6: Quote: The Player Grading Scale: 100-90 Elite 89-85 Pro Bowler 84-70 Starter 69-60 Backup 59-0 Replaceable He's a 70.6 - barely above 'backup'. The Giants gave up a high 3rd and 4th rounder to pay him upwards of $15M a year. And then some people are surprised they stink. Why are you talking about PFF ratings here? That's what people debate. joeinpa wasn't referencing PFF ratings he was referencing their quantitative data on pressures. That's the area that PFF actually brings value - in their data compilation on snap counts by total and by position, their formation and personnel grouping % breakdown, and stats on pressures, defended passes, and other items. I don't know many people who like PFF - but it sure would be damn nice to see an understanding of what's being shown. Quoting their ratings means nothing.

Because it wasn't just the quantitative data:

Quote:

As PFF mentioned, if Williams would have been able to get to the quarterback just a few fractions of a second faster on some of those plays, his sack numbers would have looked a lot different.

It also referenced the 'pressure rate' which is also subjective. These are the so called 'next gen' stats, which get blended together to create the highly contested overall ratings.

I fully expect DG to pay LW big money and let Markus Golden go. Probably can't afford both. I don't understand the Williams fan boys. Did you watch the games ? Giants allowed way too many rushing TD's to call our DL run stuffers. They are all DT's that provide no rush and can't stuff the run in the red zone. To say or DL is a strength is laughable. We need DE's and ER's . We don't need to pay Williams big money to provide what Lawrence already provides on his rookie deal.

I feel slighted.

Quote:

Ya know who likes Leonard Williams? PFF, that's who! Klaatu : 1/14/2020 8:19 pm : link : reply The misleading sack numbers of the 2020 free agents Quote: UNDERVALUED DI Leonard Williams, New York Giants No player had a bigger deference between his pressure rate rank and sack rate rank than Williams, who split the year between the Giants and the New York Jets prior to his trade. Among 87 interior defenders with 200 or more pass-rushing snaps, Williams ranked 13th in pressure rate at 11.3% but his one sack in 424 pass-rushing snaps put him near the bottom of the list in sack rate. On the other hand, Williams led the position with 19 quarterback hits. A few fractions of a second faster on several of those plays and that sack total looks a whole lot more respectable. Considering the draft capital that the Giants gave up acquiring Williams, it seems likely that they�ll retain him moving forward. He�s always been a better run defender than a pass-rusher, but he�s certainly better in the passing game than the one sack he was able to produce in 2019. Now the Giants just need to figure out how to balance all the young talent they have at interior defensive line if they re-sign Williams. Link - ( New Window )

When DG makes an offer and Williams accepts it or rejects it, then you can argue your points. Right now, what is done is done. And DG doesn�t give a hoot what you think anyway.

Personally, I liked the trade and what he has shown. I just want to see how it plays out.

Our run defense improved greatly since he was added.

I am for bringing Williams back but I really thin we need to add an Edge rusher. If we can do both then all the better.

Gettlemen knows we need a pass rusher. He may go after Ngokoue.

Without considering what his contract will be, he's the best defensive lineman on the Giants and a solid starter. I'd be in favor of bringing him back.

However, at what price?

A contract of $12m a year would be a great deal. A contract of $15m a year is probably more realistic and, in my opinion, would still be a good contract because teams need to overpay for FAs. A contract of $18m+ a year would be paying him like he's an elite interior defensive player, that'd be bad.

doesn't use next gen stats in their Player ratings.

Quote:

On every play, a PFF analyst will grade each player on a scale of -2 to +2 according to what he did on the play. At one end of the scale you have a catastrophic game-ending interception or pick-six from a quarterback, and at the other a perfect deep bomb into a tight window in a critical game situation, with the middle of that scale being 0-graded, or �expected� plays that are neither positive nor negative. Each game is also graded by a second PFF analyst independent of the first, and those grades are compared by a third, Senior Analyst, who rules on any differences between the two. These grades are verified by the Pro Coach Network, a group of former and current NFL coaches with over 700 combined years of NFL coaching experience, to get them as accurate as they can be.

We don't have to re-hash it, but that "Pro Coach Network" reviews less than 1% of the grades.

In comment 14779826 bw in dc said:

Quote:

Williams has warning track power. Hits the ball deep but it usually gets caught for an out. So he gets real, real close to the QB...but can�t get the sack. And what jcn said.

There's also nothing wrong with a guy that hits a lot of doubles. They can be very productive players in an offense that's well rounded. :)

The sack total vastly underrate him. My issue is giving up a 3 and a 4 to trade for him when we could've just signed him as an FA. It's not like he's going to give us a discount because we traded for him.

Poor asset management IMO.

given what DG did to acquire him.

BW has been on this since the start.

LW is going to be looking to get paid and Grady Jarrett's contact will be the STARTING point for contract negotiations.

It's possible that Graham's hire was first since Jints central is faced with the issue of how much to pay LW.

Graham's new system will be the reason for why they either "over pay" him or let him go. Either way - DG will be seemingly off the hook.

In comment 14779982 Dnew15 said:

Quote:

given what DG did to acquire him. BW has been on this since the start. LW is going to be looking to get paid and Grady Jarrett's contact will be the STARTING point for contract negotiations. It's possible that Graham's hire was first since Jints central is faced with the issue of how much to pay LW. Graham's new system will be the reason for why they either "over pay" him or let him go. Either way - DG will be seemingly off the hook.

Yeah, it will be interesting. If I'm Leonard Williams' agent, I know my fallback option is the Giants' will franchise tag Leonard Williams, which will be ~$16.5m a year. There's no way they let him walk. Therefore, if I'm his agent, I'm probably asking for ~$20m a year and be willing to negotiate down to $17m a year.

Long story short, Williams' will almost certainly be the 2nd highest paid interior defensive lineman in the league with his new contract.

forcing the QB up in the pocket. Those close hits would become sacks with outside pressure. Remember Lawrence did a good job early in the season also and he is a rookie. He plays the run very good also.

it was absolutely a bizarre move for a losing team, but I find my own opinion in line with yours. He is a good player, who may be even better in the right scheme, so I'd have no issue if they deem him viable long term at FMV. Good young DL are hard to find and players who stay healthy and produce are hard to find.

I don't love that we had to give up a high 3rd for him but the people who think the Giants org can do nothing right act like the compensation was on the level of the Tunsil trade or something. While also acting like the Giants don't have the options of tagging him/trading him/letting him walk next year for what could result in similar compensation. While also acting like LW isn't already probably our best player on defense.

Not to oversimplify but if we want a better defense we needed better coaches and players. Williams is a better player than we had so if we can get him for FMV great. If not there are ways we can move on and recap similar draft picks.

I am curious to see how Graham/Judge feel about him since they've presumably seen a bit of him as opponents in the AFC East over the past 4-5 years.

1) How the contract is structured will be important

2) Given how much money is chasing FA this year...the market for Dl after this FA period is the key comparison instead of the rear view mirror comparison.

$1.5B chasing FA is bound to make all comparisons to the past for some positions anachronisms. Like bemoaning how much a recently injured non closer like Betances ($10.5M) got paid compared to Trevor Hoffman at his peak ( $7.5M in salary). Yes they both are relief pitchers who played within ten years of each other but in different pay for performance eras.

The real tell tale sign would be how few top end FA the Giants can sign in the future with DJ and perhaps SB coming up soon enough.

The mess this years FA bonanza will make on going forward NFL position values is a story unto itself

This was a bad move. We traded a 3rd and a 4th or a 5th to win a total of 4 games for the year. Honestly, it would have been better to lose just 1 more game, no? We could have signed him the off season anyway. I do not think the people applauding the move understand what it means to think critically. We needed to scout him? You think he will sign for less because we traded for him? What did we get? I don't see anything. We just lost things.

everyone who reads this site has to know that correct?

3rd & 4th round draft picks are where a good team gets a huge ROI compared to their veteran players.

Productive 3rd and 4th round picks allow good teams to pay their star players and still have money for the good players too.

I like Williams and at this point after the draft picks have been spent I vote to keep him knowing that the Giants will have to pay him about 20 times what they'd pay those picks.

That's why the trade was idiotic. So was the trade for Ogletree. The Giants have been as bad in the front offense as they've been on the field. They're suckers for other teams.

They've been get right games for opposing QBs and get right cap space and draft capital for opposing GMs.

The Giant have the worst record in the NFL since 2017 on merit. Joe Judge has a monumental task trying to overcome the Mara/Gettleman player evaluation and acquisition machine.

ideally to a reasonable extension since they have the early extension leverage like they did with Shepard last year. The new staff's familiarity with DT should be helpful making that decision too.

Then re: Williams you have him on a 1 year deal with a small amount of leverage to negotiate a long term deal. Or the option to just let him walk next year when we may be in a better situation to receive a good comp pick. And have a better idea of how good our depth is behind him (Hill, Mcintosh, Slayton).

While I agree with many that the tag is a non-ideal tool, this is a situation where it makes sense for 2 key reasons.
1. LW isn't a known quantity who has been in the org for 4 or 5 years like the vast majority of those who get tagged.
2. The coaching staff and schemes will both be new as well.

Everyone loves to bring up Gettleman's history removing the tag from Josh Norman, but forget that 1 year after that he still tagged Kawan Short and then used that leverage to sign him long term.

The only risk of not signing LW now is that the price will likely only go up long term if we decide we want to keep him. To me that's an acceptable risk since waiting gives us a much better chance of getting that decision right.

There�s no guarantee of that, of course. We can disagree on the trade terms, but what you�re getting is a FIRST HAND glimpse of what you MIGHT be signing long term. 8 games of watching and reviewing upclose and personal, is far better than making assessments from film, imv.

Plus, we have the franchise tag at our disposal should we opt to use it, which allows another year of assessment and contract discussions under a NEW coaching staff.

Too, he�s a ridiculously young complement to the other DTs we have. If we are able to sign a solid ER through FA and/or draft one, that will bring out his talent even moreso, imo

On his own, it doesn't look like he adds that much value. But what he does do is make those around him better. I actually expect that our line will become a top unit in relatively short order (if we are able to get a premium edge player).

I view him as a "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" type of addition.

is it better to have overpaid and kept the picks or a more reasonable contract and no picks? If either was a guaranteed outcome it would be easier to say, but since neither is it would seem "wait and see" is probably the best approach. They certainly rolled the dice but it's also not out of the question that Williams is a player worthy of rolling the dice on.

I'll guess the Giants pay Williams 13 million a year for 4 years with about 35 million guaranteed. Of course it could be more.

The two draft picks will make about a million each for four years.

So Williams costs 35 million and the two draft picks over 3 years cost 6 million.

about 6 times not 20 times for both about 12 times for each.

I don't care what he does on the field, how much does he cost? We have a history of paying players far more than they are worth and getting a terrible ROI, which is why we've sucked so much over the recent years. How much will Williams cost? Don't tell me what he does, we see the games, how much is what he does worth on the football field as opposed to his replacement cost?

Are all those pressures and .5 sacks worth 15M a year? 12? 10? What's the cost?

In comment 14780144 Eric on Li said:

Quote:

is it better to have overpaid and kept the picks or a more reasonable contract and no picks? If either was a guaranteed outcome it would be easier to say, but since neither is it would seem "wait and see" is probably the best approach. They certainly rolled the dice but it's also not out of the question that Williams is a player worthy of rolling the dice on.

What evidence do you possess that says we will sign him for less because we traded for him? I can point to quote of William's that says no discount. What is your supporting evidence to your claim?

Id be careful to assert others cant think critically.

For example, the risk adjusted likelihood of an equivalent contribution from a new 3rd rounder in 2020 is what exactly?

That's just one ingredient into the calculus.

The going forward prices for FA is another. This may be the lowest cost scheme variable decent interior lineman available for awhile ( I don't know that...presumably they do)

The preference JJ may ( may have) have to spend on several mid tier FA and teach and develop them is another.

Dropping LW likely means we are likely going to over pay Tomlinson or use a high draft pick on someone who maybe a good DT. Or may not be.

Lots of factors play into the decision

One of the reasons its debated for so long on BBI is that there are a lot of factors to consider.

Id submit anyone with dismissive certainty either way on this is in fact not a critical thinker nor self aware.

For me, Im ok with however it goes. Either decision to keep or walk away still leaves a path to future success.

The 3rd pick is a sunk cost/risk/opportunity imo. On DG's record but a pointless factor going forward.

If the guy is worried about injury while franchised ...then its leverage. He gets tagged and injured he has gotz in a career with only 4 more earning years. If not, its not leverage. Some families want certainty and trade possible advantage for it. Some don't. We don't know the internal calculus of LW.

We don't know if Mara said let it go to Dg or JJ said a very important foundation is a very good interior DL rotation that has players that are not scheme specific.

We don't know a lot. So im not sure where self appointed certainty is earned.

Agree Eric

Agree Mike

is the idea that because we have Lawrence, Williams isn't necessary.

If you are able to assemble a top position group, that's not a negative.

In comment 14780155 Thegratefulhead said:

Quote:

In comment 14780144 Eric on Li said: Quote: is it better to have overpaid and kept the picks or a more reasonable contract and no picks? If either was a guaranteed outcome it would be easier to say, but since neither is it would seem "wait and see" is probably the best approach. They certainly rolled the dice but it's also not out of the question that Williams is a player worthy of rolling the dice on. What evidence do you possess that says we will sign him for less because we traded for him? I can point to quote of William's that says no discount. What is your supporting evidence to your claim?

I have no idea what we will sign him for, but I can all but guarantee a 1 year tag will be less years and less total guarantee than whatever he or any other comparable FA will receive on open market - which is why that's been my preferred option since the day the trade happened. What % of UFA contracts end up with dead money at some point? 99.9%?

The nature of UFA is that anyone in demand gets close to the top dollar for their position on a 4-6 year deal even if they aren't an elite player (as Solder and Vernon both did).

That may still be what the extension price for Williams is long term, but by tagging him we can get him on the field without necessarily being the team to give him that. I doubt we do this but if we wanted to I believe we could tag him both this year and next, getting him on 2 low risk short term deals, and then let him walk via UFA and probably get back a comp pick on top of the 2.5 years on the field (and ZERO dead money).

Trading for him increased the chances of signing him -- the trade will look incredibly foolish if they don't, so they have a lot of incentive.

I don't think trading for him will lower the price we will have to pay, however.

was some perennial All Pro or frequent Pro Bowler.

To date - the best you can say about him is he's been better than his stats.

To suggest that they traded picks to *improve* the chances of landing him - as if he were somehow the prize of FA in 2020 - is probably the most disappointing part of all.

In comment 14780166 Bill2 said:

Quote:

anyone with dismissive certainty either way on this is in fact not a critical thinker nor self aware. Either decision to keep or walk away still leaves a path to future success.

obviously it's 100% fair game to debate the merits of which paths are best of all the options going forward, but there's way to much certainty that this move was a disaster when the range of outcomes is so broad.

In comment 14780124 arniefez said:

Quote:

everyone who reads this site has to know that correct? 3rd & 4th round draft picks are where a good team gets a huge ROI compared to their veteran players. Productive 3rd and 4th round picks allow good teams to pay their star players and still have money for the good players too. I like Williams and at this point after the draft picks have been spent I vote to keep him knowing that the Giants will have to pay him about 20 times what they'd pay those picks. That's why the trade was idiotic. So was the trade for Ogletree. The Giants have been as bad in the front offense as they've been on the field. They're suckers for other teams. They've been get right games for opposing QBs and get right cap space and draft capital for opposing GMs. The Giant have the worst record in the NFL since 2017 on merit. Joe Judge has a monumental task trying to overcome the Mara/Gettleman player evaluation and acquisition machine.

This is actually the best argue against the Williams trade

"This is a first round impactful player in his mid 20�s, the 3 rd and 4 th pick next season were no sure thing to garner his kind of value"

But this isn't the debate. They still have to pay him the same amount in FA to sign him. He's not taking a discount because the Giants trading for him.

that when the Giants bring a real edge rusher in, and the Defensive line with Williams starts obliterating our opponents because they have some horses teaming up with them, that those of you who are panning this move, and saying that players like WIlliams are a dime a dozen, easily obtained, and not worth the money, will step up and admit how badly you evaluated this.

WIlliams is not just a space eater. He is an upper tier Defensive lineman. He performed consistently and impactfully in a defensive scheme that was over the heads of the entire defense, and as part of a very badly coached unit. He also came from a very suspect Jets defensive scheme, with equally bad coaching.

You guys are not seeing the forest for the trees. One of the things this Giants FO can do and has been able to do fairly consistently (with the exception of Marvin Austin, and I maintain his issue was in his head and not about his talent) is identify and bring in really good Defensive Tackles. But their good ones have all been either 1's or 2's in the draft. They will save using a 1 or a 2 in the draft to get another player of WIlliams ability and will be able to use those picks on other areas of need and hopefully bring in an upper echelon player in each instance.

There are not a plethora of really good DTs across the league, and even rarer are above average DTs drafted in the 3rd or lower rounds.

I want to also remind you that the arguments you are advancing about Williams were same arguments being made when Linval Joseph's rookie contract ended. The Giants let him go and he has only been one of the most impactful DTs in the league since then. I was among those that thought we should let Joseph walk instead of pay him elite DT money. Boy was that a bad move.

We replaced Linval with Snacks, which at first blush seemed like a great move. Snacks, however, was not the leader we needed. He demurred, and his attitude in this regard sucked. By all accounts Williams is a leader, with a great mentality to go along with his talent. This talent was fully on display during his Giants tenure, as was his attitude.

I know that none of this will persuade those of you who have dug your heels in on this one. You have invested yourselves in panning this move. I am going on record as endorsing the Giants retaining Williams and bringing in a premier ER and an above average LB. They do this and the CBs grow up and Peppers plays to his potential - and the Giants Defense will be restored.

The Giants need to have a fearsome defense again. That is Giants football. A player like Williams takes you a step closer to this imo. Bring in the Defensive horses baby. That's what I'm talking about

Joseph went off to Minny and overachieved - and the first thing he credited it to was improved coaching from Minny that helped him improve his stance and technique.

The mere fact that you need to add more resources around Williams to see his value should be enough to convince you he won't be worth anywhere near what he expects to get paid. The cherry on that sundae is that the non-competitive Giants lit a 3rd and 4th round pick on fire to get a trial of his services.

Calling the Jets poorly coached and run is funny when you consider where the finger is being pointed from. Bowles wasn't a bad defensive coach, and neither is Gregg Williams.

In comment 14780153 arniefez said:

Quote:

I'll guess the Giants pay Williams 13 million a year for 4 years with about 35 million guaranteed. Of course it could be more. The two draft picks will make about a million each for four years. So Williams costs 35 million and the two draft picks over 3 years cost 6 million. about 6 times not 20 times for both about 12 times for each.

If we ink LW for $13M/yr then LW is represented by the worst agent(s) in the NFL.

Williams is part of a scheme flexible unit with all season long rotation based staying power as a unit.

We agree that he will get more from one of 32 teams than that floor and ceiling was worth in the past. In the past. But not after $1.5B can be spent chasing the non star players who teams will not sign.

We agree that without the threat of a franchise tag we would have to spend more to get him

Using the same money for other hope to be available to us FA is of course debatable and sounds very good if other better players do in fact in the future become available to us at reasonable pay for performance ratios ( in the going forward FA priced market...they all will be over priced compared to past pay for performance ratios. )

None of us think a league with David Tepper's in it is going to stop with just overpaying coaches?

To me, as the time comes closer its hard to call the best option forward. Depends on what we can get him for. I sure hope we have self imposed or org imposed limits for a very good, but not essential, path forward.

I like Eric Li's suggestion. Sign Tomlinson longer term to remove the threat of him getting ridiculous FA money and franchise LW into a reasonable contract. That path minimizes team future risk while exerting as much downward pressure as we can given the past situation the trade put us in

In comment 14780181 Eric on Li said:

Quote:

In comment 14780155 Thegratefulhead said: Quote: In comment 14780144 Eric on Li said: Quote: is it better to have overpaid and kept the picks or a more reasonable contract and no picks? If either was a guaranteed outcome it would be easier to say, but since neither is it would seem "wait and see" is probably the best approach. They certainly rolled the dice but it's also not out of the question that Williams is a player worthy of rolling the dice on. What evidence do you possess that says we will sign him for less because we traded for him? I can point to quote of William's that says no discount. What is your supporting evidence to your claim? I have no idea what we will sign him for, but I can all but guarantee a 1 year tag will be less years and less total guarantee than whatever he or any other comparable FA will receive on open market - which is why that's been my preferred option since the day the trade happened. What % of UFA contracts end up with dead money at some point? 99.9%? The nature of UFA is that anyone in demand gets close to the top dollar for their position on a 4-6 year deal even if they aren't an elite player (as Solder and Vernon both did). That may still be what the extension price for Williams is long term, but by tagging him we can get him on the field without necessarily being the team to give him that. I doubt we do this but if we wanted to I believe we could tag him both this year and next, getting him on 2 low risk short term deals, and then let him walk via UFA and probably get back a comp pick on top of the 2.5 years on the field (and ZERO dead money).

you want to pay that for LW?
Franchise tag for DE - ( New Window )

Are the Giants going to pay him like an interior DL, or like a DE?

Also, I'll repeat what I said on the other thread: where is the proof that Williams was a big difference maker? The Giants conceded 30+ points in 5 of the 8 games Williams played. And when Dallas (172 yards) and Philly (Boston Scott 4 TDs in 2 games) wanted to run the ball against us, they did so easily.

If we're going to pay someone $15-$18M, I would think the case for the player would be obvious. But as far as I can tell the case doesn't go much past the support staff saying the juice was worth the squeeze.

Eric on LI

In comment 14780220 jcn56 said:

Quote:

Joseph went off to Minny and overachieved - and the first thing he credited it to was improved coaching from Minny that helped him improve his stance and technique. The mere fact that you need to add more resources around Williams to see his value should be enough to convince you he won't be worth anywhere near what he expects to get paid. The cherry on that sundae is that the non-competitive Giants lit a 3rd and 4th round pick on fire to get a trial of his services. Calling the Jets poorly coached and run is funny when you consider where the finger is being pointed from. Bowles wasn't a bad defensive coach, and neither is Gregg Williams.

and Jonathan Hankins was a #2 pick in the draft -- a 3 & 4 in the following year does not equal the value of a #2 pick. Greg William's coaching style requires aggressive maverick's. I don't think it's a style that plays well anymore -- and the Jets had a horribly inconsistent team last year -- on both sides of the ball.

give up on someone with his talent and at his age. You create a winning culture with coaching and adding talent. Now don't blast me when I say this because I am not comparing LW to LT. But I am comparing the situation. LT's great talent was further enhanced with coaching (Parcells and Belichick), culture, and teammates most importantly team captain Harry Carson and other Lb's added

In comment 14780235 Go Terps said:

Quote:

Are the Giants going to pay him like an interior DL, or like a DE? Also, I'll repeat what I said on the other thread: where is the proof that Williams was a big difference maker? The Giants conceded 30+ points in 5 of the 8 games Williams played. And when Dallas (172 yards) and Philly (Boston Scott 4 TDs in 2 games) wanted to run the ball against us, they did so easily. If we're going to pay someone $15-$18M, I would think the case for the player would be obvious. But as far as I can tell the case doesn't go much past the support staff saying the juice was worth the squeeze.

LW will be viewed as a DT. And that's for the best because the projected conservative FT tags - and these are fluid - are $16M+ for DTs and $19M+ for DE.

The best move right now is this - eat the loss of the draft picks for LW. And don't sign him. Hard lesson learned.

And use $16-19M that would have been used for LW on more pressing needs.

what was LW's salary this past season? How many people thought that was a bad deal when the Jets picked up that option? When he hit the trade market there were clearly teams out there who didn't think his salary was under water.

The NYG are going to have almost $100m free to spend this year. Mara said they aren't going overboard with FA like they did in 2016. A low risk 1 year deal at a fractionally higher AAV as last year seems like a great use of that present day flexibility to defer future risk since the main alternative it would prohibit would be bigger/riskier long term UFAs.

And there will still be plenty of room to make an abundance of mid-level value signings we all want more of (like Golden last year).

I have never been one of the pessimists on the Williams trade. If the point of this rebuild is to start with solidifying both lines, Williams is a key to doing just that.

In comment 14780238 gidiefor said:

Quote:

and Jonathan Hankins was a #2 pick in the draft -- a 3 & 4 in the following year does not equal the value of a #2 pick. Greg William's coaching style requires aggressive maverick's. I don't think it's a style that plays well anymore -- and the Jets had a horribly inconsistent team last year -- on both sides of the ball.

Not sure what you mean - a 2nd rounder doesn't equate to a 3rd and a 4th? This is a FREE AGENT we're talking about. They didn't just trade the 3rd and 4th rounder to get a couple of years of Williams, just half a season before he hit FA.

Say what you want about the Jets consistency (which lately, the Giants could only dream about unfortunately). Both Bowles and Williams are good defensive coaches - they have coached some very aggressive and productive defenses, particularly interior linemen.

One couldn't get much out of LW, the other decided he wanted him gone.

And now the Giants traded 2 picks and the discussion is whether they should compound that mistake by paying him edge rusher money for being a good run stopper who hasn't lived up to his potential of possibly more.

The best argument on this thread is that the Giants like a lot of the league are going to have a lot of money to throw around, so there'll be plenty to burn. And even in that case, I'd rather see them retain more, second tier FAs to bolster some really shitty positions on the roster than throw $18M at Williams. I'd rather pay $18M to Golden to be honest. If we're going to burn money, burn it on an edge rusher who has at least proven himself before.

the latest narrative??

Quote:

If we're going to pay someone $15-$18M, I would think the case for the player would be obvious. But as far as I can tell the case doesn't go much past the support staff saying the juice was worth the squeeze.

References to support staff? Fuck us all.

start with whatever round number you want for their total cap space. Let's say 80m.

Who are you looking to add with the full $80m, that you can't get with the $60m you'd have available after tagging LW?

Also i'm not being snarky, it's an honest question bc from my POV in either scenario you can add 5+ guys on 1 year deals at a higher AAV than Markus Golden got last year and still only be half way there. Or 2 or 3 bigger level signings like Conklin or Schobert (depending on how they structure year 1 #).

So if you like Williams at all as a player and think there's a better chance our own spending would cancel a comp pick next year vs. this year, it seems like a no brainer to tag. I don't see what he prohibits other than just having more cap room itself.

In comment 14780266 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

the latest narrative?? Quote: If we're going to pay someone $15-$18M, I would think the case for the player would be obvious. But as far as I can tell the case doesn't go much past the support staff saying the juice was worth the squeeze. References to support staff? Fuck us all.

If there's a narrative being spun, it's that Leonard Williams was a big difference maker worth paying premium money. Shit, Gettleman himself had to spin the justification for the trade repeatedly at his press conference.

It doesn't matter, the Williams signing was a foregone conclusion when the trade was made. If they don't sign him how does Gettleman look?

don't sign him, I guess we'll have to blame the support staff....

you make it sound like the Williams signing being a foregone conclusion is a negative.

Wasn't another foregone conclusion that Garrett would be the HC next year?

a poster told me that Golden is overrated despite what his stats say. But LW is underrated despite what his stats say.

You really can't make it up around here anymore.

Golden had double digit sacks with no complimentary help and he had nearly 20 tackles for loss, which led the team. He also 72 total tackles. Recovered a fumble.

Meanwhile, LW's combined Jets/Giants stats for the year equated to .5 sack, 3.5 tackles for loss, 3 passes defended, 46 total tackles. One forced fumble, no fumbles recovered.

Hey, but at least LW almost got to the QB...

In comment 14780276 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

don't sign him, I guess we'll have to blame the support staff....

Yes we would - for throwing away two draft picks.

See, that's how ridiculous the trade was - it put the Giants in a lose-lose situation. Now we're just stuck hoping for the less shitty option.

In comment 14780258 jcn56 said:

Quote:

Not sure what you mean - a 2nd rounder doesn't equate to a 3rd and a 4th?

I would think it would be obvious that what I mean is that instead of spending a 1rst or a 2nd round pick on a potentially comparable DT talent - the opportunity to have dibs on LW was purchased for a 3rd round pick this coming draft and a 4th round pick in a following year (and btw also returnable for a 3rd rd comp pick in the following year if not signed instead of losing 3rd rd comp pick capital if signed as a FA).

I also maintain and will continue to maintain that the grade on LW should be equal to the talent expected of a first round pick, for which opportunity the acquisition was purchased for the expenditure of much lesser draft capital. Those of you who don't like that comparison and are so anxious to spend this capital on more mid level talent I am going to continue to take issue with.

In comment 14780277 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

you make it sound like the Williams signing being a foregone conclusion is a negative. Wasn't another foregone conclusion that Garrett would be the HC next year?

I'm sure there's a point somewhere in this post...

In comment 14780279 Go Terps said:

Quote:

See, that's how ridiculous the trade was - it put the Giants in a lose-lose situation. Now we're just stuck hoping for the less shitty option.

No - the lose lose situation is bringing back Remmers and Golden -- which is what you have proposed -- as they are two players that can't hold Leonard Williams boot straps let alone equal his value to the team.

and I for one can't believe that there are proposals above suggesting that paying Golden $18 million is a better use of the Giants resources than retaining LW.

In comment 14780211 gidiefor said:

Quote:

that when the Giants bring a real edge rusher in, and the Defensive line with Williams starts obliterating our opponents because they have some horses teaming up with them, that those of you who are panning this move, and saying that players like WIlliams are a dime a dozen, easily obtained, and not worth the money, will step up and admit how badly you evaluated this. WIlliams is not just a space eater. He is an upper tier Defensive lineman. He performed consistently and impactfully in a defensive scheme that was over the heads of the entire defense, and as part of a very badly coached unit. He also came from a very suspect Jets defensive scheme, with equally bad coaching. You guys are not seeing the forest for the trees. One of the things this Giants FO can do and has been able to do fairly consistently (with the exception of Marvin Austin, and I maintain his issue was in his head and not about his talent) is identify and bring in really good Defensive Tackles. But their good ones have all been either 1's or 2's in the draft. They will save using a 1 or a 2 in the draft to get another player of WIlliams ability and will be able to use those picks on other areas of need and hopefully bring in an upper echelon player in each instance. There are not a plethora of really good DTs across the league, and even rarer are above average DTs drafted in the 3rd or lower rounds. I want to also remind you that the arguments you are advancing about Williams were same arguments being made when Linval Joseph's rookie contract ended. The Giants let him go and he has only been one of the most impactful DTs in the league since then. I was among those that thought we should let Joseph walk instead of pay him elite DT money. Boy was that a bad move. We replaced Linval with Snacks, which at first blush seemed like a great move. Snacks, however, was not the leader we needed. He demurred, and his attitude in this regard sucked. By all accounts Williams is a leader, with a great mentality to go along with his talent. This talent was fully on display during his Giants tenure, as was his attitude. I know that none of this will persuade those of you who have dug your heels in on this one. You have invested yourselves in panning this move. I am going on record as endorsing the Giants retaining Williams and bringing in a premier ER and an above average LB. They do this and the CBs grow up and Peppers plays to his potential - and the Giants Defense will be restored. The Giants need to have a fearsome defense again. That is Giants football. A player like Williams takes you a step closer to this imo. Bring in the Defensive horses baby. That's what I'm talking about

Good post Gidie

In comment 14780284 Go Terps said:

Quote:

In comment 14780277 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: you make it sound like the Williams signing being a foregone conclusion is a negative. Wasn't another foregone conclusion that Garrett would be the HC next year? I'm sure there's a point somewhere in this post...

One very blatant point is the one about Garrett being our HC. And as soon as Rhule was announced by Carolina, you proudly announced to the board, "As I called it for weeks, Garrett is going to be the HC". Followed by a slam against the team.

That doesn't get tiresome to you?

In comment 14780269 Eric on Li said:

Quote:

start with whatever round number you want for their total cap space. Let's say 80m. Who are you looking to add with the full $80m, that you can't get with the $60m you'd have available after tagging LW? Also i'm not being snarky, it's an honest question bc from my POV in either scenario you can add 5+ guys on 1 year deals at a higher AAV than Markus Golden got last year and still only be half way there. Or 2 or 3 bigger level signings like Conklin or Schobert (depending on how they structure year 1 #). So if you like Williams at all as a player and think there's a better chance our own spending would cancel a comp pick next year vs. this year, it seems like a no brainer to tag. I don't see what he prohibits other than just having more cap room itself.

I haven't studied the FA list closely yet. I have always felt the best way to approach FA is to wait for the second wave where teams start the cutting process and real bargain hit the market.

I would definitely stay in touch with Golden and ask him to check back in with us when he thinks he has a solid offer. If he's in the $10-12M range, I think that's a bargain. And certainly keep my eye on Judon for obvious reasons...Dupree concerns me. Did the light finally go off and now he's off to the races with great production? Or was his 2019 fool's gold and a guy who finally went all out in his contract year?

But the more pressing problems are on the OL where I think every player on that OL should not be - to quote Terps - on scholarship. I think they are all question marks right now. The only one arguably worth keeping is Hernandez based on his rookie contract.

So if we have all of this money, I would earmark a good portion of it on the OL. Unfortunately, how can anyone trust Gettleman to make the right decisions to fix it...

In comment 14780278 bw in dc said:

Quote:

a poster told me that Golden is overrated despite what his stats say. But LW is underrated despite what his stats say. You really can't make it up around here anymore. Golden had double digit sacks with no complimentary help and he had nearly 20 tackles for loss, which led the team. He also 72 total tackles. Recovered a fumble. Meanwhile, LW's combined Jets/Giants stats for the year equated to .5 sack, 3.5 tackles for loss, 3 passes defended, 46 total tackles. One forced fumble, no fumbles recovered. Hey, but at least LW almost got to the QB...

Why do you keep bringing up sack totals when talking about LW. Its not his function. Its like judging Slayton on rushing yards, they are nice when it happens. Golden's role was sacks. LW's role is to clog up and collapse the middle, thus wrecking the whole line play. This opens up the sack opportunities for others, and shuts down the rushing game. It also gets pressure in the fact of the QB, which is what is stated in the text.

"No - the lose lose situation is bringing back Remmers and Golden -- which is what you have proposed -- as they are two players that can't hold Leonard Williams boot straps let alone equal his value to the team."

Okay, this is a gem.

Remmers can't hold LW's "boot straps". Fine.

But Golden can't hold LW's "boot straps"..?? At this point, I think it's the other way around. At least Golden gets to the QB, makes tackles for losses, and just makes more tackles.

The cost-benefit ratio for Golden is projecting to be much better than LW's.

In comment 14780211 gidiefor said:

Quote:

WIlliams is not just a space eater. He is an upper tier Defensive lineman. He performed consistently and impactfully in a defensive scheme that was over the heads of the entire defense, and as part of a very badly coached unit. He also came from a very suspect Jets defensive scheme, with equally bad coaching.

This is opinion and not fact on which this entire posts rests. I personally do not put LW in the upper tier. Neither does the NFL because of what it took to acquire him and the Jets were willing to let him walk. Aaron Donald and the like are upper tier. We can agree to disagree there as it it is subjective.

What did we get for a top of the third round pick? Wins?

We got "dibs" Fucking "dibs" for Valuable picks. We got the right to tag him for those picks. Not good enough.

Don't go all Strawman. Not saying this is a fire worthy offense or makes anyone stupid. I just do not feel we received ANYTHING of value for those picks. I feel this is a deep draft for a few positions of need for us. A top of the 3rd round pick would be handy right about now.

I never proposed bringing back Remmers and Golden...it's incredible how people put words in your mouth around here.

I said (and have been saying) those signings made sense last year, and are the types of signings we should pursue this offseason. I think we should identify targets in the secondary FA market and sign a bunch of them to provide depth and supplement the players we draft.

We're talking about possibly paying Williams $18M. Last year the following players signed 1 year deals on new teams:

Ndamukong Suh (a better player than Williams) - 1 year, $9.25M
Gerald McCoy (a better player than Williams) - 1 year, $8M

Alternatively, $18M would have covered all of these players:

WR Breshad Perriman (1-$4M)
EDGE Shaq Barrett (1-$4M)
RT Jared Veldheer (1-$3.5M)
S Ha-Ha Clinton Dix (1-$3M)
LB Jamie Collins (1-$2M)

Those five guys together add up to $16.5M.

Instead of paying Williams $18M how about we some scouting of pro personnel around the league and get value in the 2020 secondary free agent market?

Quote:

Williams is a synergystic add Mike in Prescott : 10:43 am : link On his own, it doesn't look like he adds that much value. But what he does do is make those around him better. I actually expect that our line will become a top unit in relatively short order (if we are able to get a premium edge player). I view him as a "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" type of addition.

+1.
This is all about what the Giants pay to re-sign him, right? Let's wait and see.

In comment 14780332 Go Terps said:

Quote:

I never proposed bringing back Remmers and Golden...it's incredible how people put words in your mouth around here. I said (and have been saying) those signings made sense last year, and are the types of signings we should pursue this offseason. I think we should identify targets in the secondary FA market and sign a bunch of them to provide depth and supplement the players we draft. We're talking about possibly paying Williams $18M. Last year the following players signed 1 year deals on new teams: Ndamukong Suh (a better player than Williams) - 1 year, $9.25M Gerald McCoy (a better player than Williams) - 1 year, $8M Alternatively, $18M would have covered all of these players: WR Breshad Perriman (1-$4M) EDGE Shaq Barrett (1-$4M) RT Jared Veldheer (1-$3.5M) S Ha-Ha Clinton Dix (1-$3M) LB Jamie Collins (1-$2M) Those five guys together add up to $16.5M. Instead of paying Williams $18M how about we some scouting of pro personnel around the league and get value in the 2020 secondary free agent market?

Hell yes!

I didn't call Garrett for weeks...it was a lot longer than that. I'm glad I was wrong, but let's not act like it was a crazy fucking thing to say. And I didn't post what you wrote...my post was in disbelief that I might actually end up being right about Garrett.

Criticizing the Giants isn't tiresome to me...seeing them make mistakes worth criticizing is.

Isn't it tiresome to rationalize and make excuses for them?

In comment 14780320 PatersonPlank said:

Quote:

Why do you keep bringing up sack totals when talking about LW. Its not his function. Its like judging Slayton on rushing yards, they are nice when it happens. Golden's role was sacks. LW's role is to clog up and collapse the middle, thus wrecking the whole line play. This opens up the sack opportunities for others, and shuts down the rushing game. It also gets pressure in the fact of the QB, which is what is stated in the text.

LW isn't trying to rush the passer on passing downs? You don't think one of the reason DG traded for LW was to get more sacks? A .5 sack for the year is embarrassing. Let's be honest.

Look, I get your point to a degree that there is an apple/orange piece to this. But if I'm going to pay ANYBODY on the DL $17M+ they had better rack up more than .5 sack per year. You'd better be getting 8-10+.

contract Williams will get.

A Hall of Famer like Aaron Donald gets $25M. A perennial Pro Bowler like Fletcher Cox gets $22M. Williams is in a tier below that and he should be paid that way.

You guys needs to spend some time looking at the DT & DE contracts. These are rare individuals and they get paid a lot of money. That's the market.

In comment 14780283 gidiefor said:

Quote:

In comment 14780258 jcn56 said: Quote: Not sure what you mean - a 2nd rounder doesn't equate to a 3rd and a 4th? I would think it would be obvious that what I mean is that instead of spending a 1rst or a 2nd round pick on a potentially comparable DT talent - the opportunity to have dibs on LW was purchased for a 3rd round pick this coming draft and a 4th round pick in a following year (and btw also returnable for a 3rd rd comp pick in the following year if not signed instead of losing 3rd rd comp pick capital if signed as a FA). I also maintain and will continue to maintain that the grade on LW should be equal to the talent expected of a first round pick, for which opportunity the acquisition was purchased for the expenditure of much lesser draft capital. Those of you who don't like that comparison and are so anxious to spend this capital on more mid level talent I am going to continue to take issue with.

I just wonder what games you're watching that you think this is anywhere close to fair value.

Williams was added to a bad defense and it remained - drum roll please - a bad defense.

His impact was negligible. People pointed out a statistical increase in run defense, which didn't translate to much else AND coincided with a weaker part of the schedule.

Now - you get to part with upwards of $15M *AND* a 3rd and a 4th.

If you're asking - do I think the Giants would be better off with LW *or* the FAs you could sign with a 3rd this year, a 4th next year, and $15M AAV for FA the next 3-5 years, I think there's no debate. Not only is Williams not an impact player, he's not even a very good player. He's an average player who flashes from time to time, whose most distinguishing characteristic is that he was drafted 6th overall.

A draft bust that the Giants didn't make, but will try to make up for by overpaying and trading away picks for the right to do so.

I'll give the Giants this much - they're consistent the past few years.

In comment 14780375 cosmicj said:

Quote:

contract Williams will get. A Hall of Famer like Aaron Donald gets $25M. A perennial Pro Bowler like Fletcher Cox gets $22M. Williams is in a tier below that and he should be paid that way. You guys needs to spend some time looking at the DT & DE contracts. These are rare individuals and they get paid a lot of money. That's the market.

The top DT contract signed last year was Grady Jarrett (age 26) at an average salary of $17M. I don't consider Williams to be in Jarrett's class as a player, and I don't think anyone would.

In comment 14780332 Go Terps said:

Quote:

I never proposed bringing back Remmers and Golden...it's incredible how people put words in your mouth around here. I said (and have been saying) those signings made sense last year, and are the types of signings we should pursue this offseason. I think we should identify targets in the secondary FA market and sign a bunch of them to provide depth and supplement the players we draft. We're talking about possibly paying Williams $18M. Last year the following players signed 1 year deals on new teams: Ndamukong Suh (a better player than Williams) - 1 year, $9.25M Gerald McCoy (a better player than Williams) - 1 year, $8M

Suh - is not a better player than Williams -- he is historically an outlier and not a team first player whereas Williams is a classic "team player"

Gerald McCoy will be 32 next year and is not a long term solution to anything - let alone a building team

Saying "those signings made sense last year, and are the types of signings we should pursue this offseason" is endorsing the signings of Remmers and Golden -- they were not good additions to the team last year and not building blocks by any stretch of the imagination -- it is a poor allocation of resources to make like signings or bring them back (which would be like signings) -- and paying an undisciplined Golden $18 million as opposed to WIlliams as is being bandied above would be a bad signing

You continue to grasp at straws, over simplify how a front office should work, call for backwards solutions, and contradict your own statements in the desperate throes of your anti Giants FO agenda -

the issue is his new contract value. If he gets open market dollars, I really would prefer it not be from NYG.

Especially, since that money should be going to the Edge first, imo.

In comment 14780337 Thegratefulhead said:

Quote:

In comment 14780332 Go Terps said: Quote: I never proposed bringing back Remmers and Golden...it's incredible how people put words in your mouth around here. I said (and have been saying) those signings made sense last year, and are the types of signings we should pursue this offseason. I think we should identify targets in the secondary FA market and sign a bunch of them to provide depth and supplement the players we draft. We're talking about possibly paying Williams $18M. Last year the following players signed 1 year deals on new teams: Ndamukong Suh (a better player than Williams) - 1 year, $9.25M Gerald McCoy (a better player than Williams) - 1 year, $8M Alternatively, $18M would have covered all of these players: WR Breshad Perriman (1-$4M) EDGE Shaq Barrett (1-$4M) RT Jared Veldheer (1-$3.5M) S Ha-Ha Clinton Dix (1-$3M) LB Jamie Collins (1-$2M) Those five guys together add up to $16.5M. Instead of paying Williams $18M how about we some scouting of pro personnel around the league and get value in the 2020 secondary free agent market? Hell yes!

yadda yadda 20/20 hindsight makes everything so easy. cherry picking the 5 absolute best FA signings from last offseason is a horrible argument.

it becomes more expensive (draft pick wise) if we sign him, which obviously would always be the goal to trade for him in the first place.

I don't like the picks getting more expensive if he signs. I have no issue with the player.

In comment 14780514 gidiefor said:

Quote:

In comment 14780332 Go Terps said: Quote: I never proposed bringing back Remmers and Golden...it's incredible how people put words in your mouth around here. I said (and have been saying) those signings made sense last year, and are the types of signings we should pursue this offseason. I think we should identify targets in the secondary FA market and sign a bunch of them to provide depth and supplement the players we draft. We're talking about possibly paying Williams $18M. Last year the following players signed 1 year deals on new teams: Ndamukong Suh (a better player than Williams) - 1 year, $9.25M Gerald McCoy (a better player than Williams) - 1 year, $8M Suh - is not a better player than Williams -- he is historically an outlier and not a team first player whereas Williams is a classic "team player" Gerald McCoy will be 32 next year and is not a long term solution to anything - let alone a building team Saying "those signings made sense last year, and are the types of signings we should pursue this offseason" is endorsing the signings of Remmers and Golden -- they were not good additions to the team last year and not building blocks by any stretch of the imagination -- it is a poor allocation of resources to make like signings or bring them back (which would be like signings) -- and paying an undisciplined Golden $18 million as opposed to WIlliams as is being bandied above would be a bad signing You continue to grasp at straws, over simplify how a front office should work, call for backwards solutions, and contradict your own statements in the desperate throes of your anti Giants FO agenda -

You're the one making shit up. Who wants to pay Golden $18M? I don't.

In comment 14780517 JonC said:

Quote:

the issue is his new contract value. If he gets open market dollars, I really would prefer it not be from NYG. Especially, since that money should be going to the Edge first, imo.

Both for me. When the 4th pick in the 3rd round comes along take a look at what centers are available. I think we are going to wish we had that pick. What did we get out of the Williams trade that is worth it?

Not commenting on the trade. That is done. It is now time to decide what to do.

The player
He has an excellent pedigree some said he was the best player in the draft when he came out
He played well for the Giants this year
He is still young
He has remained healthy
He seems to be a great guy

The scheme
Interior pressure is a key with mobile QBs they escape when edge rushers are too aggressive.
The best success vs. Prescott and Wentz comes when edge rushers contain and there is pressure up the middle.

The money
He clearly has value
How much will he cost?
What are the alternatives for the $$?

I have said before that I would tend to resign him or franchise him. Which gets you the player, gives a chance at extension and adds to your cap the next year when they come off the books if there is no extension.

I would try to draft two OTs and a Center with premium picks.

Use Free Agency to get ILB, S, ER.

In comment 14780537 Thegratefulhead said:

Quote:

In comment 14780517 JonC said: Quote: the issue is his new contract value. If he gets open market dollars, I really would prefer it not be from NYG. Especially, since that money should be going to the Edge first, imo. Both for me. When the 4th pick in the 3rd round comes along take a look at what centers are available. I think we are going to wish we had that pick. What did we get out of the Williams trade that is worth it?

I made that point the other day. Centers, Guards, Tight Ends, Safeties...positions that get devalued in the draft except for the bona fide college superstars.

Honestly, though, I think this whole discussion is pointless. Gettleman is going to do whatever it takes - whatever it costs - to sign Williams.

Period. End of discussion.

one will say Period. End of Discussion. When something actually is final.

So if Williams wants $25M/year Gettleman is paying it? Alrighty then...

In comment 14780517 JonC said:

Quote:

the issue is his new contract value. If he gets open market dollars, I really would prefer it not be from NYG. Especially, since that money should be going to the Edge first, imo.

I'm sort of in the same spot. I didn't like the investment of trade picks, but they are sunk cost at this point.

So unless Team LW is in some magnanimous mood and takes a significant discount off the projected market value for DTs, I say let him walk and use that money to solve bigger needs.

In comment 14780576 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

one will say Period. End of Discussion. When something actually is final. So if Williams wants $25M/year Gettleman is paying it? Alrighty then...

Absolutely. Comma. There's no way Gettleman lets him walk after trading for him.

LW and his agent are going to ask for what they believe he will get in free agency, or they are going to wait until free agency.

Oh, and by the way, why the hell wouldn't they wait until free agency...

In comment 14780587 bw in dc said:

Quote:

In comment 14780517 JonC said: Quote: the issue is his new contract value. If he gets open market dollars, I really would prefer it not be from NYG. Especially, since that money should be going to the Edge first, imo. I'm sort of in the same spot. I didn't like the investment of trade picks, but they are sunk cost at this point. So unless Team LW is in some magnanimous mood and takes a significant discount off the projected market value for DTs, I say let him walk and use that money to solve bigger needs.

Yep, that's where I'm at. We can certainly use LW, but at what cost ceiling. The Spotrac estimate is really interesting, I was speculating $10-12M.

You can see the statistical comps to similar players, the methodology, etc. And it's not like the tool just undervalues players due to a flawed methodology. It has Clowney valued at $20M, Jameis Winston at $26.7M, Shaq Barrett at $15.7M, and Amari Cooper at $19.7M.

And yet Williams is at $8.2M. Why do you think that is?

Saw that. Would like to know how they derived that number.

Just looking at the projected market for DTs- franchise tag and what other DTs have been compensated in the last two years (with similar production to LW) - I couldn't reconcile back to it.

Transition tag might actually be a decent move. It allows Team LW to test the market and then we have the rights of first refusal.

In comment 14780624 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

LW and his agent are going to ask for what they believe he will get in free agency, or they are going to wait until free agency. Oh, and by the way, why the hell wouldn't they wait until free agency...

Duhhhh maybe the FRANCHISE TAG? That is a lot of the reason for the trade IMO but Gettleman can't really say that. If he had gone elsewhere he may NOT have been available this year to NYG as he could have been signed or franchised. The Giants have a little leverage in that they can franchise him. They also have ensured that they did not lose control to another team.

1. Comparable players are selected based on age, contract status, and statistical production. The four selected comps for Williams are DaQuan Jones, Denico Autry, Henry Anderson, and Cameron Heyward.

2. A base calculated value is determined after adjusting the contracts of the players above as if signed at Williams's current age (25). A linear regression is performed, arriving at an initial value of a 5 year, $41,469,565 ($8.293 per) contract.

3. A statistical comparison is made between the above comp players and Williams's performance over the last two years. The stats included are Games Played %, Sacks, Tackles, Hurries, Stops, and Rating (I don't know how they arrive at Rating).

4. After applying the % change between those four players and Williams into the base calculated value (step 2), two values are achieved. The average of those two values becomes the calculated market value for Williams ($8.262M).

Because the thought of Gettleman applying anything close to that four step process is hilarious.

Spotrac describes it like this:

Quote:

An up-to-date look at the value rankings of all active NFL players based on a mathematical comparison of their current average salary against their cumulative "production points". These points are made up of major statistical categories relevant to that player's position. From there, we generate a z-score for each player among their position, to rank them with a "value". This True Value rating is what you see below. By default players must have played in 60% of available snaps in order to qualify.

Basically, this tool measures the bang for the buck on each player. Spotrac has Williams listed as a DE, not a DT, which you would expect to help his value given that DE is a more expensive position and Williams only cost about $4.6 in 2019. You can see that the top of the list is dominated by young players: Arik Armstead, Joey Bosa, Yannick Ngakoue, Myles Garrett. So it should be an advantage for Williams that he is both in his rookie contract and being valuated as a DE.

So where did Williams rank as a DE value? 42nd in the NFL.

So if he's the 42nd best value at DE at $4.6M, what type of value is he going to be at $18M?

Do Spotrac's contract estimate and Value Ranking comprise a good case against signing him, or does Spotrac just join the long list of bad actors with an anti-Giants agenda?

.
Link - ( New Window )

Do we sign him before the market opens. That to a degree validates trading for him in season. Do we get a reasonable deal. Does he play well.

None of these things are established yet. Opinions already formed about acquiring him are pretty much diarrhea of the mouth to this point.

It says my house is worth 450k, but if two or three or four buyers with deep pockets really want it b/c it's in a great neighborhood, with great schools, and great bones and it's the only one for sale - now all of a sudden it's worth more...

I don't think that SportsTrac takes into consideration the most important element to buying and selling - the market.

At the time, I thought it was a decent move. It is in hindsight that I believe the trade was bad. I thought we had a chance to win more games over the last 8. My evaluation of our team was incorrect. I am not a professional scout. Gettleman can and should be held accountable for his evaluation of the roster. It is what he is paid to do.

using a Sport track guide printed guide to determine what the value of of a player is -- the market determines the value of a player -- to suggest otherwise is the height of naivety and is just a flawed premise to base a discussion about this on.

Just more false premises for discussion as is par for the course above

In comment 14780659 bw in dc said:

Quote:

Saw that. Would like to know how they derived that number. Just looking at the projected market for DTs- franchise tag and what other DTs have been compensated in the last two years (with similar production to LW) - I couldn't reconcile back to it. Transition tag might actually be a decent move. It allows Team LW to test the market and then we have the rights of first refusal.

That is a good point. If we do the transition tag(depending on the number) I would take back some of my objections to the move.

In comment 14780723 gidiefor said:

Quote:

using a Sport track guide printed guide to determine what the value of of a player is -- the market determines the value of a player -- to suggest otherwise is the height of naivety and is just a flawed premise to base a discussion about this on. Just more false premises for discussion as is par for the course above

How do you know what the market is for Williams? Further, how can the Giants objectively assess it when they've already spent draft picks to get him in the building?

You should hold off on calling people naive. Maybe start with something a little more simple...like not putting words in other people's mouths like you've done with me a couple times already on this thread.

In comment 14780737 Go Terps said:

Quote:

How do you know what the market is for Williams? Further, how can the Giants objectively assess it when they've already spent draft picks to get him in the building? You should hold off on calling people naive. Maybe start with something a little more simple...like not putting words in other people's mouths like you've done with me a couple times already on this thread.

I haven't put any words into your mouth -- i've used exactly what you've said, and others have said to make my comments. If you want to withdraw what you said - well alrighty then -- so far all I've read from you is a bunch of flawed malarky

In comment 14780723 gidiefor said:

Quote:

using a Sport track guide printed guide to determine what the value of of a player is -- the market determines the value of a player -- to suggest otherwise is the height of naivety and is just a flawed premise to base a discussion about this on. Just more false premises for discussion as is par for the course above

The market doesn't really determine the value of a player, it determines what the player gets paid. Production determines the value of a player. If the Giants end up paying a 3rd, a 4th, and $18M annually in cap hit to Williams, it doesn't mean he's worth that. It's just what the Giants ended up paying for him.

Did the market determine what Solder was worth? IMO, it would be hard to make a case he's worth what he's being paid.

Maybe I missed it in this thread but has anyone yet made an argument that Williams is going to give the Giants a discount in free agency or is going to sign before the FA period starts?

Would everyone agree that if Williams doesn't sign with the Giants before free agency starts, talks to other teams, and doesn't give the Giants a discount that giving up a 3rd and a 4th was a poor use of assets by the GM?

In comment 14780723 gidiefor said:

Quote:

using a Sport track guide printed guide to determine what the value of of a player is -- the market determines the value of a player -- to suggest otherwise is the height of naivety and is just a flawed premise to base a discussion about this on. Just more false premises for discussion as is par for the course above

There's "fair value" and there's "market value". I think we all assume Leonard Williams is going to get more on the open market than his Spotrac value assessment - that's the entire point of the argument.

Put simply, he's not worth what he's ultimately going to cost. If you told me they could sign him for $8-10 million, while I disagreed with the trade I could live with that. I think that's extremely unlikely.

In comment 14780675 Go Terps said:

Quote:

Because the thought of Gettleman applying anything close to that four step process is hilarious.

Fantastic. So when Williams is signed for $17M, we'll get daily cracks about Gettleman and his computer guys not be able to add.

I'm waiting with baited breath.

In comment 14780744 rsjem1979 said:

Quote:

In comment 14780723 gidiefor said: Quote: using a Sport track guide printed guide to determine what the value of of a player is -- the market determines the value of a player -- to suggest otherwise is the height of naivety and is just a flawed premise to base a discussion about this on. Just more false premises for discussion as is par for the course above There's "fair value" and there's "market value". I think we all assume Leonard Williams is going to get more on the open market than his Spotrac value assessment - that's the entire point of the argument. Put simply, he's not worth what he's ultimately going to cost. If you told me they could sign him for $8-10 million, while I disagreed with the trade I could live with that. I think that's extremely unlikely.

Good post.

Some people don't seem to be grasping that you can like the player Williams, want to keep him here (the picks are a sunk cost) but still think it's malpractice by the GM to give up picks like that for a rental.

I don't want to beat the dead-horse on this, but OP (who made a nice post) mentioned the picks, so it's fair-game to discuss them here IMO.

Quote:

No - the lose lose situation is bringing back Remmers and Golden -- which is what you have proposed -- as they are two players that can't hold Leonard Williams boot straps let alone equal his value to the team.

Made up.

Quote:

Saying "those signings made sense last year, and are the types of signings we should pursue this offseason" is endorsing the signings of Remmers and Golden

Made up.

Both times you put words in my mouth. I never suggested resigning Golden or Remmers. I've said the opposite...they were good cheap signings for 2019, and we should pursue similar signings in the 2020 free agent market.

It isn't complicated...but then again neither is understanding that paying Williams $18M is foolish, and you're struggling with that too.

In comment 14780744 rsjem1979 said:

Quote:

There's "fair value" and there's "market value". I think we all assume Leonard Williams is going to get more on the open market than his Spotrac value assessment - that's the entire point of the argument. Put simply, he's not worth what he's ultimately going to cost. If you told me they could sign him for $8-10 million, while I disagreed with the trade I could live with that. I think that's extremely unlikely.

maybe read Bill2's assessment above of how to determine what the value of this year's contract dollars are for Leonard WIlliams -- he's the only one above to make a sound market analysis -- everything else is based on knee jerk reactions to flawed presumptions - or Go Terp's continuing dialogue on how to destroy the Giants by looking backward to determine how to stay fluid and acquire bargain talent onto the team.

I get that everyone wants a bargain -- but it's all relative. Williams is a valuable commodity. He is not just a has been that you are taking a gamble on. He's got all the ideal qualities you want on the team and he's just stepping into his prime.

In comment 14780753 Go Terps said:

Quote:

No - the lose lose situation is bringing back Remmers and Golden -- which is what you have proposed -- as they are two players that can't hold Leonard Williams boot straps let alone equal his value to the team. Made up. Saying "those signings made sense last year, and are the types of signings we should pursue this offseason" is endorsing the signings of Remmers and Golden Made up. Both times you put words in my mouth. I never suggested resigning Golden or Remmers. I've said the opposite...they were good cheap signings for 2019, and we should pursue similar signings in the 2020 free agent market. It isn't complicated...but then again neither is understanding that paying Williams $18M is foolish, and you're struggling with that too.

Really semantics Go Terps -- what's the difference between saying they were good signings and we should make the same types again - and saying that you are endorsing those signings? There's no difference dude.

You don't see the difference in signing Golden and Remmers to cheap 1 year deals and paying them expensive 3 or 4 year deals?

Signing Golden and Remmers made good sense last year. They were cheap and we got a lot out of them relative to their cost. Those are the types of signings we should be pursuing again in 2020. What aren't you understanding?

In comment 14780675 Go Terps said:

Quote:

Because the thought of Gettleman applying anything close to that four step process is hilarious.

That made my day. I needed a good laugh.

Imagine if he even tried? After a few minutes of thinking, it would be like the tryptophan kicked in after eating Chinese food and he'd have to close his door to take a nap...

we don't have to wait until he's signed for the Clown Show to pop in.

Quote:

I get that everyone wants a bargain -- but it's all relative. Williams is a valuable commodity.

And what Spotrac has attempted to do is put a number on that value based on Williams's level of play. You don't like that number, so your response is to tell us it's all relative. Relative to what? So if some other DL-hungry team is desperate and offers Williams $18/per, that makes it a good move? Didn't we just see the Giants make that exact mistake with Solder?

It is NEVER a good idea to overpay based on what the market says (or you think it says). Unless the player is special, there is always someone else you can get to fill the role at a lower cost. What the hell did we draft BJ Hill, RJ McIntosh, and Chris Slayton for if not for that?

Williams is not a special player. Let him go get paid somewhere else...we can still give up 3 TDs to Boston Scott without him.

In comment 14780293 gidiefor said:

Quote:

In comment 14780279 Go Terps said: Quote: See, that's how ridiculous the trade was - it put the Giants in a lose-lose situation. Now we're just stuck hoping for the less shitty option. No - the lose lose situation is bringing back Remmers and Golden -- which is what you have proposed -- as they are two players that can't hold Leonard Williams boot straps let alone equal his value to the team. and I for one can't believe that there are proposals above suggesting that paying Golden $18 million is a better use of the Giants resources than retaining LW.

Hold on the guy with double digit sacks is less valuable than a run stuffing DT?

Water carrier.

give DG an out.

The press release when/if LW doesn't sign...

DG made the move with JB's system in mind. Now that he's no longer the DC - we couldn't overpay for a player that just doesn't fit the new system that Graham is going to run.

And there ya go - the Jints spin to get out of the sunken cost.

In comment 14780757 gidiefor said:

Quote:

In comment 14780744 rsjem1979 said: Quote: There's "fair value" and there's "market value". I think we all assume Leonard Williams is going to get more on the open market than his Spotrac value assessment - that's the entire point of the argument. Put simply, he's not worth what he's ultimately going to cost. If you told me they could sign him for $8-10 million, while I disagreed with the trade I could live with that. I think that's extremely unlikely. maybe read Bill2's assessment above of how to determine what the value of this year's contract dollars are for Leonard WIlliams -- he's the only one above to make a sound market analysis -- everything else is based on knee jerk reactions to flawed presumptions - or Go Terp's continuing dialogue on how to destroy the Giants by looking backward to determine how to stay fluid and acquire bargain talent onto the team. I get that everyone wants a bargain -- but it's all relative. Williams is a valuable commodity. He is not just a has been that you are taking a gamble on. He's got all the ideal qualities you want on the team and he's just stepping into his prime.

The words "valuable commodity" have no meaning without criteria and methodology in place to make some determinations about his value. I read somewhere that Spotrac does something like that, can't remember where though.

Leonard Williams does have value. Minimizing the gap between that value and his cost is what's at issue. At this point the draft picks are sunk cost, if the market dictates an egregious overpay for Williams, they should be willing to let him walk away.

In comment 14780724 Thegratefulhead said:

Quote:

In comment 14780659 bw in dc said: Quote: Saw that. Would like to know how they derived that number. Just looking at the projected market for DTs- franchise tag and what other DTs have been compensated in the last two years (with similar production to LW) - I couldn't reconcile back to it. Transition tag might actually be a decent move. It allows Team LW to test the market and then we have the rights of first refusal. That is a good point. If we do the transition tag(depending on the number) I would take back some of my objections to the move.

It's shaping up as the safest strategy. In fact, I wouldn't negotiate with Team LW until I heard what the rest of the market thinks.

So instead of just defaulting to the franchise tag, because I think it's just too high based on LW's performance to date, we apply the transition tag and essentially avoid negotiating against ourselves.

If team X offers something > that the franchise tag, assume that's the max we'd be willing to go, we bow out and save some face because we weren't willing to pay above a certain threshold.

Now, personally I would just let LW walk, don't look back on the picks we traded, and reset to use that money for other needs. But going this way at least provides an escape hatch...

In comment 14780780 Go Terps said:

Quote:

Williams is not a special player. Let him go get paid somewhere else...we can still give up 3 TDs to Boston Scott without him.

And here is the core of disagreement -- Williams is a special player -- he fits all the requirement of the Giants with a new all team coach and all team attitude and an above average and impactful skill set for the position he plays

In comment 14780787 ajr2456 said:

Quote:

Hold on the guy with double digit sacks is less valuable than a run stuffing DT? Water carrier.

Yeah the guy with double digit sacks who make costly penalties at critical points of games

In comment 14779857 bw in dc said:

Quote:

In comment 14779830 UberAlias said: Quote: add a pass rusher to front 7 and he�ll have an even bigger impact. LW played the last 8 games for us. I listed the teams yesterday. I keep hearing this �big impact� he had on the rush defense. Well, of those 8 teams we played, 6 were in the bottom half of the league already in yards/game, 5 of those 6 were in the bottom third, and 3 of those 6 were in the bottom 5 overall. Only Philly, who we played twice, was basically in the top ten at #11. Their league average was 121 yards per game. In game 1 against us, they got 118 yards. In game 2, they rushed for 121. In other words, we really didn�t do much to stop them. Especially the Boston Scott, who they pulled off the street because they were decimated with injuries...

I watch football games and go y what I see. If you feel the need to consult with Excel number crunching to interpret what you see, more power to you.

Quote:

And here is the core of disagreement -- Williams is a special player -- he fits all the requirement of the Giants with a new all team coach and all team attitude and an above average and impactful skill set for the position he plays

So which is it? Is he special or does he have an above average and impactful skill set?

And I don't know what "all team coach" and "all team attitude" means. If you read my posts above about the two Spotrac tools, those are clearly defined and have a clear methodology. You're basically countering that with "all team coach" and "all team attitude".

These are the kinds of mental gymnastics Giants have been doing for years to justify their poor decisions. Aren't we done with the rationalizing yet?

In comment 14780847 bw in dc said:

Quote:

In comment 14780724 Thegratefulhead said: Quote: In comment 14780659 bw in dc said: Quote: Saw that. Would like to know how they derived that number. Just looking at the projected market for DTs- franchise tag and what other DTs have been compensated in the last two years (with similar production to LW) - I couldn't reconcile back to it. Transition tag might actually be a decent move. It allows Team LW to test the market and then we have the rights of first refusal. That is a good point. If we do the transition tag(depending on the number) I would take back some of my objections to the move. It's shaping up as the safest strategy. In fact, I wouldn't negotiate with Team LW until I heard what the rest of the market thinks. So instead of just defaulting to the franchise tag, because I think it's just too high based on LW's performance to date, we apply the transition tag and essentially avoid negotiating against ourselves. If team X offers something > that the franchise tag, assume that's the max we'd be willing to go, we bow out and save some face because we weren't willing to pay above a certain threshold. Now, personally I would just let LW walk, don't look back on the picks we traded, and reset to use that money for other needs. But going this way at least provides an escape hatch...

I don't want the escape hatch.I don't want to pay him anywhere near what he's looking for or either tag. Plus, I keep seeing g him referred to as a DT or interior lineman. He played a he'll of a lot of DE for us.

is puzzling.

Nothing points to him being special. The Jets, whose coaches were on the spot to start winning immediately, were willing to deal him. The market for him wasn't particularly strong. His stats to date are entirely underwhelming, and he's never been part of a defense known for being stout up the middle.

The only special part of Williams is what he expects to get paid - and right now, the two leading arguments in this thread that support that, IMO - are that there will be a lot of teams with money to spend in FO and that there aren't a lot of big men available in FA.

It really does sound like Defensive Nate Solder, with the added bonus of the cost of two draft picks to retain him. I think he's better that Solder, but not much better than average, and the Giants are lining up to pay him significantly more than that simply because they can.

more at DT than DE.

He played 367 snaps. 125 at DE. 242 at DT.

But the transition tag is the escape hatch because we would then have the right of first refusal.

So team X signs LW to a 4yr/$72M contract, say $40 guaranteed, and that's too high for the brain trust (which it should me), we simply don't match it and wish LW good luck.

Applying the franchise tag, as you know, locks you into the market rate of the current top five salaries at that position, or 120% of the player's current salary, whichever is >.

In comment 14780883 jcn56 said:

Quote:

is puzzling. Nothing points to him being special. The Jets, whose coaches were on the spot to start winning immediately, were willing to deal him. The market for him wasn't particularly strong. His stats to date are entirely underwhelming, and he's never been part of a defense known for being stout up the middle. The only special part of Williams is what he expects to get paid - and right now, the two leading arguments in this thread that support that, IMO - are that there will be a lot of teams with money to spend in FO and that there aren't a lot of big men available in FA. It really does sound like Defensive Nate Solder, with the added bonus of the cost of two draft picks to retain him. I think he's better that Solder, but not much better than average, and the Giants are lining up to pay him significantly more than that simply because they can.

Man, I dislike the Leonard Williams deal on its merits, but now that you brought Nate Solder into it we should run for the hills...

In comment 14780879 Go Terps said:

Quote:

And I don't know what "all team coach" and "all team attitude" means. If you read my posts above about the two Spotrac tools, those are clearly defined and have a clear methodology. You're basically countering that with "all team coach" and "all team attitude". These are the kinds of mental gymnastics Giants have been doing for years to justify their poor decisions. Aren't we done with the rationalizing yet?

Yes I see the mental gymnastics you are advancing and appreciate the lengths of exercise it takes to make the arguments you are making; ie. using completely arbitrary tools like Sport-trac and simplistic concepts like continue making short term investments in inferior players vs investing in strategic quality players in an a few areas of prioritized need, continuing to draft and recruit for depth, taking a few flyers to fill areas where necessary to enable the team to draft the best picks available and stock the team with team oriented players as is advocated by the new regime.

Wherein some players make tons and similar but as much.

Fans make too big a deal of this.

It's a combination of situation, timing, synergy , need?

It's not really helpful to complain someone 'made too much' without context. So what?

I'd sign him up.

in 2019 ensuring a losing record, and you�re wondering why potentially overpaying someone in the future is a concern?

In comment 14780872 gidiefor said:

Quote:

In comment 14780780 Go Terps said: Quote: Williams is not a special player. Let him go get paid somewhere else...we can still give up 3 TDs to Boston Scott without him. And here is the core of disagreement -- Williams is a special player -- he fits all the requirement of the Giants with a new all team coach and all team attitude and an above average and impactful skill set for the position he plays

https://www.northjersey.com/story/sports/nfl/jets/2018/12/23/ny-jets-leonard-williams-ejected-against-packers-throwing-punch/2402289002/

______


In comment 14780873 gidiefor said:

Quote:

In comment 14780787 ajr2456 said: Quote: Hold on the guy with double digit sacks is less valuable than a run stuffing DT? Water carrier. Yeah the guy with double digit sacks who make costly penalties at critical points of games

https://mobile.twitter.com/jclarknbcs/status/1204239096761257984?lang=en


🧐

Leonard Williams #99 elbows Carson Wentz #11 - ( New Window )

That by 2022, there will be at least 4 defensive linemen who were taken in the first two days of the 2020 draft that will be playing noticeably better than Williams.

I'd be willing to bet on it.

Williams is a special player? That is absurd.

He's not a top 10 player at his position. He's most definitely a group below that.

He's a good player. But is he better than Tomlinson even?

but has not been one in the NFL so far. There's a significant value gap and determination of actual value to be made.

While spotrac may not be an absolute bastion here, it's not off base to point out $17-18M per season is a huge financial gamble for NYG on LW. Not to mention the fact we have invested in exactly zero edge talent.

but Tomlinson is very average.

They're playing at a very high level.

Perhaps one of the best in a long time. People on both sides with good points.
I admit that I think the trade was a reasonable risk. I still do. It is clear watching what little tape I see that Williams is very quick, very strong and very active. He stands out vs the other Giants lineman - he is much more active. What we don't see is true production. I think a very good line coach can make him for efficient. When I watch I can see "it" is there, now they need to get "it" out of him.

LW is not a "DE" in the sense of a 4-3 DE. He would be a DT in a 4-3. A 3-4 DE is still really a DT, the OLB are the DEs now called ERs. So LW is a DT.

I don't think he will be signed for $8.2 mill, but I also do not think he gets anywhere near $18 mill, because on paper he has not produced.

As for DG getting an "out" by hiring the new staff who might have a different vision for the DLine. DG is not looking for an out. He traded for LW to sign him. If Graham and his staff and JJ decide that LW does not fit the Giants scheme on defense, he will not be resigned. That is not an "out." That is reality. We already have seen DG jettison non-performing FAs and draft picks.

Markus Golden - an enigma to me. Yes he was clearly their best ER player. Yes he had 10 sacks and good #s for TFLs. But he also had several inopportune penalties, too many. He did bust his butt through the season. Definitely a player playing for a contract. But as much as I liked him, I just don't get the "wow" factor when I watch him. Would I like him back. Yes. But at what cost and how long? He is clearly not top echelon. 5 yrs $60-$65? Too little? Too much? IDK

I think that we have no clue what Graham has planned on defense. We do not know what type of players he wants. Therefore we do not have a clue as to how to value Williams or Golden.