of 10 million 3 years ago. Sounds like more than it is. Anyone who thought we would only sign him back for 8 or 10 million was wrong. Second tier players are getting paid that now. Williams is worth it. We're definitely signing him back. We've already invested in him by trading those picks.
in the NFL in regards to annual salary. Five guys ahead of him would be Aaron Donald, Fletcher Cox, Grady Jarrett, Geno Atkins and Jurrel Casey. Right below the $15 mil annual mark are Marcel Dareus, Linval Joseph, Akiem Hicks and Sheldon Richardson.
Giants are in such a tough situation with this. On one hand, I don’t think Leonard Williams is the 6th best DT in the league, but on the other hand letting him walk means the Giants gave up a 3rd round pick for nothing. Gettlemen is already getting slammed for this trade, and letting him walk would make it even worse. Top DT Annual Salaries - ( New Window )
is another botch job by Rotoworld. I wish people would stop sourcing them.
This is what Ralph ACTUALLY said:
Quote:
In fact, the big splash might even come before free agency begins. The Giants are intent on re-signing defensive lineman Leonard Williams, which is the only way to justify the third- and fifth-round picks they sent to the Jets for him (that fifth-rounder becomes a fourth-rounder if the Giants re-sign him before March 18). And that could be costly since Williams has said he wants a "big contract" because he thinks he's a "top-tier interior defensive lineman."
That would put the 25-year-old Williams, at least in his mind, in the $15 million per year range.
Whether he gets that much or something less, he'll still eat up a considerable chunk of the Giants' available cap space. More could be gone if they try to re-sign linebacker Markus Golden, coming off his 10-sack season.
Couldnt disagree more there. Golden is a pretty one dimensional guy. So youre paying him strictly as a pass rusher. And strictly as a pass rusher I dont think hes worth it. I think our perspective is skewed by just how anemic that group has been in recent years. Sacks get you paid, but 10 isnt something to break the bank for.
The opposing argument is he'll only get better with more talent around him, but it still just feels like a bad idea to me.
As well. It looks like Graham wants to use his olb’s in coverage at times and Golden would be a massive liability in any coverage role. He’s not the versatile defender we should be looking for
would the Giants trade for him without agreeing to a new contract first?
This. I've generally been supportive of Gettleman, but I just can't believe he did this. Made no sense to trade for him when he is FA and you're 2-6 on the way to nowhere.
Silly trade from the get-go for a team in the stage the Giants Â
of 10 million 3 years ago. Sounds like more than it is. Anyone who thought we would only sign him back for 8 or 10 million was wrong. Second tier players are getting paid that now. Williams is worth it. We're definitely signing him back. We've already invested in him by trading those picks.
The cap hasn't gone up 50% in 3 years. The 2018 cap was ~170M, the 2020 cap is ~200M.
A 10M cap hit from 2018 would be equivalent to about 11.75M in 2020.
Regardless, the question is if Williams is worth allocating that much money. I'd argue he's a third tier player and their are a bunch of intriguing tackles and ends in UFA this year.
of 10 million 3 years ago. Sounds like more than it is. Anyone who thought we would only sign him back for 8 or 10 million was wrong. Second tier players are getting paid that now. Williams is worth it. We're definitely signing him back. We've already invested in him by trading those picks.
The cap hasn't gone up 50% in 3 years. The 2018 cap was ~170M, the 2020 cap is ~200M.
A 10M cap hit from 2018 would be equivalent to about 11.75M in 2020.
Regardless, the question is if Williams is worth allocating that much money. I'd argue he's a third tier player and their are a bunch of intriguing tackles and ends in UFA this year.
As Chevy Chase said, I was told there would be no math lol. Good post. $15 million is still a lot of $.
Gettleman almost has to sign him. I think there is a good chance that they will come to an agreement but do some wink-wink-nudge-nudge that he won't sign until after free agency to they only have to send a 5th instead of a 4th to the Jets.
I also think the Giants will let Golden walk and utilize that as part of the comp pick formula in 2021.
Gettleman almost has to sign him. I think there is a good chance that they will come to an agreement but do some wink-wink-nudge-nudge that he won't sign until after free agency to they only have to send a 5th instead of a 4th to the Jets.
I also think the Giants will let Golden walk and utilize that as part of the comp pick formula in 2021.
Personally, I feel that the comp picks will not be in play this year as we aren't losing top tier talent and we have money to spend. I don't want to go crazy in FA but at the same time I think it would be pointless to let more guys leave at higher prices than be active in FA.
A lot of people in here don’t understand simple economics Â
Gettleman almost has to sign him. I think there is a good chance that they will come to an agreement but do some wink-wink-nudge-nudge that he won't sign until after free agency to they only have to send a 5th instead of a 4th to the Jets.
I also think the Giants will let Golden walk and utilize that as part of the comp pick formula in 2021.
unless I missed it, the deadline for deciding if the 2021 pick is a 4th or a 5th has not been disclosed.
The deadline is probably April 2021, right before the draft.
How would you feel if the Giants signed Williams to a huge deal, and later in UFA they missed out on a good edge rusher because their cap resources were tied up?
You do agree resources are finite and the Giants should spend the most money on the best players, no?
why not go back to the 43? I don't know about having OLBs more involved in pass coverage, then what? Rush 3? Gotta have at least one OLB who is mostly a pass rusher, and Golden has done a good job at that, and is also still young.
You don't break the bank for him, but you don't break the bank for Williams. But Gettleman will be trying to convince Papa John of his importance considering what they gave up to get him. Or maybe it was Papa John who ordered that trade. Either way, it was poorly thought out. BBI knows better than to trade for a guy in the last year of his contract, especially since no one honestly thought the Giants would be competitive in 2019.
I think a dynamic pass rusher is way more important than a run stuffing 34 DT, considering the other DTs on the team. So, they give up a third this year and a 5th next year for 8 games of his services, or pay him what he demands, or use a tag on him. None seem like wise alternatives.
You aren’t good at evaluating DT play. Stick to your day job.
Just because the DT isn’t warren sapp doesn’t mean he’s not a good player. And a guy like sapp would get 25 million on the open market.
Williams needs help. He’s a solid two way DT who is entering his prime and doesn’t get hurt. Want better ? Good luck you won’t find it on the open market. Want less? Want to pay less? Enjoy that. Also, sacks are like WR TDs. Not necessarily overrated but not the end all be all either.
How would you feel if the Giants signed Williams to a huge deal, and later in UFA they missed out on a good edge rusher because their cap resources were tied up?
You do agree resources are finite and the Giants should spend the most money on the best players, no?
That I do agree with. But signing Williams doesn’t preclude them from signing another player. Plus, where is this elite passrusher? Forget the dude from Jax and BBI will go ape shit at the money the giants would have to pay him anyway.
Yes, it’s fair to compare Williams and his allotment of money to another possible get, but we don’t know where that other player even is or whether he’s available and we NEED another DLineman. Badly.
If this move costed us some passrushing stud? Sure I’d dislike the move too. But no one knows that. Bird in the hand. We need this guy.
why not go back to the 43? I don't know about having OLBs more involved in pass coverage, then what? Rush 3? Gotta have at least one OLB who is mostly a pass rusher, and Golden has done a good job at that, and is also still young.
You don't break the bank for him, but you don't break the bank for Williams. But Gettleman will be trying to convince Papa John of his importance considering what they gave up to get him. Or maybe it was Papa John who ordered that trade. Either way, it was poorly thought out. BBI knows better than to trade for a guy in the last year of his contract, especially since no one honestly thought the Giants would be competitive in 2019.
I think a dynamic pass rusher is way more important than a run stuffing 34 DT, considering the other DTs on the team. So, they give up a third this year and a 5th next year for 8 games of his services, or pay him what he demands, or use a tag on him. None seem like wise alternatives.
Golden is not a dynamic pass rusher, nor can he set an edge, and he doesn’t even have a position in the 4-3. We do need to have an OLB who is mostly a pass rusher but that person has to be a lot better than Golden or this scheme will never work.
That exact point you made is what drives me nuts with fans bitching about the money. Take Oliver vernon. Fans never stopped but what player or players did we lose out on? Was that money truly wasted ? Did we lose out on a guy like JJ Watt? Or some other beast? Nope, not really. Would the giants have been better off spending that money elsewhere and if so, where?
The grass is greener but where is it greener? Never that simple. Doesn’t mean the giants should spend like fools, but the money hand wringing here is so over the top at times, really all the time.
Nowhere does the piece say he’s asking for 15M. Amazing that so many Â
As for the cost, Gettleman knew it would be high when he made the deal, and is clearly ready to fork over a big contract for a guy he sees as worthy of that money.
I wouldn’t have made the trade, but DG clearly felt that we wouldn’t be able to land him in FA, so felt that the cost of a 3 and later 4/5 was a fair price to pay in order to land a really solid DT.
The sad thing is that the team needs SO MUCH in order to benefit from this type of trade. At a minimum we need a top EDGE player to benefit from Lawrence, Tomlinson and Williams collapsing the pocket. A top ILB and FS are also crucial or else quick slants over the middle will negate whatever pass rush we develop.
Clearly, landing a top edge player in a trade would have helped the defense more, but where are you gonna land one at near the same price as we paid for Williams?
A case can be made that past comparisons are as relevant as hand wringing because:
The available cap spending free to flood into the market this year is $1.6 Billion. Billion.
Its like a flood of wealthy Martians suddenly comes into your neighborhood with the ability to pay 2x for the same home as last year.
You aren't going to like it - and its feels unfair that house which isnt even close to best in the neighborhood gets more than the top mansion got last years - but its reality.
Williams contract ( and all the 2020 FA) is not a continuous part of the old sample size. He is the next sample over.
That said:
Imo, his contract at any size is not worth it unless they get edge capability as well. imo, I cant tell yet ( because I haven't sorted out the upcoming draft) whether it makes more sense to draft OL and FA defense or the other way around.
What I do know is that one good way to move forward as a team is to get one or more elite units while not having any bottom of the barrel. Our DL unit is close to being elite. Elite DL's require depth and good rotation and position flexibility. So there could be some multiplicative value to investments in this unit.
(Oddly, in most games and competitions; improving the competitive advantages you do have ( Starting pitching for the Mets, etc.) is faster out of the basement than spreading evenly regardless of competitive strengths and weaknesses.)
In sum we want an elite competitive advantage unit at an average unit price. Id be fine with Williams if the edge came from the draft or from guys who were also pressure capable linebackers or safeties.
Once the contract doesn't let us get out in 3-4 years or its in addition to a massive Edge FA contract then id consider it malpractice.
RE: Nowhere does the piece say he’s asking for 15M. Amazing that so many Â
As for the cost, Gettleman knew it would be high when he made the deal, and is clearly ready to fork over a big contract for a guy he sees as worthy of that money.
I wouldn’t have made the trade, but DG clearly felt that we wouldn’t be able to land him in FA, so felt that the cost of a 3 and later 4/5 was a fair price to pay in order to land a really solid DT.
The sad thing is that the team needs SO MUCH in order to benefit from this type of trade. At a minimum we need a top EDGE player to benefit from Lawrence, Tomlinson and Williams collapsing the pocket. A top ILB and FS are also crucial or else quick slants over the middle will negate whatever pass rush we develop.
Clearly, landing a top edge player in a trade would have helped the defense more, but where are you gonna land one at near the same price as we paid for Williams?
How does the using the draft picks ensure we land LW?
So you're basically eliminating every other outcome, assuming because fans won't like the price tag the Giants won't pursue the best pass rusher on the market, and because Gettleman traded for Williams he's the best option?
I hope the point is to collect the best combination of talent and value that fits in the budget.
RE: A contract like that would make Williams the 6th highest paid DT Â
in the NFL in regards to annual salary. Five guys ahead of him would be Aaron Donald, Fletcher Cox, Grady Jarrett, Geno Atkins and Jurrel Casey. Right below the $15 mil annual mark are Marcel Dareus, Linval Joseph, Akiem Hicks and Sheldon Richardson.
Giants are in such a tough situation with this. On one hand, I don’t think Leonard Williams is the 6th best DT in the league, but on the other hand letting him walk means the Giants gave up a 3rd round pick for nothing. Gettlemen is already getting slammed for this trade, and letting him walk would make it even worse. Top DT Annual Salaries - ( New Window )
You are absolutely right, but you don't compound the problem by giving him a cap crippling contract that makes him Olivier Vernon 2.0.
You aren’t good at evaluating DT play. Stick to your day job.
Just because the DT isn’t warren sapp doesn’t mean he’s not a good player. And a guy like sapp would get 25 million on the open market.
Williams needs help. He’s a solid two way DT who is entering his prime and doesn’t get hurt. Want better ? Good luck you won’t find it on the open market. Want less? Want to pay less? Enjoy that. Also, sacks are like WR TDs. Not necessarily overrated but not the end all be all either.
This is a good post. LW is a good, young player. He’s good vs the run and pressures the QB. He creates for other players. 15 mil per for that isn’t a bad deal.
So you're basically eliminating every other outcome, assuming because fans won't like the price tag the Giants won't pursue the best pass rusher on the market, and because Gettleman traded for Williams he's the best option?
I hope the point is to collect the best combination of talent and value that fits in the budget.
Getting the “best combination of talent and value” in FA is like finding a unicorn in your back yard.
You’re either going to overpay for good players or try to hit the lotto in the bargain bin of FA.
The Giants are probably going to overpay for some guys in FA — and that really isn’t terrible if the player is productive at an impact position of need.
So you're basically eliminating every other outcome, assuming because fans won't like the price tag the Giants won't pursue the best pass rusher on the market, and because Gettleman traded for Williams he's the best option?
I hope the point is to collect the best combination of talent and value that fits in the budget.
Getting the “best combination of talent and value” in FA is like finding a unicorn in your back yard.
You’re either going to overpay for good players or try to hit the lotto in the bargain bin of FA.
The Giants are probably going to overpay for some guys in FA — and that really isn’t terrible if the player is productive at an impact position of need.
That's beyond absurd.
LBH, because we can franchise him if we can’t get a deal done. Â
Call it tampering but I always suspected that there may have been some "informal" discussions about $ before deal was finalized. If he is seeking 15, he will settle for less - probaby in 13-14 range. More than we would like but totally outrageous - Yes/No?
As well. It looks like Graham wants to use his olb’s in coverage at times and Golden would be a massive liability in any coverage role. He’s not the versatile defender we should be looking for
Then you don't want guys like Clowney or Yannik here.
As well. It looks like Graham wants to use his olb’s in coverage at times and Golden would be a massive liability in any coverage role. He’s not the versatile defender we should be looking for
Then you don't want guys like Clowney or Yannik here.
Clowney isn’t one dimensional because he can play the run and pass rush, I’ve also seen yannick play man on a rb effectively. Imo, they both offer more versatility than Golden
you need to save that money to spend on difference makers. williams is not that. he's fine but not special. don't sign players to bad deals. let him walk and take the comp pick if that's the money he's going to get
'i like him but at 10-12 per crowd...wont wring my hands about it' Â
you need to save that money to spend on difference makers. williams is not that. he's fine but not special. don't sign players to bad deals. let him walk and take the comp pick if that's the money he's going to get
I agree with your take here. We should either let LW walk - and write it off as a poor trade and the lost picks are a sunk cost - or transition tag him. The TT is expected to be around $12.5M...and hope someone is a sucker and signs LW.
The Jets were not going to re-sign Williams. If he traded him for a 5th from a good team, it would have been a good trade. For a first time GM, he made a great trade. He must have convinced DG there were other interested teams. Giving up a 3rd plus a pick for a possible rental for a bad team.
He was on a 5th year option as a high pick. He was making a lot of money last year. It's a significant number to commit on a tag. My view ~18M for one year of Williams is silly.
Grady Jarret, that is your comp. The market recently spoke on a player with similar production.
you need to save that money to spend on difference makers. williams is not that. he's fine but not special. don't sign players to bad deals. let him walk and take the comp pick if that's the money he's going to get
I agree with your take here. We should either let LW walk - and write it off as a poor trade and the lost picks are a sunk cost - or transition tag him. The TT is expected to be around $12.5M...and hope someone is a sucker and signs LW.
I agree. Don’t throw good money after bad. No way Big Leonard is worth 15 million per year with a significant portion guaranteed . He is did but not a difference maker
RE: RE: A contract like that would make Williams the 6th highest paid DT Â
in the NFL in regards to annual salary. Five guys ahead of him would be Aaron Donald, Fletcher Cox, Grady Jarrett, Geno Atkins and Jurrel Casey. Right below the $15 mil annual mark are Marcel Dareus, Linval Joseph, Akiem Hicks and Sheldon Richardson.
Giants are in such a tough situation with this. On one hand, I don’t think Leonard Williams is the 6th best DT in the league, but on the other hand letting him walk means the Giants gave up a 3rd round pick for nothing. Gettlemen is already getting slammed for this trade, and letting him walk would make it even worse. Top DT Annual Salaries - ( New Window )
You are absolutely right, but you don't compound the problem by giving him a cap crippling contract that makes him Olivier Vernon 2.0.
Vernon wasn’t cap crippling. He got hurt which sucked and we had to suffer through one year of dead money, a year the giants were resetting things anyway, and they traded him for a plus player in Zietler.
He also helped the giants make the playoffs in 2016.
I laugh at the notion that the giants dl "is close to elite" Â
because they weren't stopping the run period IMO, the record of the team at the time wasn't a consideration.
DG and the Giants didn't want to watch us get shredded and liked this lineman, so they went ahead.
Now I believe he will get a contract. What $ they agree to we will see. I do think he is a very solid guy to have on the D.
As for MG, his ten sacks and pressures are great but he wasn't strong to my eyes vs the run.
guess is that we overpay to resign Williams. I like Williams, but don't think he's worth $15M. Just because we have a lot of cap space doesn't mean that we should overpay for Williams or anyone else. That's why I'm also against signing Ngakoue. There will be a huge bidding war for his services.
I like Williams, but we have spent high draft picks on the interior D line- Maybe not Gettleman when it comes to Tomlinson and Hill, but he went early with Lawrence.
Lawrence played well, Tomilnson was inspiring as well last year. Hopefully the new coaching staff can get Hill back on track.
I feel we just have way too many holes to fill to pay Williams this much. Even if it is market price.
RE: RE: LBH, because we can franchise him if we can’t get a deal done. Â
how many posters on the board would have him on their list of priority free agents for the Giants to sign at his projected price tag? my guess is close to zero. unless the team is genuinely getting a significant discount to his market price, he should not be a "priority" because DG made a moronic trade. that 3rd round pick, which basically was given away to earn the team a meaningless first bid option, is a sunk cost. signing him does not return the pick in some fashion. in fact it increases the cost in draft capital. this team has so many holes to fill that the sole question should be the value of the player relative to what else they believe they can get for that money.
if they hadn't traded for williams, he'd be on the same target tier Â
as Arik Armstead and any other top untagged interior DL (Jarran Reed, etc).
I'd personally rather tag him than give him the contract those guys get on the open market. Maybe even tag him twice.
Then decide whether to resign him down the road or let him walk in another offseason to recoup a 3rd round comp pick after getting a motivated contract year under the new staff.
in the NFL in regards to annual salary. Five guys ahead of him would be Aaron Donald, Fletcher Cox, Grady Jarrett, Geno Atkins and Jurrel Casey. Right below the $15 mil annual mark are Marcel Dareus, Linval Joseph, Akiem Hicks and Sheldon Richardson.
Giants are in such a tough situation with this. On one hand, I don’t think Leonard Williams is the 6th best DT in the league, but on the other hand letting him walk means the Giants gave up a 3rd round pick for nothing. Gettlemen is already getting slammed for this trade, and letting him walk would make it even worse. Top DT Annual Salaries - ( New Window )
You are absolutely right, but you don't compound the problem by giving him a cap crippling contract that makes him Olivier Vernon 2.0.
Vernon wasn’t cap crippling. He got hurt which sucked and we had to suffer through one year of dead money, a year the giants were resetting things anyway, and they traded him for a plus player in Zietler.
He also helped the giants make the playoffs in 2016.
Vernon + JPP + Snacks underperforming was cap crippling.
and in some cases, much better, in their careers than Williams has been, and will likely ever be.
And they're examples of why the last GM had to go.
So good to see people are still trying to justify this train wreck of a trade. I'm sure Mara is probably sitting in an office with his brother somewhere trying to do the same, while the Giants struggle to see if they can get past single digits in wins this year.
Unit Ability to have a strong rotation all season long
Unit Ability to play several scheme variations
Multiple players able to play the run and the pass
Unit Durability
Unit that doesn't take plays off
Its the closest unit to elite we have and the only one that could be above NFL average with moves to deepen or expand its skill sets.
My request was to evaluate using a broader view of the Units future and its greater than average part in making it harder for opponents to do well.
IF you wish to trade scornful remarks we can do that. Im bored, so its fine by me; but its up to you
RE: RE: RE: LBH, because we can franchise him if we can’t get a deal done. Â
Who looked very good. Other than that there isn’t much top end talent on DL. Of the 3 units on D, I guess that unit is the closest to elite which isn’t much since the other 2 are bottom of the league type units.
Disnt meant to offend or bother you in any way. The team sucks. This trade was awful and was a step back. And for me, throwing a huge contract at Williams makes it worse. On draft day? It gets even worse as we see the pool of talent on the board when the jets get our player with that high 3rd.
The Jets were not going to re-sign Williams. If he traded him for a 5th from a good team, it would have been a good trade. For a first time GM, he made a great trade. He must have convinced DG there were other interested teams. Giving up a 3rd plus a pick for a possible rental for a bad team.
He must have convinced DG there were other interested teams?
Hahahahahaha if he takes a pay cut after a sucker GM for a loser team traded for him, he should fire his agent.
Spot on. I've mentioned this several times over the last few months. Team LW should be asking for AT LEAST $17M to start. If not, they are doing LW a terrible disservice and not using all the available market information...
Williams is a good player but they pissed away too much to get a guy who would need a huge contract. It just didn’t make any sense to do it on this team that has massive holes at every unit.
This is a stacked class at WR and we need one (Id cut Tate - another terrible move). There will be a few Stud WRs on the board with that 3rd pick. We could have had one on a cheap deal instead we’re talking about overpaying for Williams.
Its sucks but they have so many holes they have to risk another bad pay performance overspend somewhere.
Its not going to happen by draft picks. We fool ourselves into thinking they are cheap. Yet their risk of failure in a time of need PLUS their development curves at some long learned positions ( QB/CB/DT/Center/OT) can skew the one derivative view of what's needed to build a team from the cellar
So there will be future performance to pay risks for a FA DL or a OL or a LB. After all, you don't want draft choices to learn on a team of perpetual losing.
Even a first round DT (which we cant afford) would have a 2 year development curve and an alternative opportunity cost. And having 2 good DTs next to Lawrence may well be an asymmetric unit. Neither of us is qualified to assess that possibility
I don't think the choices are so ridiculous as to be deserving of contempt. Seems a wide ( but no doubt very emotional) range of fan opinion will exist until it proves out on the field. My other guess is that the wait and see fans will just be mostly silent. Posting communities on the internet easily become echo chambers.
Williams is a good player but they pissed away too much to get a guy who would need a huge contract. It just didn’t make any sense to do it on this team that has massive holes at every unit.
DT was once of the areas where we didn't have a "massive hole". So bringing in LW was superfluous. We were out of the playoff hunt and we needed to be sellers not buyers. It's Bad Team 101.
I didn't like the deal, and if he either walks or we pay more than $12MAAV I'll like it even less...but the deal wasn't superfluous. Our run 'D' was struggling and improved significantly with his acquisition. Our pressure stats were bad and they improved as well. So there were legitimate reasons to trade for him. The problem was the compensation package for a rental in a losing season.
I didn't like the deal, and if he either walks or we pay more than $12MAAV I'll like it even less...but the deal wasn't superfluous. Our run 'D' was struggling and improved significantly with his acquisition. Our pressure stats were bad and they improved as well. So there were legitimate reasons to trade for him. The problem was the compensation package for a rental in a losing season.
Here is some different context with the stats with and without LW:
The D gave up 27ppg before LW arrived. They gave up 29ppg after he arrived. We were 2-6 pre-LW, beating the Skins and Bucs. 2-6 after he arrived, beating the Skins and Miami.
With common opponents:
Zeke ran for 139 yards with LW here. Without LW, he ran for 53.
Before LW was here, AP ran for 28 yards. With LW here, he ran for 36 yards.
In the first Eagles game with LW here, the Eagles ran for 118 yards. In the second game, they ran for 121 yards. The Eagles season average running the ball was 121 yards per game. So in both games, with Boston Scott as their primary, the ran to their average.
I'm not really sure we did improve after LW arrived...
'I'm not really sure we did improve after LW arrived...' Â
We gave up almost a full yard less per rush attempt and nearly 60% of our sacks and QB pressure occurred after he was acquired. Both Tomlinson and Golden's results improved dramatically as a result of the attention he drew. The DL as a whole played better. That much was obvious just watching the games even without delving into the numbers. The only individual statistical category LW didn't produce above the curve was sacks for himself.
I didn't like the deal, and if he either walks or we pay more than $12MAAV I'll like it even less...but the deal wasn't superfluous. Our run 'D' was struggling and improved significantly with his acquisition. Our pressure stats were bad and they improved as well. So there were legitimate reasons to trade for him. The problem was the compensation package for a rental in a losing season.
Here is some different context with the stats with and without LW:
The D gave up 27ppg before LW arrived. They gave up 29ppg after he arrived. We were 2-6 pre-LW, beating the Skins and Bucs. 2-6 after he arrived, beating the Skins and Miami.
With common opponents:
Zeke ran for 139 yards with LW here. Without LW, he ran for 53.
Before LW was here, AP ran for 28 yards. With LW here, he ran for 36 yards.
In the first Eagles game with LW here, the Eagles ran for 118 yards. In the second game, they ran for 121 yards. The Eagles season average running the ball was 121 yards per game. So in both games, with Boston Scott as their primary, the ran to their average.
I'm not really sure we did improve after LW arrived...
Well the first Dallas game, Elliott signed his extension the week of the game, and he was used in a limited fashion.
Williams would look a lot better if we had a LB or two to shoot gaps and make tackles.
Debating the specifics in bw's post is semantics as the overall theme Â
is still the same that Williams is a good player but not shown himself to be a difference maker on the Jets or Giant defense.
Gentleman, for whatever reason, focused in on LW at some point last year, made a strange deal in bringing him onto a bad team at a bad time based on the state of this franchise. Now the only question is he going to make a worse decision to pay top free agent prices to sign him to a longer term deal despite my first sentence above.
The draft choices DG gave up are just sunk costs huh? Wait until the Jets pick up a good WR, LB or decent Center with those picks...then it'll really sink in.
It says that he's seeking $15 m. If that's his asking price, maybe Â
I know it’s been said over and over and over and beaten to death but I can’t wrap my brain around how fucking stupid this was. A child would make this trade. And I don’t even hate Gettleman... it’s not about that. It’s about objectively looking at something and calling it what it is-a mind numbingly stupid move.
The past is the past, we have to move on etc etc but holy shit. It’s so bad it will never die. He’s a poor mans keith Hamilton... at least hammer ended up with some sacks. Good player, not worth a 3rd rounder (which almost amounts to a late 2nd) and certainly not worth 15 mil. No way.
it's not about the yearly avg. It's about the guarantees and the structure.
if this what he's starting at, the final figure will be lower. if Giants were going to meet his asking price, he'd already be re-signed.
the picks traded away are gone. If he's re-signed, the additional draft cost is the 5th rounder bumping up to a 4. The other draft picks are no longer a factor in whether or not to re-sign.
my take is that he performed as expected, and the cost is as expected, so he's what they wanted and planned on cost-wise. The only question now is whether the new regime wants him.
To a gross contract. He has to justify the trade.
We’ll see how good the trade was next year. We play a lot of good rush offenses (SF, Baltimore, Seattle, Philly, Dallas, Arizona, Cleveland). If we’re continuing to get pounded on the ground and finish with less than 7 wins after handing out a big contract to LW, I’m firing DG right after the last game ends next year.
Re-sign Williams for more than he's worth. Re-sign Golden for more than he's worth. Draft Thomas at 4 and boast how the offers to trade down were garbage.
RE: 'I'm not really sure we did improve after LW arrived...' Â
We gave up almost a full yard less per rush attempt and nearly 60% of our sacks and QB pressure occurred after he was acquired. Both Tomlinson and Golden's results improved dramatically as a result of the attention he drew. The DL as a whole played better. That much was obvious just watching the games even without delving into the numbers. The only individual statistical category LW didn't produce above the curve was sacks for himself.
Giants had 36 sacks for the year. 20 came before LW arrived. 16 post LW.
Golden had 10 sacks for the year - 4.5 pre-LW, 5.5 with LW here. He had 18 tackles for losses. 10 of those were before LW arrived.
Tomlinson had 2 sacks before LW arrived. 1.5 after he arrived. He had 49 total tackles for the year. 27 of those before LW arrived. He had 23 solo tackles for the year. 11 pre LW, 12 post LW.
So I’m not sure the words “dramatically improved” come to mind...
Again, with LW we allowed 2 more ppg on D and we had the same record - 2/6 - with and without LW.
He just didn’t materially impact the D. Maybe some incremental changes in some areas. But nothing that got passed through to helping us win more games...
RE: RE: 'I'm not really sure we did improve after LW arrived...' Â
We gave up almost a full yard less per rush attempt and nearly 60% of our sacks and QB pressure occurred after he was acquired. Both Tomlinson and Golden's results improved dramatically as a result of the attention he drew. The DL as a whole played better. That much was obvious just watching the games even without delving into the numbers. The only individual statistical category LW didn't produce above the curve was sacks for himself.
Giants had 36 sacks for the year. 20 came before LW arrived. 16 post LW.
Golden had 10 sacks for the year - 4.5 pre-LW, 5.5 with LW here. He had 18 tackles for losses. 10 of those were before LW arrived.
Tomlinson had 2 sacks before LW arrived. 1.5 after he arrived. He had 49 total tackles for the year. 27 of those before LW arrived. He had 23 solo tackles for the year. 11 pre LW, 12 post LW.
So I’m not sure the words “dramatically improved” come to mind...
Again, with LW we allowed 2 more ppg on D and we had the same record - 2/6 - with and without LW.
He just didn’t materially impact the D. Maybe some incremental changes in some areas. But nothing that got passed through to helping us win more games...
Of course you leave out the impact of a possible failed scheme, poor coaching, low morale. Just because something can't be put on a stat sheet doesn't mean it isn't important to the overall good of the team.
We gave up almost a full yard less per rush attempt and nearly 60% of our sacks and QB pressure occurred after he was acquired. Both Tomlinson and Golden's results improved dramatically as a result of the attention he drew. The DL as a whole played better. That much was obvious just watching the games even without delving into the numbers. The only individual statistical category LW didn't produce above the curve was sacks for himself.
Giants had 36 sacks for the year. 20 came before LW arrived. 16 post LW.
Golden had 10 sacks for the year - 4.5 pre-LW, 5.5 with LW here. He had 18 tackles for losses. 10 of those were before LW arrived.
Tomlinson had 2 sacks before LW arrived. 1.5 after he arrived. He had 49 total tackles for the year. 27 of those before LW arrived. He had 23 solo tackles for the year. 11 pre LW, 12 post LW.
So I’m not sure the words “dramatically improved” come to mind...
Again, with LW we allowed 2 more ppg on D and we had the same record - 2/6 - with and without LW.
He just didn’t materially impact the D. Maybe some incremental changes in some areas. But nothing that got passed through to helping us win more games...
Of course you leave out the impact of a possible failed scheme, poor coaching, low morale. Just because something can't be put on a stat sheet doesn't mean it isn't important to the overall good of the team.
Yes, indeed. He could also be a good locker room culture guy we need.
when it comes to Leonard Williams. I mean I do understand, the histrionics about it are just surprising.
Among PFF's top 50 FA he's #34 and the 5th youngest. That's just 8 spots behind everyones favorite $100m pipedream Yannick Ngakoue. Whether it's with a huge contract or a similarly compensated trade + sign, if they got Ngakoue it would probably have like a 90% approval rating. Each has made 1 pro bowl in their careers, had down seasons in 2019 relative to prior seasons, and have some general scheme/fit questions. Edge rusher is more of a glamour position and sacks are a glamour stat but I don't think that should completely minimize the importance of a good interior DL.
And don't get me wrong - I'd love to get Ngakoue because he's a good player. I'm just similarly happy to have Williams because he's also good player. We can argue about value of acquisition until we are blue in the face once we see what both cost but the game is played on the field first and both can help there over the next 4-5 years. Both are young, productive, and have track records of not missing games. It wasn't ideal to have to trade for LW but that shouldn't completely cloud the evaluation of what he is as a player.
RE: RE: RE: 'I'm not really sure we did improve after LW arrived...' Â
We gave up almost a full yard less per rush attempt and nearly 60% of our sacks and QB pressure occurred after he was acquired. Both Tomlinson and Golden's results improved dramatically as a result of the attention he drew. The DL as a whole played better. That much was obvious just watching the games even without delving into the numbers. The only individual statistical category LW didn't produce above the curve was sacks for himself.
Giants had 36 sacks for the year. 20 came before LW arrived. 16 post LW.
Golden had 10 sacks for the year - 4.5 pre-LW, 5.5 with LW here. He had 18 tackles for losses. 10 of those were before LW arrived.
Tomlinson had 2 sacks before LW arrived. 1.5 after he arrived. He had 49 total tackles for the year. 27 of those before LW arrived. He had 23 solo tackles for the year. 11 pre LW, 12 post LW.
So I’m not sure the words “dramatically improved” come to mind...
Again, with LW we allowed 2 more ppg on D and we had the same record - 2/6 - with and without LW.
He just didn’t materially impact the D. Maybe some incremental changes in some areas. But nothing that got passed through to helping us win more games...
Of course you leave out the impact of a possible failed scheme, poor coaching, low morale. Just because something can't be put on a stat sheet doesn't mean it isn't important to the overall good of the team.
I did. And I left off community service, charity work, good guy factor, the "LW wants to stay in NY" factor, etc.
If you want to take a crack how you can apply those intangibles to justify a $15-$17M salary, I'm all ears...
RE: I don't understand why all rational analysis goes out the window Â
when it comes to Leonard Williams. I mean I do understand, the histrionics about it are just surprising.
Among PFF's top 50 FA he's #34 and the 5th youngest. That's just 8 spots behind everyones favorite $100m pipedream Yannick Ngakoue. Whether it's with a huge contract or a similarly compensated trade + sign, if they got Ngakoue it would probably have like a 90% approval rating. Each has made 1 pro bowl in their careers, had down seasons in 2019 relative to prior seasons, and have some general scheme/fit questions. Edge rusher is more of a glamour position and sacks are a glamour stat but I don't think that should completely minimize the importance of a good interior DL.
And don't get me wrong - I'd love to get Ngakoue because he's a good player. I'm just similarly happy to have Williams because he's also good player. We can argue about value of acquisition until we are blue in the face once we see what both cost but the game is played on the field first and both can help there over the next 4-5 years. Both are young, productive, and have track records of not missing games. It wasn't ideal to have to trade for LW but that shouldn't completely cloud the evaluation of what he is as a player.
I think you've tossed rational analysis out the window. You just put Ngakoue in the same 'good' category as Williams.
Being 34th on a list of top 50 being used to actually promote this view should be a sign that no rational thought was applied. He's not a bad player - and the Giants should get out of the business of trading picks to pay tens of millions of dollars to players simply for 'not being bad' (see Ogletree, Alec).
That will probably be made worse. Leonard Williams is a slightly above average 3-4 DE/DT, and you can find those anywhere. He's not a difference-maker. He's not a player that opposing OC's have to plan for. He's not worth what the Giants gave up to get him. That was a mistake that should absolutely not be compounded by signing him to a big money deal.
RE: Please stop trying to justify a bad trade... Â
That will probably be made worse. Leonard Williams is a slightly above average 3-4 DE/DT, and you can find those anywhere. He's not a difference-maker. He's not a player that opposing OC's have to plan for. He's not worth what the Giants gave up to get him. That was a mistake that should absolutely not be compounded by signing him to a big money deal.
I would absolutely let him walk. But Dave won’t though. He knows his perception in the media. He has to realize he’s going to be looked upon as a bumbling incompetent fool if he lets LW walk. So not only will he sign him, he might even give him a fully guaranteed contract.
RE: RE: Please stop trying to justify a bad trade... Â
That will probably be made worse. Leonard Williams is a slightly above average 3-4 DE/DT, and you can find those anywhere. He's not a difference-maker. He's not a player that opposing OC's have to plan for. He's not worth what the Giants gave up to get him. That was a mistake that should absolutely not be compounded by signing him to a big money deal.
I would absolutely let him walk. But Dave won’t though. He knows his perception in the media. He has to realize he’s going to be looked upon as a bumbling incompetent fool if he lets LW walk. So not only will he sign him, he might even give him a fully guaranteed contract.
and that would help his reputation how exactly? He would get a little respect maybe if he said the contract demands were too high and moved on. Signing him to save face is assi ine.
RE: RE: RE: RE: 'I'm not really sure we did improve after LW arrived...' Â
We gave up almost a full yard less per rush attempt and nearly 60% of our sacks and QB pressure occurred after he was acquired. Both Tomlinson and Golden's results improved dramatically as a result of the attention he drew. The DL as a whole played better. That much was obvious just watching the games even without delving into the numbers. The only individual statistical category LW didn't produce above the curve was sacks for himself.
Giants had 36 sacks for the year. 20 came before LW arrived. 16 post LW.
Golden had 10 sacks for the year - 4.5 pre-LW, 5.5 with LW here. He had 18 tackles for losses. 10 of those were before LW arrived.
Tomlinson had 2 sacks before LW arrived. 1.5 after he arrived. He had 49 total tackles for the year. 27 of those before LW arrived. He had 23 solo tackles for the year. 11 pre LW, 12 post LW.
So I’m not sure the words “dramatically improved” come to mind...
Again, with LW we allowed 2 more ppg on D and we had the same record - 2/6 - with and without LW.
He just didn’t materially impact the D. Maybe some incremental changes in some areas. But nothing that got passed through to helping us win more games...
Of course you leave out the impact of a possible failed scheme, poor coaching, low morale. Just because something can't be put on a stat sheet doesn't mean it isn't important to the overall good of the team.
Yes, indeed. He could also be a good locker room culture guy we need.
You can't pay enough for those types.
Thankfully we gave Omameh and Stewart a combined 8M for the year to help the new coach Pat Shurmur pull the reins in as the adult in the room...
RE: RE: RE: Please stop trying to justify a bad trade... Â
and that would help his reputation how exactly? He would get a little respect maybe if he said the contract demands were too high and moved on. Signing him to save face is assi ine.
Plausible deniability. If Williams walks there's no denying the trade was a waste, a team going nowhere losing two draft picks for 8 games (in the hopes that a comp pick could possibly offset one of them) would be an outright, undeniable waste of resources.
If they sign him, then they can at least try to play up his value.
I just don't see what in LW's career trajectory anyone sees that warrants him being paid $15M a season. So far, the best case argument is 'well, the Giants have a lot of money to burn and so does everyone else', but that still stops short of explaining why they'd give up a 3rd, a 4th, and $15M a season to keep this guy.
RE: RE: I don't understand why all rational analysis goes out the window Â
when it comes to Leonard Williams. I mean I do understand, the histrionics about it are just surprising.
Among PFF's top 50 FA he's #34 and the 5th youngest. That's just 8 spots behind everyones favorite $100m pipedream Yannick Ngakoue. Whether it's with a huge contract or a similarly compensated trade + sign, if they got Ngakoue it would probably have like a 90% approval rating. Each has made 1 pro bowl in their careers, had down seasons in 2019 relative to prior seasons, and have some general scheme/fit questions. Edge rusher is more of a glamour position and sacks are a glamour stat but I don't think that should completely minimize the importance of a good interior DL.
And don't get me wrong - I'd love to get Ngakoue because he's a good player. I'm just similarly happy to have Williams because he's also good player. We can argue about value of acquisition until we are blue in the face once we see what both cost but the game is played on the field first and both can help there over the next 4-5 years. Both are young, productive, and have track records of not missing games. It wasn't ideal to have to trade for LW but that shouldn't completely cloud the evaluation of what he is as a player.
I think you've tossed rational analysis out the window. You just put Ngakoue in the same 'good' category as Williams.
Being 34th on a list of top 50 being used to actually promote this view should be a sign that no rational thought was applied. He's not a bad player - and the Giants should get out of the business of trading picks to pay tens of millions of dollars to players simply for 'not being bad' (see Ogletree, Alec).
The problem with Ogletree was that he was a bad player. The problem wasn't as much his salary or the fact that they gave up a 4th rd pick (which became John Franklin Myers, who got cut within a year) - it was that he sucked on the field.
If Leonard Williams sucks on the field I'll entirely agree with you but that hasn't happened yet. It's also why I would tag him and get a full year to decide whether he's worth signing long term, and if not I'd let him walk next year to recoup the pick as a comp pick.
Exactly what Leonard Williams was with the Jets and with the Giants. Not a huge liability. Not a producer. Just kind of there.
A $15M, just kind of there player. Who cost a 3rd and a 4th round pick. And then we wonder why the Giants are as bad as they are. It's not just coaching, it's because the front office has their heads collectively up their ass.
they tried to get him off a down year ('17) and it turned out the down year was the new normal and he just went over the cliff quickly. Way over a cliff. Clearly we didn't get anything remotely resembling an all pro. He wasn't an ok player here, he was a poor player and a consistent liability.
If Williams similarly goes over a cliff to the point where he is a liability on the field then acquiring him would have been a similarly terrible decision. If that's how you viewed his performance in the limited time we had him I disagree. If that's what you predict going forward that's a perfectly fair opinion, but it's just as fair for anyone to predict something else. As I've said, my opinion is there are a lot of variables that make it hard to accurately predict how good or bad Williams will be in the future here - which is why I want to tag him to get a year with the new staff before making a decision either way. Letting him walk next year keeps the cap clean and recoups some of the assets given up for him in the first place.
Who's to say the Giants would have drafted Myers? Maybe they draft Safety Tre Flowers and don't bother signing Antoine Bethea? Maybe they draft DT Maurice Hurst, who has 7.5 sacks in two years for Oakland, or NE LB Ju'Whuan Bentley?
Who's to say the Giants would have drafted Myers? Maybe they draft Safety Tre Flowers and don't bother signing Antoine Bethea? Maybe they draft DT Maurice Hurst, who has 7.5 sacks in two years for Oakland, or NE LB Ju'Whuan Bentley?
The odds they would have drafted the same player as LAR are close to 0.
We can second guess draft picks all day long but the Giants passed on the guys you mentioned and took RJ McIntosh just 4 picks after the pick they gave LAR, so he's probably the most likely guy they would have taken with the exact pick they gave up for Ogletree (the 3 players in between were Marquis Haynes, Dalton Schultz, and Cole Madison).
We gave up almost a full yard less per rush attempt and nearly 60% of our sacks and QB pressure occurred after he was acquired. Both Tomlinson and Golden's results improved dramatically as a result of the attention he drew. The DL as a whole played better. That much was obvious just watching the games even without delving into the numbers. The only individual statistical category LW didn't produce above the curve was sacks for himself.
Giants had 36 sacks for the year. 20 came before LW arrived. 16 post LW.
Golden had 10 sacks for the year - 4.5 pre-LW, 5.5 with LW here. He had 18 tackles for losses. 10 of those were before LW arrived.
Tomlinson had 2 sacks before LW arrived. 1.5 after he arrived. He had 49 total tackles for the year. 27 of those before LW arrived. He had 23 solo tackles for the year. 11 pre LW, 12 post LW.
So I’m not sure the words “dramatically improved” come to mind...
Again, with LW we allowed 2 more ppg on D and we had the same record - 2/6 - with and without LW.
He just didn’t materially impact the D. Maybe some incremental changes in some areas. But nothing that got passed through to helping us win more games...
Of course you leave out the impact of a possible failed scheme, poor coaching, low morale. Just because something can't be put on a stat sheet doesn't mean it isn't important to the overall good of the team.
I did. And I left off community service, charity work, good guy factor, the "LW wants to stay in NY" factor, etc.
If you want to take a crack how you can apply those intangibles to justify a $15-$17M salary, I'm all ears...
No you're not "all ears". You made up your mind a long time ago that the giants way is always wrong no matter what information comes your way.
Re-sign Williams for more than he's worth. Re-sign Golden for more than he's worth. Draft Thomas at 4 and boast how the offers to trade down were garbage.
No you're not "all ears". You made up your mind a long time ago that the giants way is always wrong no matter what information comes your way.
The Giants have been mostly wrong for a long time. So I see know reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. That trust needs to be restored with many in the fan base. In my judgment...
I was arguing with Torrag trying to use numerical facts that dismiss some of this narrative that LW made such a big impact on this defense. And I stand by the numbers. They are telling.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 'I'm not really sure we did improve after LW arrived...' Â
No you're not "all ears". You made up your mind a long time ago that the giants way is always wrong no matter what information comes your way.
The Giants have been mostly wrong for a long time. So I see know reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. That trust needs to be restored with many in the fan base. In my judgment...
I was arguing with Torrag trying to use numerical facts that dismiss some of this narrative that LW made such a big impact on this defense. And I stand by the numbers. They are telling.
Numbers like Dalvin Tomlinson's marginal drop off in some areas of production after Williams joined the team?
Did that account for snaps played by Tomlinson, which likely decreased?
One would think the unit's overall numbers on a per play basis, like YPC by opponents, is a more reliable metric.
Tomlinson's snap count remained about the same as before the acquisition of Williams. B.J. Hill's, however, took a big hit, and McIntosh's became almost non-existent.
Tomlinson's snap count remained about the same as before the acquisition of Williams. B.J. Hill's, however, took a big hit, and McIntosh's became almost non-existent.
I know Hill's took a big hit, hadn't really considered McIntosh as a factor, but still wondered if Dalvin's decreased.
Other individual metrics are skewed by LW taking plays away from other DL, and I truly prefer eyeballing to stat counts. Especially if one doesn't factor in situational stats.
I strongly believe the DL unit now is much stronger than it was even with Damon Harrison on it because they are better in short yardage. The eyeball test tells me LW, DL, and DT don't lose as much territory at the LOS, our DL is often playing the game on our opponents' side if the LOS, and that will increase with continued experience on DL's part and Hill's part and fewer snaps for individuals and more rotation.
Whatever, I'm in favor of a dominant DL and while we are not there yet, we are approaching that goal if we re-sign LW.
Everyone know we really need an elite or close to elite edge guy, but was it a mistake to pass on Allen for Jones? Can't make that call yet, can we?
Williams is a plus player. Moreso if a plus than Golden IMO.
Except your numbers don't support your conclusions. Of course statistics in a 'vacuum'
as you use them can be made to support specious arguments as you have. You completely ignore the rushing statistics because they negate your position. Allowing an entire yard less per rush is significant. It's not his fault the back 8 couldn't defend a pass or deny a 3rd down conversion to save their asses.
You also have errors in your statistical arguments. Golden's TFL numbers were 13 for the season, 4 before LW and 9 after the trade. That speaks to disruption at the LoS. Tomlinson had 29 TCKLs after LW and 20TCKLs before. Again an indication LW was helping the DL produce. You also have his sack numbers flipped not that it's significant but telling to your 'research'.
We can't know the answer to the following question but we can infer it...how would the DL have performed if they had all been asked to play another 100 snaps or with guys like McIntosh and Chris Slayton playing significant minutes in LW's stead? Answer? Not well.
So going back to what started this. You said he was 'superfluous'...here are some definitions: useless · unproductive · pointless . One man can't make a bad defense good, but he can do his job well. He can do it better than the other options available on the roster. LW did. I don't think that's superfluous.
So Williams is a good player (kwall’s very words) Â
But the gm should be fired for even considering signing the guy for 15 million. Meanwhile, good DTs do in fact earn 15 million a year. But the GM is clueless.
This is why I hate even debating this crap. The money side of It just obliterates any objective and rational talk on a player’s worth.
When is is a good DT who is under 26 NOT worth market value? It ain’t your money!
We also don’t know for sure that spending 15 or so on Williams means the giants can’t spend 15 on another (Better) player. I love how this is just commonly assumed by so many. Doesn’t always work that way. Hate to tell you this.
The TFL are indeed 18, not 13. But I had those backwards. I knew one of them showed a greater bump with LW in the line-up. I did a quick review, but it looks like 7.5 pre, 10.5 with LW.
The TFL are indeed 18, not 13. But I had those backwards. I knew one of them showed a greater bump with LW in the line-up. I did a quick review, but it looks like 7.5 pre, 10.5 with LW.
I’m not sure he’s a good player or reliable starter. He’s definitely ok but the sack numbers can be misread on both sides. Golden’s 10.5 number is just as misleading as Williams and his .5 number. I’d like golden back but he’s likely getting paid a lot more than what he’s worth. I am not sure he duplicates that 10.5 number again as his overall pass rush pressure numbers weren’t that great.
Improve its run stuffing numbers and be definitely applied some pressure to the qb. Honestly, I noticed him a lot more than golden. How did golden help the pass rush this season? It still basically sucked. The run defense did not suck.
That’s why I’d spend money on Williams. He helped the cause. To me golden was just another passenger on the shitty back seven unit. He was the best of a bad lot. Williams was the best of a good lot. The DL is good in my view. The LBs were terrible. If golden were cheap and controlled he’d be fine but that won’t be the case....
I’m not sure he’s a good player or reliable starter. He’s definitely ok but the sack numbers can be misread on both sides. Golden’s 10.5 number is just as misleading as Williams and his .5 number. I’d like golden back but he’s likely getting paid a lot more than what he’s worth. I am not sure he duplicates that 10.5 number again as his overall pass rush pressure numbers weren’t that great.
Golden had 12.5 sacks in 2016 with the Cards. So he's shown double digit sacks capabilities...
There were some marginal improvements in some areas and marginal dips in others the 2nd half of the year.
What didn't get better is the actual defense or the team.
Is Williams better than BJ Hill? Yes. Is Williams a single-handed difference maker? No.
Do the Giants need many more, better defensive players. Yes.
Leonard Williams is not the type of player to get yourself wrapped around a pole about and build your off season and defense around. If he were a Jet still, I find it hard to believe many Giants would be scraping the barrel to find reasons to make him paid like the upper tier interior lineman.
Hopefully the Giants acquire several more good defensive players. If Leonard Williams is among them, cool.
And then we traded a 3 and a 4 for the right to over pay for the guy.
Just trading a 3 for a guy looking for too much money is grounds for firing the GM. He gave up more.
This team isn’t close. They should have traded veterans for draft picks. Not the other way around.
The jets did it right. We did not. Not close.
Now we’re debating whether this “good” player should be one of the highest paid players on the team. While in 2 months, the jets will be getting a very good prospect at the top of round 3.
but the fair contract for LW is whatever the market dictates.
And for me, we shouldn't be in that market competing.
If we could get LW for $8M/year, which I know is ridiculous under the circumstances, it would be much more worthwhile. But that's the point, really. What we should be willing to pay for LW is nowhere near his overrated market value...
isn't taking into account how much the cap is going up. The Giants have cap space and need to convince multiple defensive players to sign in a state with a high income tax. We won't improve on the defensive side of the ball unless we start to put resources there. The latest big blue banter podcast was eye opening on how little the Giants a paying on the defensive side of the ball. Paying LW market rate will not negate us from signing other defensive players. The problem is good young players don't often hit FA and when they do teams typically have to overpay for them.
With LW, the Jets were conceding over 26ppg. After LW was traded, it dropped to 18ppg.
They had 22 out their 35 sacks as a team after LW left.
Their rushing D improved.
So how are those signs of a "plus player"...as you call LW...
BW, you constantly remind me of a phrase my late Botanical Ecology professor at Berkeley, Professor Herbert Baker, taught me, as a warning against using statistics to support your argument. Too many (academic authors, he was referring to) "use statistic like a blind man uses a street lamp: for support rather than illumination."
That describes you to a T!
Why you need to discerdit DG any way you possibly can is your issue, not mine. I see an improving club at the LOS vs what Reese concocted over years of serious mis-allocation of draft picks. I saw an improved OL last year despite Solder falling into very hard times.
You see what you want to see, and certainly we haven't earned any wins to validate the improvement I see. We have a very young roster, getting younger too I imagine when one of our big FA signings will in all likelihood be the 25 year old Williams.
RE: To assume he is going to get less then 13 a year Â
isn't taking into account how much the cap is going up. The Giants have cap space and need to convince multiple defensive players to sign in a state with a high income tax. We won't improve on the defensive side of the ball unless we start to put resources there. The latest big blue banter podcast was eye opening on how little the Giants a paying on the defensive side of the ball. Paying LW market rate will not negate us from signing other defensive players. The problem is good young players don't often hit FA and when they do teams typically have to overpay for them.
The problem is LW plays position that has become commoditized. DTs are just getting easier to find. Big guys who can fill gaps and provide just enough to disruption to be effective. Which is basically LW. A good, solid player.
So why overpay? Unless you get a generational talent like Aaron Donald, who plays with a skill set the overlaps DT and DE, save the cap space and pay for more needed positions on defense...
Why you need to discerdit DG any way you possibly can is your issue, not mine. I see an improving club at the LOS vs what Reese concocted over years of serious mis-allocation of draft picks. I saw an improved OL last year despite Solder falling into very hard times.
You see what you want to see, and certainly we haven't earned any wins to validate the improvement I see. We have a very young roster, getting younger too I imagine when one of our big FA signings will in all likelihood be the 25 year old Williams.
Our OTs were one of the worst duos in the NFL at pass blocking. And our overall run blocking was in the bottom third of the league. Just read Sy's reviews. Not sure why anyone would want to hitch their wagon to that...
I do find it amusing the lengths many here go to suggest LW is somehow this force multiplier and makes our D so much better. The Jets D got materially better without him - +8 ppg improvement - and our D may have gotten, and I'll be kind, a little better.
Commoditized isn't exactly right when you look at who pays top DTs Â
Donald is obviously in a league of his own @ 22.5m, but the Rams also pay Michael Brockers $11m per year.
Fletcher Cox is the highest paid player on Philly @ 17.5m.
Grady Jarrett is the 5th highest paid player on Atl @ 17m.
Geno Atkins is the 2nd highest paid player on the Cin @16.5m.
Jurrell Casey is the 2nd highest paid player on Ten @ 15.1m.
Brandon Williams is the 3rd highest paid player on Bal @ 10.5m.
Star Lotuleiei is the 2nd highest paid player on Buff @ 10m.
2 of the Bears top 5 salaries are Edddie Goldman (10.5m) & Akiem Hicks (12.5m).
Linval Joseph is the 7th highest paid player on Min @ 12.5m.
KC (Chris Jones), Seattle (Jarran Reed), SF (Armstead), Houston (DJ Reader), and Pittsburgh (Hargrave) will likely all soon join that list since they are getting new contracts this year.
Most of those guys aren't putting up big sack numbers and yet quite a few well run playoff organizations still gave them big contracts.
Kawann Short (16.1m) is another as the 2nd highest paid player on CAR Â
for what 'good DT's' get in the current NFL. LW is a comparable or better player than most of the names on your list. The lowest salaries are Star Lotuleiei and Eddie Goldman in the $10M range. LW outproduces them both in most categories.
It's what the market is for these guys. Now I don't believe LW is in the $15M value group but $12-12.5 is in fact fair market value.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Please stop trying to justify a bad trade... Â
and that would help his reputation how exactly? He would get a little respect maybe if he said the contract demands were too high and moved on. Signing him to save face is assi ine.
Plausible deniability. If Williams walks there's no denying the trade was a waste, a team going nowhere losing two draft picks for 8 games (in the hopes that a comp pick could possibly offset one of them) would be an outright, undeniable waste of resources.
If they sign him, then they can at least try to play up his value.
I just don't see what in LW's career trajectory anyone sees that warrants him being paid $15M a season. So far, the best case argument is 'well, the Giants have a lot of money to burn and so does everyone else', but that still stops short of explaining why they'd give up a 3rd, a 4th, and $15M a season to keep this guy.
Perfectly stated. I thought the trade made no sense then and still think that. If they had interest as him as a FA but never traded for him, I would think they were nuts for considering $15M. But, to give up 2 picks in addition? Now, they have to re-sign him, or that trade looks even more ridiculous.
And then we traded a 3 and a 4 for the right to over pay for the guy.
Just trading a 3 for a guy looking for too much money is grounds for firing the GM. He gave up more.
This team isn’t close. They should have traded veterans for draft picks. Not the other way around.
The jets did it right. We did not. Not close.
Now we’re debating whether this “good” player should be one of the highest paid players on the team. While in 2 months, the jets will be getting a very good prospect at the top of round 3.
Yup fire the guy who made this move.
Another excellent post.
“Comparable or better player than most on that list” Â
Tomlinson's snap count remained about the same as before the acquisition of Williams. B.J. Hill's, however, took a big hit, and McIntosh's became almost non-existent.
I know Hill's took a big hit, hadn't really considered McIntosh as a factor, but still wondered if Dalvin's decreased.
Other individual metrics are skewed by LW taking plays away from other DL, and I truly prefer eyeballing to stat counts. Especially if one doesn't factor in situational stats.
I strongly believe the DL unit now is much stronger than it was even with Damon Harrison on it because they are better in short yardage. The eyeball test tells me LW, DL, and DT don't lose as much territory at the LOS, our DL is often playing the game on our opponents' side if the LOS, and that will increase with continued experience on DL's part and Hill's part and fewer snaps for individuals and more rotation.
Whatever, I'm in favor of a dominant DL and while we are not there yet, we are approaching that goal if we re-sign LW.
Everyone know we really need an elite or close to elite edge guy, but was it a mistake to pass on Allen for Jones? Can't make that call yet, can we?
Williams is a plus player. Moreso if a plus than Golden IMO.
While I agree stats are not the end all, be all, and I also place a value on what we see, I do not think he passes that eyeball test. The Jets traded him because they took him with a very high pick and he never amounted to more than a good player. He is not a playmaker, dominant player, or a difference maker. That was the case on their team and still the case. He is a nice guy to have. But, he certainly isn't someone worthy of being in the top 5 paid DL.
I think Gettleman is a good talent evaluator in general Â
But he's made some suspect moves and this trade was one of them. If they had been able to negotiate an extension with him at the time of the trade it would make more sense and the argument would only be over whether or not he was worth the money.
Gettleman's argument for doing it the way he did is two-fold, one part which makes very little sense and one part that makes no sense at all. The part that makes no sense at all is the part where he claims they will gain a comp pick if he leaves via free agency (because it's highly unlikely that the Giants lose more A- and B-list free agents than they sign this year). The part that makes at least a little bit of sense is the part where he claims having him in the Giants locker room and learning the system gives them a leg up on assessing his free agent value (character? work ethic? teammate? etc). Gettleman may not have been anticipating the coaching change so the value of him learning the system and the coaches learning him was lost, but he did benefit from learning his teammates.
The problem with that is the confirmation bias that comes from having already invested 3rd and 4th (or 5th) round picks in him. Will Gettleman (and Abrams) be able to put an unbiased market value on Williams that allows him to test the free agent waters?
p.s.--The biggest humiliation would be if Williams leaves the Giants for the Jets in free agency.
RE: To assume he is going to get less then 13 a year Â
isn't taking into account how much the cap is going up. The Giants have cap space and need to convince multiple defensive players to sign in a state with a high income tax. We won't improve on the defensive side of the ball unless we start to put resources there. The latest big blue banter podcast was eye opening on how little the Giants a paying on the defensive side of the ball. Paying LW market rate will not negate us from signing other defensive players. The problem is good young players don't often hit FA and when they do teams typically have to overpay for them.
The 'we'll have money to burn' and the 'the cap is going up' angles have already been exhausted in this thread. They didn't get much mileage the first time around, and for good reason.
The Giants do need to spend on the defensive side of the ball. They do not need, nor can they afford to, waste on either side, let alone on defense. Williams @ $15M a year, even if it was effectively $13M pre-cap raise, is a waste of resources, worsened by the fact that two cost controlled entities were disposed of for the right to pay him that money.
Williams is a young player. He's a good player, at best thus far in his career and getting older, his play is more likely to decline than improve. Paying him $15M a year would be abject stupidity from a team that exhibits boatloads of it.
RE: Commoditized isn't exactly right when you look at who pays top DTs Â
Donald is obviously in a league of his own @ 22.5m, but the Rams also pay Michael Brockers $11m per year.
Fletcher Cox is the highest paid player on Philly @ 17.5m.
Grady Jarrett is the 5th highest paid player on Atl @ 17m.
Geno Atkins is the 2nd highest paid player on the Cin @16.5m.
Jurrell Casey is the 2nd highest paid player on Ten @ 15.1m.
Brandon Williams is the 3rd highest paid player on Bal @ 10.5m.
Star Lotuleiei is the 2nd highest paid player on Buff @ 10m.
2 of the Bears top 5 salaries are Edddie Goldman (10.5m) & Akiem Hicks (12.5m).
Linval Joseph is the 7th highest paid player on Min @ 12.5m.
KC (Chris Jones), Seattle (Jarran Reed), SF (Armstead), Houston (DJ Reader), and Pittsburgh (Hargrave) will likely all soon join that list since they are getting new contracts this year.
Most of those guys aren't putting up big sack numbers and yet quite a few well run playoff organizations still gave them big contracts.
You can't include Donald and Cox. They are the crossover guys I was talking about - DT with DE/pass-rushing skills.
Even Atkins has 75.5 sacks in his career with three double digit sacks season.
And the players from Brandon Williams down, are more reasonably paid. They are in a salary range that reflect LW's production...granted, going against the current flow of the market.
'Comparable or better player than most on that list'- Um...no he isnt Â
By any reasonable statistical comparison he is. Not the top 3 guys but the rest he is their equal or better. Their salaries range from $12.5M to $10M.
With the increased salary cap room for all teams reflecting increased revenue on the coming free agent market LW's market is squarely in that field.
People can cling to their narratives and opinions but Eric's post laid it bare. Accept it or not those are the facts supported by existing DT salaries and their statistical production on the field when examined as a group.
of LW already on the team in Lawrence, Tomlinson, and Hill. Combined their cap hit in 2020 is around $6M. So paying a gargantuan amount of money for a player who isn’t discernibly better than his teammates at the same position is simply wasteful.
As I stated yesterday, LW is just superfluous.
We just have bigger needs.
If you sign Leonard Williams to a fair-market-value deal... Â
What do you do next year with Dalvin Tomlinson? I'm pretty sure he'd want a fair-market-value deal, too. Just how much of the cap - no matter how large it is - do you want to tie up in two DT's that offer little as pass-rushers?
for what 'good DT's' get in the current NFL. LW is a comparable or better player than most of the names on your list. The lowest salaries are Star Lotuleiei and Eddie Goldman in the $10M range. LW outproduces them both in most categories.
It's what the market is for these guys. Now I don't believe LW is in the $15M value group but $12-12.5 is in fact fair market value.
$12-$12.5M may be fair market value but it's fiction.
LW just made $14M this past season. The tag on him, regardless of whether it's franchise or transition, regardless of whether he's considered a DE or DT, is in the neighborhood of $17M. These are all factors that were available for even a layperson to be aware of at the time that the trade was executed.
If you're going to claim that "$12-12.5M is in fact fair market value," will you also acknowledge that LW is overpaid by your own definition of fair market value when he inevitably comes in at around $16M AAV (or more)?
of LW already on the team in Lawrence, Tomlinson, and Hill. Combined their cap hit in 2020 is around $6M. So paying a gargantuan amount of money for a player who isn’t discernibly better than his teammates at the same position is simply wasteful.
As I stated yesterday, LW is just superfluous.
We just have bigger needs.
Good post. You want to see the value of Lawrence Tomlinson and Hill...bring in some decent inside LBs versus spending superfluous $ on LW.
Just don’t use the 3rd round pick to do it because it’s gone.
that actually seems like progress as far as bbi arguments go and a relatively fair number to peg for Williams. I don't know how this year's inflated market will impact what we are saying, but I think that's a reasonable point of view and if the final deal ended up in the middle of that number and what LW supposedly wants, i'd be happy with that contract (4 years 55m?).
To me the tag still makes the most sense because I'd rather pay the few m$ premium for 0 risk. Short term FA deals in all sports are almost always higher AAV, and I'd rather pay now than in the future.
And re: Tomlinson, I'd try to sign him long term to a deal at or just under $10m for 3-4 years. Early extensions below FMV are a key to building a strong roster (just like they did with Tuck back 07). Then in 3 years when Lawrence is due a 2nd contract he can swap into 1 of these salary slots.
If it goes over 12 million a year, hard fucking pass. I would rather invest in the OL including depth. If we can keep the D off the field with a strong running game it will help the DL more than signing LW.
that actually seems like progress as far as bbi arguments go and a relatively fair number to peg for Williams. I don't know how this year's inflated market will impact what we are saying, but I think that's a reasonable point of view and if the final deal ended up in the middle of that number and what LW supposedly wants, i'd be happy with that contract (4 years 55m?).
To me the tag still makes the most sense because I'd rather pay the few m$ premium for 0 risk. Short term FA deals in all sports are almost always higher AAV, and I'd rather pay now than in the future.
And re: Tomlinson, I'd try to sign him long term to a deal at or just under $10m for 3-4 years. Early extensions below FMV are a key to building a strong roster (just like they did with Tuck back 07). Then in 3 years when Lawrence is due a 2nd contract he can swap into 1 of these salary slots.
Pump the brakes.
$12-12.5M AAV might be fair market value, but I'll bet all the hair that's left on my head that LW is not taking a pay cut from his 2019 salary ($14.2M), even in AAV terms. In other words, we can agree on what his value should be and also objectively predict that he will be overpaid above that FMV.
If it goes over 12 million a year, hard fucking pass. I would rather invest in the OL including depth. If we can keep the D off the field with a strong running game it will help the DL more than signing LW.
It's already above that for LW.
No matter what tag is applied, LW's 2020 salary on a tag is $17M because the prevailing calculus is 120% of his 2019 salary ($14.2M).
"Gettleman seeking 15 million for Hand Of God GoFundMe page"
Because that's really what this is,an extension of other arguments.
But 1 thing people are not discussing in this debate,is the amount of players these days who are flaming out.Go back and take a look at recent drafts and see where a lot of these guys are.It's very alarming.
So if the Giants wanted to proceed with caution,that is,bring him into there environment and see if they felt comfortable paying him.I don't have much of a problem with it.
that actually seems like progress as far as bbi arguments go and a relatively fair number to peg for Williams. I don't know how this year's inflated market will impact what we are saying, but I think that's a reasonable point of view and if the final deal ended up in the middle of that number and what LW supposedly wants, i'd be happy with that contract (4 years 55m?).
To me the tag still makes the most sense because I'd rather pay the few m$ premium for 0 risk. Short term FA deals in all sports are almost always higher AAV, and I'd rather pay now than in the future.
And re: Tomlinson, I'd try to sign him long term to a deal at or just under $10m for 3-4 years. Early extensions below FMV are a key to building a strong roster (just like they did with Tuck back 07). Then in 3 years when Lawrence is due a 2nd contract he can swap into 1 of these salary slots.
Pump the brakes.
$12-12.5M AAV might be fair market value, but I'll bet all the hair that's left on my head that LW is not taking a pay cut from his 2019 salary ($14.2M), even in AAV terms. In other words, we can agree on what his value should be and also objectively predict that he will be overpaid above that FMV.
We can also predict that just like almost every contract in the NFL, the cap #'s each season will be manipulated with the highest 1 being the last year when he will be most maneuverable with a non-prohibitive amount of dead money.
Let's use Grady Jarrett's 17m AAV as an example. Last year he got tagged and then extended for 4/68m with 38m guaranteed. Here are his 4 season's cap numbers, as well as the (dead cap) if cut/traded:
year 1 - 11m (38m)
year 2 - 12m (27m)
year 3 - 20m (14.6m)
year 4 - 23m (7m)
So for all intents and purposes, that is a 3 year deal with a 14m AAV, with a 4th year as an option year.
The way they structured the $7m guaranteed in year 4 is more dead money than ideal in a final "option" year and obviously the Giants could get a little more creative - but even if they mirrored this exact structure with LW and simply scaled back each year's salary evenly by 2m to hit an overall "15m AAV", you are looking at a first 3 years AAV that = $12.3m, with a cuttable, tradable, or restructurable 4th year. Nate Solder's contract was actually structured pretty similarly actually, so maybe this is where things end up with a 4/60m.
I'd personally still prefer the tag to get 1 more years worth of performance to see if a deal like this is worthwhile, but I do think it'd be a fair contract for both sides based on what we know now.
RE: RE: RE: Ok, so there's some consensus $12-12.5m is FMV on a long term deal Â
that actually seems like progress as far as bbi arguments go and a relatively fair number to peg for Williams. I don't know how this year's inflated market will impact what we are saying, but I think that's a reasonable point of view and if the final deal ended up in the middle of that number and what LW supposedly wants, i'd be happy with that contract (4 years 55m?).
To me the tag still makes the most sense because I'd rather pay the few m$ premium for 0 risk. Short term FA deals in all sports are almost always higher AAV, and I'd rather pay now than in the future.
And re: Tomlinson, I'd try to sign him long term to a deal at or just under $10m for 3-4 years. Early extensions below FMV are a key to building a strong roster (just like they did with Tuck back 07). Then in 3 years when Lawrence is due a 2nd contract he can swap into 1 of these salary slots.
Pump the brakes.
$12-12.5M AAV might be fair market value, but I'll bet all the hair that's left on my head that LW is not taking a pay cut from his 2019 salary ($14.2M), even in AAV terms. In other words, we can agree on what his value should be and also objectively predict that he will be overpaid above that FMV.
We can also predict that just like almost every contract in the NFL, the cap #'s each season will be manipulated with the highest 1 being the last year when he will be most maneuverable with a non-prohibitive amount of dead money.
Let's use Grady Jarrett's 17m AAV as an example. Last year he got tagged and then extended for 4/68m with 38m guaranteed. Here are his 4 season's cap numbers, as well as the (dead cap) if cut/traded:
year 1 - 11m (38m)
year 2 - 12m (27m)
year 3 - 20m (14.6m)
year 4 - 23m (7m)
So for all intents and purposes, that is a 3 year deal with a 14m AAV, with a 4th year as an option year.
The way they structured the $7m guaranteed in year 4 is more dead money than ideal in a final "option" year and obviously the Giants could get a little more creative - but even if they mirrored this exact structure with LW and simply scaled back each year's salary evenly by 2m to hit an overall "15m AAV", you are looking at a first 3 years AAV that = $12.3m, with a cuttable, tradable, or restructurable 4th year. Nate Solder's contract was actually structured pretty similarly actually, so maybe this is where things end up with a 4/60m.
I'd personally still prefer the tag to get 1 more years worth of performance to see if a deal like this is worthwhile, but I do think it'd be a fair contract for both sides based on what we know now.
When you keep playing around with final year balloon payments that never get paid, you preclude yourself from being one of those teams who typically picks up comp picks each year. Go look at who those teams are - it's the same list that tends to be consistently good each year (plus the Bengals, who get there by way of being cheap in FA).
Yes, you can manipulate contracts and let agents "win" the headlines - occasionally, this is a sound strategy if it lets you sign a player to a favorable contract without having the player or agent look bad in the media. But it shouldn't be your general practice, which it has been for too often with the Giants.
They need to start getting more of their players to the end of their contract and not cutting them before then, and it's not just because of dead money - it's also because it tends to be a sound business practice to have a bit more authenticity and transparency in negotiations and the huge element is that it will begin to pay dividends over time by helping the Giants compile compensatory picks on a more regular basis.
Tag him if necessary and spend what you need to, to retain Â
him..This place would melt down even more than they do if we wound up very thin on the DL. Having 3 guys, 25 and younger anchor your line for many years (hopefully) is a requisite if you want to begin to vie for playoff position. It starts up front.
We get a third back for Landon Collins albeit lower in the round, but it’s still a 3rd and you can and should get quality in that round
RE: RE: RE: RE: Ok, so there's some consensus $12-12.5m is FMV on a long term deal Â
When you keep playing around with final year balloon payments that never get paid, you preclude yourself from being one of those teams who typically picks up comp picks each year. Go look at who those teams are - it's the same list that tends to be consistently good each year (plus the Bengals, who get there by way of being cheap in FA).
Yes, you can manipulate contracts and let agents "win" the headlines - occasionally, this is a sound strategy if it lets you sign a player to a favorable contract without having the player or agent look bad in the media. But it shouldn't be your general practice, which it has been for too often with the Giants.
They need to start getting more of their players to the end of their contract and not cutting them before then, and it's not just because of dead money - it's also because it tends to be a sound business practice to have a bit more authenticity and transparency in negotiations and the huge element is that it will begin to pay dividends over time by helping the Giants compile compensatory picks on a more regular basis.
i agree with some of your points but you can structure contracts creatively and not suffer the pitfalls you list so profoundly.
for example, our contract last year with golden, while 4x38 was really a 2x22. and that's ok, it's not going poison our relationship with anyone or make us look like inauthentic business partners - that's the way the nfl operates and players and their agents have a responsibility to understand the contracts they're signing and the rights of the parties involved throughout its term.
exercising a negotiated right in your contract doesn't make you a bad business partner.
i don't really buy the tactic for comp picks you mention. nor do i think even if you structure some deals to get a comp pick out of it it means that strategy has to influence every deal. different deals can have different tactics, the strategy they need to support is one where you get the best players on the field as frequently as you can.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Ok, so there's some consensus $12-12.5m is FMV on a long term deal Â
When you keep playing around with final year balloon payments that never get paid, you preclude yourself from being one of those teams who typically picks up comp picks each year. Go look at who those teams are - it's the same list that tends to be consistently good each year (plus the Bengals, who get there by way of being cheap in FA).
Yes, you can manipulate contracts and let agents "win" the headlines - occasionally, this is a sound strategy if it lets you sign a player to a favorable contract without having the player or agent look bad in the media. But it shouldn't be your general practice, which it has been for too often with the Giants.
They need to start getting more of their players to the end of their contract and not cutting them before then, and it's not just because of dead money - it's also because it tends to be a sound business practice to have a bit more authenticity and transparency in negotiations and the huge element is that it will begin to pay dividends over time by helping the Giants compile compensatory picks on a more regular basis.
Completely agree - but the problem you are describing is the direct result of the poor output from the 2015-2016 drafts. Those are the guys whose contracts should be ending right now and we haven't even been able to get guys to the end of their affordable rookie contracts because the drafting was so poor. Collins is the only guy who made it to the end of his rookie deal and was worth a multi-year deal elsewhere.
Shepard is the only player from those 2 drafts who made it to a 2nd contract here so there are a lot of holes to fill from non-homegrown sources. Leonard Williams (another team's 2015 draft pick) is one of those hole fillers. Guys like Ngakwoue, Simmons, and Conklin are potentially others. I'm not saying they need to or should spend on all those guys, just pointing out why those needs are there in the first place.
The only way to get to the better position you describe in the future is to have multiple players from every draft not only be worthy of second contracts here, but also be worthy of big enough 2nd contracts elsewhere to return comp picks. As it is right now, the 2017 class looks a little better with Tomlinson and Engram both likely being good enough to get multi-year second contracts from someone else if we don't extend them.
If it goes over 12 million a year, hard fucking pass. I would rather invest in the OL including depth. If we can keep the D off the field with a strong running game it will help the DL more than signing LW.
It's already above that for LW.
No matter what tag is applied, LW's 2020 salary on a tag is $17M because the prevailing calculus is 120% of his 2019 salary ($14.2M).
I thought the estimated DT Transition number would be 12.3M but that was 2019...Looks like 2020 is estimated to be 13.2M. Am I missing something?
If it goes over 12 million a year, hard fucking pass. I would rather invest in the OL including depth. If we can keep the D off the field with a strong running game it will help the DL more than signing LW.
It's already above that for LW.
No matter what tag is applied, LW's 2020 salary on a tag is $17M because the prevailing calculus is 120% of his 2019 salary ($14.2M).
I thought the estimated DT Transition number would be 12.3M but that was 2019...Looks like 2020 is estimated to be 13.2M. Am I missing something?
Because the value of the tag becomes irrelevant if it falls below 120% of a player's prior year salary. In LW's case, 120% of his 2019 salary ($14.2M) will surpass all applicable tag values, so that's the 2020 salary number that will correspond to any tag placed on LW, whether that's franchise or transition, and similarly, whether he's defined as a DT or DE.
So any discussion of the various tag values, while interesting and mostly factually accurate, does not apply to LW.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Ok, so there's some consensus $12-12.5m is FMV on a long term deal Â
i don't really buy the tactic for comp picks you mention. nor do i think even if you structure some deals to get a comp pick out of it it means that strategy has to influence every deal. different deals can have different tactics, the strategy they need to support is one where you get the best players on the field as frequently as you can.
If you disagree with the importance of gathering comp picks in general, that's fine - certainly you're within your rights to feel as though getting more draft picks than the teams that you're competing against is not a measurable advantage and that it might just be a coincidence that the Patriots, Ravens, Eagles, etc. are historically among the league leaders in comp picks each year. I suppose they might be consistently good in spite of having to spend scouting resources on all those extra draft picks that didn't cost them anything else to acquire.
As for the tactic itself for gaining those comp picks, it's not like that's some far-fetched theory that I've come up with; it's a fairly straight line that results in comp picks and relies entirely on having players reach the end of their contract.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Ok, so there's some consensus $12-12.5m is FMV on a long term deal Â
i don't really buy the tactic for comp picks you mention. nor do i think even if you structure some deals to get a comp pick out of it it means that strategy has to influence every deal. different deals can have different tactics, the strategy they need to support is one where you get the best players on the field as frequently as you can.
If you disagree with the importance of gathering comp picks in general, that's fine - certainly you're within your rights to feel as though getting more draft picks than the teams that you're competing against is not a measurable advantage and that it might just be a coincidence that the Patriots, Ravens, Eagles, etc. are historically among the league leaders in comp picks each year. I suppose they might be consistently good in spite of having to spend scouting resources on all those extra draft picks that didn't cost them anything else to acquire.
As for the tactic itself for gaining those comp picks, it's not like that's some far-fetched theory that I've come up with; it's a fairly straight line that results in comp picks and relies entirely on having players reach the end of their contract.
i didn't say in general. so please don't mischaracterize what i said. instead, i specifically said it in response to your idea of limiting your FA options - by taking creative contract structures off the table in order to try to get comp picks is the strategy i understand you saying that i'm disagreeing with.
as far as the teams you mention, i'd like to see which contracts you cite specifically and how they were structured as your evidence that led to them leading the league in total comp picks awarded. as far as my i can tell they mainly got those picks by developing their rookies.
i think we should start there too and then see what happens.
i want our tactics to support our strategy of getting the best players on the field. if you can show you have a tactic that furthers that then i'd be all ears. i'm not opposed to seeing your evidence and evaluating it and changing my view if it is compelling.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Ok, so there's some consensus $12-12.5m is FMV on a long term deal Â
If you disagree with the importance of gathering comp picks in general, that's fine - certainly you're within your rights to feel as though getting more draft picks than the teams that you're competing against is not a measurable advantage and that it might just be a coincidence that the Patriots, Ravens, Eagles, etc. are historically among the league leaders in comp picks each year. I suppose they might be consistently good in spite of having to spend scouting resources on all those extra draft picks that didn't cost them anything else to acquire.
As for the tactic itself for gaining those comp picks, it's not like that's some far-fetched theory that I've come up with; it's a fairly straight line that results in comp picks and relies entirely on having players reach the end of their contract.
You keep ignoring the obvious - to get those comp picks you have to draft well enough to have an excess of players other teams want to sign as FA. You can't just snap your fingers and materialize an overabundance of players other GM's value with multi-year 2nd contracts. That develops over multiple years of strong drafts, as Belichek + his GM's have done in NE and Ozzie Newsome in Baltimore, and Howie Roseman in Philly. That's why all 3 orgs have won SB's and executive of the year awards over the past decade.
Your argument is to complain over the spilled milk of the drafts from 2012-2016 which produced very few players who got 2nd contracts in the corresponding offseasons when those players first contracts ended. A quick count reveals 0 players from 2012 got multi-year second contracts in 2016, 1 such player from 2013 (Pugh), 2 from 2014 (Richburg, Kennard), and 1 from 2015 (Collins). Eli Apple is the lone candidate from the 2016 class, though obviously he already got traded for picks.
Good news though, Jerry Reese already got fired and DG seems to pay close attention to the comp pick formula in the moves he makes.
Still waiting for someone to point out of a worse NFL trade. Seriously, stupidest trade ever. And this thing about the Giants having to save face and sign him at a higher amount is exactly what many of us said would happen. Getty just isn’t a good GM.
If it goes over 12 million a year, hard fucking pass. I would rather invest in the OL including depth. If we can keep the D off the field with a strong running game it will help the DL more than signing LW.
It's already above that for LW.
No matter what tag is applied, LW's 2020 salary on a tag is $17M because the prevailing calculus is 120% of his 2019 salary ($14.2M).
I thought the estimated DT Transition number would be 12.3M but that was 2019...Looks like 2020 is estimated to be 13.2M. Am I missing something?
Because the value of the tag becomes irrelevant if it falls below 120% of a player's prior year salary. In LW's case, 120% of his 2019 salary ($14.2M) will surpass all applicable tag values, so that's the 2020 salary number that will correspond to any tag placed on LW, whether that's franchise or transition, and similarly, whether he's defined as a DT or DE.
So any discussion of the various tag values, while interesting and mostly factually accurate, does not apply to LW.
Thank you very much for taking the time to clarify that. I appreciate your words. I think we should take a pass. When looking at the Jets performance after he left and our performance after he joined and the teams we played with him. I do not believe his protection warrants a big contract. I could definitely stomach one year at 14.2M If anyone team offers him a long contact with lots of guaranteed, I think we should let him walk. No to a big contract to save face PRETTY PLEASE.
'$12-$12.5M may be fair market value but it's fiction.' Â
The market will determine his value, not what he earned in 2019. That number was what was required by the 5th year 1st round option the Jets activated for their former #6 overall pick in the hopes his good play would become great play. It didn't. There could very well be a downward adjustment based on his actual production to date.
Or not. We won't know and certainly can't speculate with any accuracy until the chips fall.
Sorry my last comment was not edited and stupid. Â
TLDR I don't believe his production warrants a large contract. Transition for 1 year . DO NOT MATCH! Make him prove it over an entire year or let him walk.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Ok, so there's some consensus $12-12.5m is FMV on a long term deal Â
i don't really buy the tactic for comp picks you mention. nor do i think even if you structure some deals to get a comp pick out of it it means that strategy has to influence every deal. different deals can have different tactics, the strategy they need to support is one where you get the best players on the field as frequently as you can.
If you disagree with the importance of gathering comp picks in general, that's fine - certainly you're within your rights to feel as though getting more draft picks than the teams that you're competing against is not a measurable advantage and that it might just be a coincidence that the Patriots, Ravens, Eagles, etc. are historically among the league leaders in comp picks each year. I suppose they might be consistently good in spite of having to spend scouting resources on all those extra draft picks that didn't cost them anything else to acquire.
As for the tactic itself for gaining those comp picks, it's not like that's some far-fetched theory that I've come up with; it's a fairly straight line that results in comp picks and relies entirely on having players reach the end of their contract.
i didn't say in general. so please don't mischaracterize what i said. instead, i specifically said it in response to your idea of limiting your FA options - by taking creative contract structures off the table in order to try to get comp picks is the strategy i understand you saying that i'm disagreeing with.
as far as the teams you mention, i'd like to see which contracts you cite specifically and how they were structured as your evidence that led to them leading the league in total comp picks awarded. as far as my i can tell they mainly got those picks by developing their rookies.
i think we should start there too and then see what happens.
i want our tactics to support our strategy of getting the best players on the field. if you can show you have a tactic that furthers that then i'd be all ears. i'm not opposed to seeing your evidence and evaluating it and changing my view if it is compelling.
The comp pick strategy shows up in a number of ways among the teams that appear to have a goal of enhancing their opportunity to collect them: obviously and most importantly, they draft well so that they have a steady pipeline to allow fungible players to leave as FA.
But they also tend to target players who have been cut instead of players who reach FA on expired contracts, or sign 2nd tier free agents to 1-year prove-it contracts to bridge their talent pipeline with stopgap options that they then let walk for a comp pick. Occasionally, they'll even trade for impending free agents when they can identify an opportunity for the comp pick value to exceed the cost in trade value (or as a way of offsetting the trade value so that they essentially trade nothing for players that they use as in-season rentals).
I don't think comp picks need to be the driving factor in structuring free agency contracts, but it would appear to me that it has barely even been a minimal factor in the Giants' approach. I think DG/KA can do a much better job in this area. It's literally one of the few opportunities for a free advantage that exists in a league where every other resource is finite and equal across all 32 teams.
RE: '$12-$12.5M may be fair market value but it's fiction.' Â
The market will determine his value, not what he earned in 2019. That number was what was required by the 5th year 1st round option the Jets activated for their former #6 overall pick in the hopes his good play would become great play. It didn't. There could very well be a downward adjustment based on his actual production to date.
Or not. We won't know and certainly can't speculate with any accuracy until the chips fall.
I can appreciate your POV on this, but I think it's wishful thinking to assume that DG will divorce himself from the trade when it comes to the negotiations - that was clear to me when he lied to reporters about the comp pick he'd receive if LW didn't re-sign (or he just doesn't understand comp picks, which is a more worrisome scenario than him lying, IMO).
Whether we like it or not, and this is my speculation but I think it's fair, DG is not going to let LW walk. The idea that LW's market value will be tested is the part that I think is fictional.
I'm not going to try and read the GM's mind. I'm just analyzing how he got to the $14M in 2019 and why that contract was inflated beyond his actual production. We'll see how the open market values him soon enough. I won't be at all surprised if he ends up in that $12M range with some sack escalators as a performance incentive.
Has a DL that isn't a true NT ever earned more than $12M AAV coming off a 15 game season where he had .5 sack? Yes, that .5...the number that is less than 1.
Grady Jarrett had 14 career sacks last year when he got tagged Â
and then extended at 17m AAV. Leonard Williams has 17.5 sacks in 5 years right now. Jarrett had never made a pro bowl prior to his extension, Williams has.
They're good contemporaries because they were drafted the same year, the only difference is since Williams was a first round pick he had a 5th year option whereas Jarrett was due to become a FA last offseason. Jarrett also had his best sack year in his walk year whereas Williams had his worst.
Has a DL that isn't a true NT ever earned more than $12M AAV coming off a 15 game season where he had .5 sack? Yes, that .5...the number that is less than 1.
I guess the question I have is that if this is a player that isn't going to command a bidding war on the open market, why did we need to trade draft picks for him when we were already 2-6 and out of contention?
and then extended at 17m AAV. Leonard Williams has 17.5 sacks in 5 years right now. Jarrett had never made a pro bowl prior to his extension, Williams has.
They're good contemporaries because they were drafted the same year, the only difference is since Williams was a first round pick he had a 5th year option whereas Jarrett was due to become a FA last offseason. Jarrett also had his best sack year in his walk year whereas Williams had his worst.
Jarrett, and even Jurrel Casey, is the right comp. But Jarrett was a 5th round pick. So his production has been gravy for the Falcons because of the expectations. He's been a find. They probably view him as draft capital well spent...
I wouldn't have paid that rate, but I could see why they felt good taking the chance.
Meanwhile, LW was a "lottery pick" and his production hasn't reflected that, especially, as you state, in his walk year.
It was a bad trade and we shouldn't further compound it by giving him a big deal when he just hasn't done the work to warrant it...
RE: RE: Grady Jarrett had 14 career sacks last year when he got tagged Â
and then extended at 17m AAV. Leonard Williams has 17.5 sacks in 5 years right now. Jarrett had never made a pro bowl prior to his extension, Williams has.
They're good contemporaries because they were drafted the same year, the only difference is since Williams was a first round pick he had a 5th year option whereas Jarrett was due to become a FA last offseason. Jarrett also had his best sack year in his walk year whereas Williams had his worst.
Jarrett, and even Jurrel Casey, is the right comp. But Jarrett was a 5th round pick. So his production has been gravy for the Falcons because of the expectations. He's been a find. They probably view him as draft capital well spent...
I wouldn't have paid that rate, but I could see why they felt good taking the chance.
Meanwhile, LW was a "lottery pick" and his production hasn't reflected that, especially, as you state, in his walk year.
It was a bad trade and we shouldn't further compound it by giving him a big deal when he just hasn't done the work to warrant it...
I agree, but now they are in a can't win. If they don't re-sign him, it makes the trade look even worse. If they sign him, they have to grossly overpay. And, the reality is there is little to no chance he plays at a level to warrant the picks or the salary.
Has a DL that isn't a true NT ever earned more than $12M AAV coming off a 15 game season where he had .5 sack? Yes, that .5...the number that is less than 1.
I guess the question I have is that if this is a player that isn't going to command a bidding war on the open market, why did we need to trade draft picks for him when we were already 2-6 and out of contention?
$12M is too much. He really isn't worth all that much. Let someone else pay him.
Giving a player huge money and multiple years just because you made a bad trade makes one mistake worse.
If they walk away now, all they lose is a draft pick.
Signing him just to "save face" ties up the cap for years in a player who will never be worth what he is paid, and is effectively hurting you ability to go get a star pass rusher (or fill any other need).
Management already admitted they made a mistake in trying to win and rebuild at the same time. Just admit you made a mistake now and nobody will remeber this in a year.
Or we'll be complaining about Leonard Williams never being a pass rusher for the next 3-5 years.
Contemporary contracts are a good indication of the market rate, they are not a good indication of:
1) having been good decisions
2) a good value/contribution to the vision the new staff has for defense Giants defense
My view, if you're investing in a Jarret type of contract (4/68 38 guaranteed), you expect an impact not complimentary player, regardless of position.
We have been around the block on this argument, but in this instance we are in complete agreement - which is why I'd tag him and ensure that's what we are getting before signing that kind of deal. Like Ngakoue, Conklin, and Justin Simmons, LW is the exact type of very young/high upside FA I want them to target, so if you told me I could get any of them on a 1 year deal I'd be all over it - even at a high AAV.
If LW is willing to take less on a favorable structure longer term, let's say the 4th year is a true option year and the AAV of the first 3 is really more like 12m (my math is in a post above), then I'd be willing to extend now because if he has a good year next year (5+ sacks) he'd command more than Jarrett got.
RE: 'why did we need to trade draft picks for him' Â
Forget about the picks, they are a sunk cost. Add it to the long term evaluation of Gettleman, but shouldn't be a part of the re-signing calculation.
Gettleman should only sign Williams to a contract proportionate to the value he and the staff put on the position and his likely contribution. That has to be the only factor. Otherwise it's a comedy.
Has a DL that isn't a true NT ever earned more than $12M AAV coming off a 15 game season where he had .5 sack? Yes, that .5...the number that is less than 1.
I guess the question I have is that if this is a player that isn't going to command a bidding war on the open market, why did we need to trade draft picks for him when we were already 2-6 and out of contention?
$12M is too much. He really isn't worth all that much. Let someone else pay him.
It's a fair question.
The notable DG apologists will pretend they didn't see this thread because they only exist where there are polarizing arguments - there's literally no other way to defend Poughkeepsie's favorite driver's ed teacher.
Forget about the picks, they are a sunk cost. Add it to the long term evaluation of Gettleman, but shouldn't be a part of the re-signing calculation.
Gettleman should only sign Williams to a contract proportionate to the value he and the staff put on the position and his likely contribution. That has to be the only factor. Otherwise it's a comedy.
I don't know you well enough to issue predictions, but I would be willing to bet that you and I both agree that DG is not going to view the picks traded away as a sunk cost. Instead, we, as fans, get to watch him piss away cap dollars in pursuit of the picks he already pissed away.
Even a feral cat knows when he has marked his territory. I'll stake my BBI credibility on the presumption that DG is not as smart as a feral cat.
Forget about the picks, they are a sunk cost. Add it to the long term evaluation of Gettleman, but shouldn't be a part of the re-signing calculation.
Gettleman should only sign Williams to a contract proportionate to the value he and the staff put on the position and his likely contribution. That has to be the only factor. Otherwise it's a comedy.
I don't know you well enough to issue predictions, but I would be willing to bet that you and I both agree that DG is not going to view the picks traded away as a sunk cost. Instead, we, as fans, get to watch him piss away cap dollars in pursuit of the picks he already pissed away.
Even a feral cat knows when he has marked his territory. I'll stake my BBI credibility on the presumption that DG is not as smart as a feral cat.
Damn
I always thought "feral" was spelled "farrell". Like colin farrell.
I agree, but now they are in a can't win. If they don't re-sign him, it makes the trade look even worse. If they sign him, they have to grossly overpay. And, the reality is there is little to no chance he plays at a level to warrant the picks or the salary.
It's only a win if we sign LW and he turns into a player well above his pedestrian output to date. Then the traded picks are forgotten, etc.
But, and I think Torrag said this somewhere, if LW couldn't do something like that his walk year, why would we think he's going to do that with a lot more money?
If we let LW walk, many of us, against the trade in the first place, would consider that the less damaging option.
Yup. I'll bet he gets it, too.
I agree. Of course, much depends on the details.
He's a good player. Add Yannick and another ER and maybe he looks even better.
I like Golden but I think Williams is the better player. Maybe not by much but a bit better.
Giants are in such a tough situation with this. On one hand, I don’t think Leonard Williams is the 6th best DT in the league, but on the other hand letting him walk means the Giants gave up a 3rd round pick for nothing. Gettlemen is already getting slammed for this trade, and letting him walk would make it even worse.
Top DT Annual Salaries - ( New Window )
This is what Ralph ACTUALLY said:
That would put the 25-year-old Williams, at least in his mind, in the $15 million per year range.
Whether he gets that much or something less, he'll still eat up a considerable chunk of the Giants' available cap space. More could be gone if they try to re-sign linebacker Markus Golden, coming off his 10-sack season.
Couldnt disagree more there. Golden is a pretty one dimensional guy. So youre paying him strictly as a pass rusher. And strictly as a pass rusher I dont think hes worth it. I think our perspective is skewed by just how anemic that group has been in recent years. Sacks get you paid, but 10 isnt something to break the bank for.
The opposing argument is he'll only get better with more talent around him, but it still just feels like a bad idea to me.
This. I've generally been supportive of Gettleman, but I just can't believe he did this. Made no sense to trade for him when he is FA and you're 2-6 on the way to nowhere.
Everything this team should be doing should revolve around its draft picks and collecting more of them, not less.
The cap hasn't gone up 50% in 3 years. The 2018 cap was ~170M, the 2020 cap is ~200M.
A 10M cap hit from 2018 would be equivalent to about 11.75M in 2020.
Regardless, the question is if Williams is worth allocating that much money. I'd argue he's a third tier player and their are a bunch of intriguing tackles and ends in UFA this year.
Dareus looks close but he has a small dead cap and isn't getting his number.
Quote:
of 10 million 3 years ago. Sounds like more than it is. Anyone who thought we would only sign him back for 8 or 10 million was wrong. Second tier players are getting paid that now. Williams is worth it. We're definitely signing him back. We've already invested in him by trading those picks.
The cap hasn't gone up 50% in 3 years. The 2018 cap was ~170M, the 2020 cap is ~200M.
A 10M cap hit from 2018 would be equivalent to about 11.75M in 2020.
Regardless, the question is if Williams is worth allocating that much money. I'd argue he's a third tier player and their are a bunch of intriguing tackles and ends in UFA this year.
As Chevy Chase said, I was told there would be no math lol. Good post. $15 million is still a lot of $.
I also think the Giants will let Golden walk and utilize that as part of the comp pick formula in 2021.
I also think the Giants will let Golden walk and utilize that as part of the comp pick formula in 2021.
Personally, I feel that the comp picks will not be in play this year as we aren't losing top tier talent and we have money to spend. I don't want to go crazy in FA but at the same time I think it would be pointless to let more guys leave at higher prices than be active in FA.
because they were trying to win games to save jobs.
Logical long term planning took a back seat
I also think the Giants will let Golden walk and utilize that as part of the comp pick formula in 2021.
unless I missed it, the deadline for deciding if the 2021 pick is a 4th or a 5th has not been disclosed.
The deadline is probably April 2021, right before the draft.
Grady Jarret is still the comp I think is best; 4/68 with 38 guaranteed.
For a good not great interior lineman who's a space eater and not much of a pass rusher, that's a good comparison.
How would you feel if the Giants signed Williams to a huge deal, and later in UFA they missed out on a good edge rusher because their cap resources were tied up?
You do agree resources are finite and the Giants should spend the most money on the best players, no?
You don't break the bank for him, but you don't break the bank for Williams. But Gettleman will be trying to convince Papa John of his importance considering what they gave up to get him. Or maybe it was Papa John who ordered that trade. Either way, it was poorly thought out. BBI knows better than to trade for a guy in the last year of his contract, especially since no one honestly thought the Giants would be competitive in 2019.
I think a dynamic pass rusher is way more important than a run stuffing 34 DT, considering the other DTs on the team. So, they give up a third this year and a 5th next year for 8 games of his services, or pay him what he demands, or use a tag on him. None seem like wise alternatives.
You aren’t good at evaluating DT play. Stick to your day job.
Just because the DT isn’t warren sapp doesn’t mean he’s not a good player. And a guy like sapp would get 25 million on the open market.
Williams needs help. He’s a solid two way DT who is entering his prime and doesn’t get hurt. Want better ? Good luck you won’t find it on the open market. Want less? Want to pay less? Enjoy that. Also, sacks are like WR TDs. Not necessarily overrated but not the end all be all either.
Quote:
would the Giants trade for him without agreeing to a new contract first?
because they were trying to win games to save jobs.
Logical long term planning took a back seat
I don’t buy that for a second.
And DG is still here despite a 4 win season. He traded for Williams because he wanted to get him in here for a long term deal. Bird in the hand.
Quote:
...
How would you feel if the Giants signed Williams to a huge deal, and later in UFA they missed out on a good edge rusher because their cap resources were tied up?
You do agree resources are finite and the Giants should spend the most money on the best players, no?
That I do agree with. But signing Williams doesn’t preclude them from signing another player. Plus, where is this elite passrusher? Forget the dude from Jax and BBI will go ape shit at the money the giants would have to pay him anyway.
Yes, it’s fair to compare Williams and his allotment of money to another possible get, but we don’t know where that other player even is or whether he’s available and we NEED another DLineman. Badly.
If this move costed us some passrushing stud? Sure I’d dislike the move too. But no one knows that. Bird in the hand. We need this guy.
You don't break the bank for him, but you don't break the bank for Williams. But Gettleman will be trying to convince Papa John of his importance considering what they gave up to get him. Or maybe it was Papa John who ordered that trade. Either way, it was poorly thought out. BBI knows better than to trade for a guy in the last year of his contract, especially since no one honestly thought the Giants would be competitive in 2019.
I think a dynamic pass rusher is way more important than a run stuffing 34 DT, considering the other DTs on the team. So, they give up a third this year and a 5th next year for 8 games of his services, or pay him what he demands, or use a tag on him. None seem like wise alternatives.
Golden is not a dynamic pass rusher, nor can he set an edge, and he doesn’t even have a position in the 4-3. We do need to have an OLB who is mostly a pass rusher but that person has to be a lot better than Golden or this scheme will never work.
The grass is greener but where is it greener? Never that simple. Doesn’t mean the giants should spend like fools, but the money hand wringing here is so over the top at times, really all the time.
As for the cost, Gettleman knew it would be high when he made the deal, and is clearly ready to fork over a big contract for a guy he sees as worthy of that money.
I wouldn’t have made the trade, but DG clearly felt that we wouldn’t be able to land him in FA, so felt that the cost of a 3 and later 4/5 was a fair price to pay in order to land a really solid DT.
The sad thing is that the team needs SO MUCH in order to benefit from this type of trade. At a minimum we need a top EDGE player to benefit from Lawrence, Tomlinson and Williams collapsing the pocket. A top ILB and FS are also crucial or else quick slants over the middle will negate whatever pass rush we develop.
Clearly, landing a top edge player in a trade would have helped the defense more, but where are you gonna land one at near the same price as we paid for Williams?
The available cap spending free to flood into the market this year is $1.6 Billion. Billion.
Its like a flood of wealthy Martians suddenly comes into your neighborhood with the ability to pay 2x for the same home as last year.
You aren't going to like it - and its feels unfair that house which isnt even close to best in the neighborhood gets more than the top mansion got last years - but its reality.
Williams contract ( and all the 2020 FA) is not a continuous part of the old sample size. He is the next sample over.
That said:
Imo, his contract at any size is not worth it unless they get edge capability as well. imo, I cant tell yet ( because I haven't sorted out the upcoming draft) whether it makes more sense to draft OL and FA defense or the other way around.
What I do know is that one good way to move forward as a team is to get one or more elite units while not having any bottom of the barrel. Our DL unit is close to being elite. Elite DL's require depth and good rotation and position flexibility. So there could be some multiplicative value to investments in this unit.
(Oddly, in most games and competitions; improving the competitive advantages you do have ( Starting pitching for the Mets, etc.) is faster out of the basement than spreading evenly regardless of competitive strengths and weaknesses.)
In sum we want an elite competitive advantage unit at an average unit price. Id be fine with Williams if the edge came from the draft or from guys who were also pressure capable linebackers or safeties.
Once the contract doesn't let us get out in 3-4 years or its in addition to a massive Edge FA contract then id consider it malpractice.
As for the cost, Gettleman knew it would be high when he made the deal, and is clearly ready to fork over a big contract for a guy he sees as worthy of that money.
I wouldn’t have made the trade, but DG clearly felt that we wouldn’t be able to land him in FA, so felt that the cost of a 3 and later 4/5 was a fair price to pay in order to land a really solid DT.
The sad thing is that the team needs SO MUCH in order to benefit from this type of trade. At a minimum we need a top EDGE player to benefit from Lawrence, Tomlinson and Williams collapsing the pocket. A top ILB and FS are also crucial or else quick slants over the middle will negate whatever pass rush we develop.
Clearly, landing a top edge player in a trade would have helped the defense more, but where are you gonna land one at near the same price as we paid for Williams?
How does the using the draft picks ensure we land LW?
I hope the point is to collect the best combination of talent and value that fits in the budget.
Giants are in such a tough situation with this. On one hand, I don’t think Leonard Williams is the 6th best DT in the league, but on the other hand letting him walk means the Giants gave up a 3rd round pick for nothing. Gettlemen is already getting slammed for this trade, and letting him walk would make it even worse. Top DT Annual Salaries - ( New Window )
You are absolutely right, but you don't compound the problem by giving him a cap crippling contract that makes him Olivier Vernon 2.0.
Quote:
would pay me 15 mil to be almost good at my job.
You aren’t good at evaluating DT play. Stick to your day job.
Just because the DT isn’t warren sapp doesn’t mean he’s not a good player. And a guy like sapp would get 25 million on the open market.
Williams needs help. He’s a solid two way DT who is entering his prime and doesn’t get hurt. Want better ? Good luck you won’t find it on the open market. Want less? Want to pay less? Enjoy that. Also, sacks are like WR TDs. Not necessarily overrated but not the end all be all either.
This is a good post. LW is a good, young player. He’s good vs the run and pressures the QB. He creates for other players. 15 mil per for that isn’t a bad deal.
I hope the point is to collect the best combination of talent and value that fits in the budget.
Getting the “best combination of talent and value” in FA is like finding a unicorn in your back yard.
You’re either going to overpay for good players or try to hit the lotto in the bargain bin of FA.
The Giants are probably going to overpay for some guys in FA — and that really isn’t terrible if the player is productive at an impact position of need.
- the Giants have had a very bad defense
- some combination of better players (plus other factors) is part of improving the defense
The mere presence of Williams wasn't the only missing piece. More is needed.
Gettleman's job is to acquire the best talent the budget will allow for -- that's not pre-determined to include Williams.
A number of better combinations might exist, and Gettleman should pursue all scenarios.
Quote:
So you're basically eliminating every other outcome, assuming because fans won't like the price tag the Giants won't pursue the best pass rusher on the market, and because Gettleman traded for Williams he's the best option?
I hope the point is to collect the best combination of talent and value that fits in the budget.
Getting the “best combination of talent and value” in FA is like finding a unicorn in your back yard.
You’re either going to overpay for good players or try to hit the lotto in the bargain bin of FA.
The Giants are probably going to overpay for some guys in FA — and that really isn’t terrible if the player is productive at an impact position of need.
That's beyond absurd.
Then you don't want guys like Clowney or Yannik here.
It's projected to be $15.5M.
Eek, tried to do that in my head based on memory.
I think it's actually closer to 17.75M.
How could this possibly be worth doing?
I am clearly missing something.
&17m+ to shell out is leverage?
Quote:
As well. It looks like Graham wants to use his olb’s in coverage at times and Golden would be a massive liability in any coverage role. He’s not the versatile defender we should be looking for
Then you don't want guys like Clowney or Yannik here.
Clowney isn’t one dimensional because he can play the run and pass rush, I’ve also seen yannick play man on a rb effectively. Imo, they both offer more versatility than Golden
I agree with your take here. We should either let LW walk - and write it off as a poor trade and the lost picks are a sunk cost - or transition tag him. The TT is expected to be around $12.5M...and hope someone is a sucker and signs LW.
Grady Jarret, that is your comp. The market recently spoke on a player with similar production.
Quote:
you need to save that money to spend on difference makers. williams is not that. he's fine but not special. don't sign players to bad deals. let him walk and take the comp pick if that's the money he's going to get
I agree with your take here. We should either let LW walk - and write it off as a poor trade and the lost picks are a sunk cost - or transition tag him. The TT is expected to be around $12.5M...and hope someone is a sucker and signs LW.
I agree. Don’t throw good money after bad. No way Big Leonard is worth 15 million per year with a significant portion guaranteed . He is did but not a difference maker
Quote:
in the NFL in regards to annual salary. Five guys ahead of him would be Aaron Donald, Fletcher Cox, Grady Jarrett, Geno Atkins and Jurrel Casey. Right below the $15 mil annual mark are Marcel Dareus, Linval Joseph, Akiem Hicks and Sheldon Richardson.
Giants are in such a tough situation with this. On one hand, I don’t think Leonard Williams is the 6th best DT in the league, but on the other hand letting him walk means the Giants gave up a 3rd round pick for nothing. Gettlemen is already getting slammed for this trade, and letting him walk would make it even worse. Top DT Annual Salaries - ( New Window )
You are absolutely right, but you don't compound the problem by giving him a cap crippling contract that makes him Olivier Vernon 2.0.
Vernon wasn’t cap crippling. He got hurt which sucked and we had to suffer through one year of dead money, a year the giants were resetting things anyway, and they traded him for a plus player in Zietler.
He also helped the giants make the playoffs in 2016.
DG and the Giants didn't want to watch us get shredded and liked this lineman, so they went ahead.
Now I believe he will get a contract. What $ they agree to we will see. I do think he is a very solid guy to have on the D.
As for MG, his ten sacks and pressures are great but he wasn't strong to my eyes vs the run.
I like Williams, but we have spent high draft picks on the interior D line- Maybe not Gettleman when it comes to Tomlinson and Hill, but he went early with Lawrence.
Lawrence played well, Tomilnson was inspiring as well last year. Hopefully the new coaching staff can get Hill back on track.
I feel we just have way too many holes to fill to pay Williams this much. Even if it is market price.
Quote:
That is OUR leverage. He has some, we have some.
&17m+ to shell out is leverage?
LBH, I didn’t realize that was the cost. You’re right; we don’t have that leverage.
NEWS AT 11!
Were you all born yesterday?
I'd personally rather tag him than give him the contract those guys get on the open market. Maybe even tag him twice.
Then decide whether to resign him down the road or let him walk in another offseason to recoup a 3rd round comp pick after getting a motivated contract year under the new staff.
Quote:
In comment 14806720 nyjuggernaut2 said:
Quote:
in the NFL in regards to annual salary. Five guys ahead of him would be Aaron Donald, Fletcher Cox, Grady Jarrett, Geno Atkins and Jurrel Casey. Right below the $15 mil annual mark are Marcel Dareus, Linval Joseph, Akiem Hicks and Sheldon Richardson.
Giants are in such a tough situation with this. On one hand, I don’t think Leonard Williams is the 6th best DT in the league, but on the other hand letting him walk means the Giants gave up a 3rd round pick for nothing. Gettlemen is already getting slammed for this trade, and letting him walk would make it even worse. Top DT Annual Salaries - ( New Window )
You are absolutely right, but you don't compound the problem by giving him a cap crippling contract that makes him Olivier Vernon 2.0.
Vernon wasn’t cap crippling. He got hurt which sucked and we had to suffer through one year of dead money, a year the giants were resetting things anyway, and they traded him for a plus player in Zietler.
He also helped the giants make the playoffs in 2016.
Vernon + JPP + Snacks underperforming was cap crippling.
Always this.
And they're examples of why the last GM had to go.
So good to see people are still trying to justify this train wreck of a trade. I'm sure Mara is probably sitting in an office with his brother somewhere trying to do the same, while the Giants struggle to see if they can get past single digits in wins this year.
The guy in charge should be fired just for this deal.
He’s a good player. If he’s your 3rd best DL you’re in good shape. You don’t pay your #3 DL that kind of money.
And this DL close to elite? Maybe if we add 3 elite guys.
Unit Ability to have a strong rotation all season long
Unit Ability to play several scheme variations
Multiple players able to play the run and the pass
Unit Durability
Unit that doesn't take plays off
Its the closest unit to elite we have and the only one that could be above NFL average with moves to deepen or expand its skill sets.
My request was to evaluate using a broader view of the Units future and its greater than average part in making it harder for opponents to do well.
IF you wish to trade scornful remarks we can do that. Im bored, so its fine by me; but its up to you
Quote:
In comment 14806789 yatqb said:
Quote:
That is OUR leverage. He has some, we have some.
&17m+ to shell out is leverage?
LBH, I didn’t realize that was the cost. You’re right; we don’t have that leverage.
Yep I agree
Hahahahahaha if he takes a pay cut after a sucker GM for a loser team traded for him, he should fire his agent.
The guy in charge should be fired just for this deal.
He’s a good player. If he’s your 3rd best DL you’re in good shape. You don’t pay your #3 DL that kind of money.
And this DL close to elite? Maybe if we add 3 elite guys.
I wish I could say this was exaggerating the truth but I cannot.
Disnt meant to offend or bother you in any way. The team sucks. This trade was awful and was a step back. And for me, throwing a huge contract at Williams makes it worse. On draft day? It gets even worse as we see the pool of talent on the board when the jets get our player with that high 3rd.
He must have convinced DG there were other interested teams?
Who the hell were we bidding on...Reggie White?
Thx KWALL
Don’t get hung up over the draft picks. They are gone. It is like dead money.
Quote:
In the 13-14 million range ultimately
Hahahahahaha if he takes a pay cut after a sucker GM for a loser team traded for him, he should fire his agent.
Spot on. I've mentioned this several times over the last few months. Team LW should be asking for AT LEAST $17M to start. If not, they are doing LW a terrible disservice and not using all the available market information...
This is a stacked class at WR and we need one (Id cut Tate - another terrible move). There will be a few Stud WRs on the board with that 3rd pick. We could have had one on a cheap deal instead we’re talking about overpaying for Williams.
Don’t get hung up over the draft picks. They are gone. It is like dead money.
It would be dead money if there was a different GM making the next decision. In this case, it's the same hipster dufus...
Its not going to happen by draft picks. We fool ourselves into thinking they are cheap. Yet their risk of failure in a time of need PLUS their development curves at some long learned positions ( QB/CB/DT/Center/OT) can skew the one derivative view of what's needed to build a team from the cellar
So there will be future performance to pay risks for a FA DL or a OL or a LB. After all, you don't want draft choices to learn on a team of perpetual losing.
Even a first round DT (which we cant afford) would have a 2 year development curve and an alternative opportunity cost. And having 2 good DTs next to Lawrence may well be an asymmetric unit. Neither of us is qualified to assess that possibility
I don't think the choices are so ridiculous as to be deserving of contempt. Seems a wide ( but no doubt very emotional) range of fan opinion will exist until it proves out on the field. My other guess is that the wait and see fans will just be mostly silent. Posting communities on the internet easily become echo chambers.
Take care
DT was once of the areas where we didn't have a "massive hole". So bringing in LW was superfluous. We were out of the playoff hunt and we needed to be sellers not buyers. It's Bad Team 101.
We are an organization that thrives on dumb.
Exactly. Which is why his yearly number will be lower but the guaranteed money will be to his liking. Making the deal positive for both parties.
Here is some different context with the stats with and without LW:
The D gave up 27ppg before LW arrived. They gave up 29ppg after he arrived. We were 2-6 pre-LW, beating the Skins and Bucs. 2-6 after he arrived, beating the Skins and Miami.
With common opponents:
Zeke ran for 139 yards with LW here. Without LW, he ran for 53.
Before LW was here, AP ran for 28 yards. With LW here, he ran for 36 yards.
In the first Eagles game with LW here, the Eagles ran for 118 yards. In the second game, they ran for 121 yards. The Eagles season average running the ball was 121 yards per game. So in both games, with Boston Scott as their primary, the ran to their average.
I'm not really sure we did improve after LW arrived...
Quote:
I didn't like the deal, and if he either walks or we pay more than $12MAAV I'll like it even less...but the deal wasn't superfluous. Our run 'D' was struggling and improved significantly with his acquisition. Our pressure stats were bad and they improved as well. So there were legitimate reasons to trade for him. The problem was the compensation package for a rental in a losing season.
Here is some different context with the stats with and without LW:
The D gave up 27ppg before LW arrived. They gave up 29ppg after he arrived. We were 2-6 pre-LW, beating the Skins and Bucs. 2-6 after he arrived, beating the Skins and Miami.
With common opponents:
Zeke ran for 139 yards with LW here. Without LW, he ran for 53.
Before LW was here, AP ran for 28 yards. With LW here, he ran for 36 yards.
In the first Eagles game with LW here, the Eagles ran for 118 yards. In the second game, they ran for 121 yards. The Eagles season average running the ball was 121 yards per game. So in both games, with Boston Scott as their primary, the ran to their average.
I'm not really sure we did improve after LW arrived...
Well the first Dallas game, Elliott signed his extension the week of the game, and he was used in a limited fashion.
Williams would look a lot better if we had a LB or two to shoot gaps and make tackles.
Gentleman, for whatever reason, focused in on LW at some point last year, made a strange deal in bringing him onto a bad team at a bad time based on the state of this franchise. Now the only question is he going to make a worse decision to pay top free agent prices to sign him to a longer term deal despite my first sentence above.
The draft choices DG gave up are just sunk costs huh? Wait until the Jets pick up a good WR, LB or decent Center with those picks...then it'll really sink in.
I know it’s been said over and over and over and beaten to death but I can’t wrap my brain around how fucking stupid this was. A child would make this trade. And I don’t even hate Gettleman... it’s not about that. It’s about objectively looking at something and calling it what it is-a mind numbingly stupid move.
The past is the past, we have to move on etc etc but holy shit. It’s so bad it will never die. He’s a poor mans keith Hamilton... at least hammer ended up with some sacks. Good player, not worth a 3rd rounder (which almost amounts to a late 2nd) and certainly not worth 15 mil. No way.
if this what he's starting at, the final figure will be lower. if Giants were going to meet his asking price, he'd already be re-signed.
the picks traded away are gone. If he's re-signed, the additional draft cost is the 5th rounder bumping up to a 4. The other draft picks are no longer a factor in whether or not to re-sign.
my take is that he performed as expected, and the cost is as expected, so he's what they wanted and planned on cost-wise. The only question now is whether the new regime wants him.
We’ll see how good the trade was next year. We play a lot of good rush offenses (SF, Baltimore, Seattle, Philly, Dallas, Arizona, Cleveland). If we’re continuing to get pounded on the ground and finish with less than 7 wins after handing out a big contract to LW, I’m firing DG right after the last game ends next year.
Giants had 36 sacks for the year. 20 came before LW arrived. 16 post LW.
Golden had 10 sacks for the year - 4.5 pre-LW, 5.5 with LW here. He had 18 tackles for losses. 10 of those were before LW arrived.
Tomlinson had 2 sacks before LW arrived. 1.5 after he arrived. He had 49 total tackles for the year. 27 of those before LW arrived. He had 23 solo tackles for the year. 11 pre LW, 12 post LW.
So I’m not sure the words “dramatically improved” come to mind...
Again, with LW we allowed 2 more ppg on D and we had the same record - 2/6 - with and without LW.
He just didn’t materially impact the D. Maybe some incremental changes in some areas. But nothing that got passed through to helping us win more games...
Quote:
We gave up almost a full yard less per rush attempt and nearly 60% of our sacks and QB pressure occurred after he was acquired. Both Tomlinson and Golden's results improved dramatically as a result of the attention he drew. The DL as a whole played better. That much was obvious just watching the games even without delving into the numbers. The only individual statistical category LW didn't produce above the curve was sacks for himself.
Giants had 36 sacks for the year. 20 came before LW arrived. 16 post LW.
Golden had 10 sacks for the year - 4.5 pre-LW, 5.5 with LW here. He had 18 tackles for losses. 10 of those were before LW arrived.
Tomlinson had 2 sacks before LW arrived. 1.5 after he arrived. He had 49 total tackles for the year. 27 of those before LW arrived. He had 23 solo tackles for the year. 11 pre LW, 12 post LW.
So I’m not sure the words “dramatically improved” come to mind...
Again, with LW we allowed 2 more ppg on D and we had the same record - 2/6 - with and without LW.
He just didn’t materially impact the D. Maybe some incremental changes in some areas. But nothing that got passed through to helping us win more games...
Of course you leave out the impact of a possible failed scheme, poor coaching, low morale. Just because something can't be put on a stat sheet doesn't mean it isn't important to the overall good of the team.
Quote:
In comment 14807097 Torrag said:
Quote:
We gave up almost a full yard less per rush attempt and nearly 60% of our sacks and QB pressure occurred after he was acquired. Both Tomlinson and Golden's results improved dramatically as a result of the attention he drew. The DL as a whole played better. That much was obvious just watching the games even without delving into the numbers. The only individual statistical category LW didn't produce above the curve was sacks for himself.
Giants had 36 sacks for the year. 20 came before LW arrived. 16 post LW.
Golden had 10 sacks for the year - 4.5 pre-LW, 5.5 with LW here. He had 18 tackles for losses. 10 of those were before LW arrived.
Tomlinson had 2 sacks before LW arrived. 1.5 after he arrived. He had 49 total tackles for the year. 27 of those before LW arrived. He had 23 solo tackles for the year. 11 pre LW, 12 post LW.
So I’m not sure the words “dramatically improved” come to mind...
Again, with LW we allowed 2 more ppg on D and we had the same record - 2/6 - with and without LW.
He just didn’t materially impact the D. Maybe some incremental changes in some areas. But nothing that got passed through to helping us win more games...
Of course you leave out the impact of a possible failed scheme, poor coaching, low morale. Just because something can't be put on a stat sheet doesn't mean it isn't important to the overall good of the team.
Yes, indeed. He could also be a good locker room culture guy we need.
You can't pay enough for those types.
Among PFF's top 50 FA he's #34 and the 5th youngest. That's just 8 spots behind everyones favorite $100m pipedream Yannick Ngakoue. Whether it's with a huge contract or a similarly compensated trade + sign, if they got Ngakoue it would probably have like a 90% approval rating. Each has made 1 pro bowl in their careers, had down seasons in 2019 relative to prior seasons, and have some general scheme/fit questions. Edge rusher is more of a glamour position and sacks are a glamour stat but I don't think that should completely minimize the importance of a good interior DL.
And don't get me wrong - I'd love to get Ngakoue because he's a good player. I'm just similarly happy to have Williams because he's also good player. We can argue about value of acquisition until we are blue in the face once we see what both cost but the game is played on the field first and both can help there over the next 4-5 years. Both are young, productive, and have track records of not missing games. It wasn't ideal to have to trade for LW but that shouldn't completely cloud the evaluation of what he is as a player.
Quote:
In comment 14807097 Torrag said:
Quote:
We gave up almost a full yard less per rush attempt and nearly 60% of our sacks and QB pressure occurred after he was acquired. Both Tomlinson and Golden's results improved dramatically as a result of the attention he drew. The DL as a whole played better. That much was obvious just watching the games even without delving into the numbers. The only individual statistical category LW didn't produce above the curve was sacks for himself.
Giants had 36 sacks for the year. 20 came before LW arrived. 16 post LW.
Golden had 10 sacks for the year - 4.5 pre-LW, 5.5 with LW here. He had 18 tackles for losses. 10 of those were before LW arrived.
Tomlinson had 2 sacks before LW arrived. 1.5 after he arrived. He had 49 total tackles for the year. 27 of those before LW arrived. He had 23 solo tackles for the year. 11 pre LW, 12 post LW.
So I’m not sure the words “dramatically improved” come to mind...
Again, with LW we allowed 2 more ppg on D and we had the same record - 2/6 - with and without LW.
He just didn’t materially impact the D. Maybe some incremental changes in some areas. But nothing that got passed through to helping us win more games...
Of course you leave out the impact of a possible failed scheme, poor coaching, low morale. Just because something can't be put on a stat sheet doesn't mean it isn't important to the overall good of the team.
I did. And I left off community service, charity work, good guy factor, the "LW wants to stay in NY" factor, etc.
If you want to take a crack how you can apply those intangibles to justify a $15-$17M salary, I'm all ears...
Among PFF's top 50 FA he's #34 and the 5th youngest. That's just 8 spots behind everyones favorite $100m pipedream Yannick Ngakoue. Whether it's with a huge contract or a similarly compensated trade + sign, if they got Ngakoue it would probably have like a 90% approval rating. Each has made 1 pro bowl in their careers, had down seasons in 2019 relative to prior seasons, and have some general scheme/fit questions. Edge rusher is more of a glamour position and sacks are a glamour stat but I don't think that should completely minimize the importance of a good interior DL.
And don't get me wrong - I'd love to get Ngakoue because he's a good player. I'm just similarly happy to have Williams because he's also good player. We can argue about value of acquisition until we are blue in the face once we see what both cost but the game is played on the field first and both can help there over the next 4-5 years. Both are young, productive, and have track records of not missing games. It wasn't ideal to have to trade for LW but that shouldn't completely cloud the evaluation of what he is as a player.
I think you've tossed rational analysis out the window. You just put Ngakoue in the same 'good' category as Williams.
Being 34th on a list of top 50 being used to actually promote this view should be a sign that no rational thought was applied. He's not a bad player - and the Giants should get out of the business of trading picks to pay tens of millions of dollars to players simply for 'not being bad' (see Ogletree, Alec).
I would absolutely let him walk. But Dave won’t though. He knows his perception in the media. He has to realize he’s going to be looked upon as a bumbling incompetent fool if he lets LW walk. So not only will he sign him, he might even give him a fully guaranteed contract.
Quote:
That will probably be made worse. Leonard Williams is a slightly above average 3-4 DE/DT, and you can find those anywhere. He's not a difference-maker. He's not a player that opposing OC's have to plan for. He's not worth what the Giants gave up to get him. That was a mistake that should absolutely not be compounded by signing him to a big money deal.
I would absolutely let him walk. But Dave won’t though. He knows his perception in the media. He has to realize he’s going to be looked upon as a bumbling incompetent fool if he lets LW walk. So not only will he sign him, he might even give him a fully guaranteed contract.
and that would help his reputation how exactly? He would get a little respect maybe if he said the contract demands were too high and moved on. Signing him to save face is assi ine.
Quote:
In comment 14807155 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 14807097 Torrag said:
Quote:
We gave up almost a full yard less per rush attempt and nearly 60% of our sacks and QB pressure occurred after he was acquired. Both Tomlinson and Golden's results improved dramatically as a result of the attention he drew. The DL as a whole played better. That much was obvious just watching the games even without delving into the numbers. The only individual statistical category LW didn't produce above the curve was sacks for himself.
Giants had 36 sacks for the year. 20 came before LW arrived. 16 post LW.
Golden had 10 sacks for the year - 4.5 pre-LW, 5.5 with LW here. He had 18 tackles for losses. 10 of those were before LW arrived.
Tomlinson had 2 sacks before LW arrived. 1.5 after he arrived. He had 49 total tackles for the year. 27 of those before LW arrived. He had 23 solo tackles for the year. 11 pre LW, 12 post LW.
So I’m not sure the words “dramatically improved” come to mind...
Again, with LW we allowed 2 more ppg on D and we had the same record - 2/6 - with and without LW.
He just didn’t materially impact the D. Maybe some incremental changes in some areas. But nothing that got passed through to helping us win more games...
Of course you leave out the impact of a possible failed scheme, poor coaching, low morale. Just because something can't be put on a stat sheet doesn't mean it isn't important to the overall good of the team.
Yes, indeed. He could also be a good locker room culture guy we need.
You can't pay enough for those types.
Thankfully we gave Omameh and Stewart a combined 8M for the year to help the new coach Pat Shurmur pull the reins in as the adult in the room...
and that would help his reputation how exactly? He would get a little respect maybe if he said the contract demands were too high and moved on. Signing him to save face is assi ine.
Plausible deniability. If Williams walks there's no denying the trade was a waste, a team going nowhere losing two draft picks for 8 games (in the hopes that a comp pick could possibly offset one of them) would be an outright, undeniable waste of resources.
If they sign him, then they can at least try to play up his value.
I just don't see what in LW's career trajectory anyone sees that warrants him being paid $15M a season. So far, the best case argument is 'well, the Giants have a lot of money to burn and so does everyone else', but that still stops short of explaining why they'd give up a 3rd, a 4th, and $15M a season to keep this guy.
Quote:
when it comes to Leonard Williams. I mean I do understand, the histrionics about it are just surprising.
Among PFF's top 50 FA he's #34 and the 5th youngest. That's just 8 spots behind everyones favorite $100m pipedream Yannick Ngakoue. Whether it's with a huge contract or a similarly compensated trade + sign, if they got Ngakoue it would probably have like a 90% approval rating. Each has made 1 pro bowl in their careers, had down seasons in 2019 relative to prior seasons, and have some general scheme/fit questions. Edge rusher is more of a glamour position and sacks are a glamour stat but I don't think that should completely minimize the importance of a good interior DL.
And don't get me wrong - I'd love to get Ngakoue because he's a good player. I'm just similarly happy to have Williams because he's also good player. We can argue about value of acquisition until we are blue in the face once we see what both cost but the game is played on the field first and both can help there over the next 4-5 years. Both are young, productive, and have track records of not missing games. It wasn't ideal to have to trade for LW but that shouldn't completely cloud the evaluation of what he is as a player.
I think you've tossed rational analysis out the window. You just put Ngakoue in the same 'good' category as Williams.
Being 34th on a list of top 50 being used to actually promote this view should be a sign that no rational thought was applied. He's not a bad player - and the Giants should get out of the business of trading picks to pay tens of millions of dollars to players simply for 'not being bad' (see Ogletree, Alec).
The problem with Ogletree was that he was a bad player. The problem wasn't as much his salary or the fact that they gave up a 4th rd pick (which became John Franklin Myers, who got cut within a year) - it was that he sucked on the field.
If Leonard Williams sucks on the field I'll entirely agree with you but that hasn't happened yet. It's also why I would tag him and get a full year to decide whether he's worth signing long term, and if not I'd let him walk next year to recoup the pick as a comp pick.
Exactly what Leonard Williams was with the Jets and with the Giants. Not a huge liability. Not a producer. Just kind of there.
A $15M, just kind of there player. Who cost a 3rd and a 4th round pick. And then we wonder why the Giants are as bad as they are. It's not just coaching, it's because the front office has their heads collectively up their ass.
If Williams similarly goes over a cliff to the point where he is a liability on the field then acquiring him would have been a similarly terrible decision. If that's how you viewed his performance in the limited time we had him I disagree. If that's what you predict going forward that's a perfectly fair opinion, but it's just as fair for anyone to predict something else. As I've said, my opinion is there are a lot of variables that make it hard to accurately predict how good or bad Williams will be in the future here - which is why I want to tag him to get a year with the new staff before making a decision either way. Letting him walk next year keeps the cap clean and recoups some of the assets given up for him in the first place.
The odds they would have drafted the same player as LAR are close to 0.
We can second guess draft picks all day long but the Giants passed on the guys you mentioned and took RJ McIntosh just 4 picks after the pick they gave LAR, so he's probably the most likely guy they would have taken with the exact pick they gave up for Ogletree (the 3 players in between were Marquis Haynes, Dalton Schultz, and Cole Madison).
Confession time. I had to look up "Sisyphus".
Yes, I suppose I am.
Quote:
In comment 14807155 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 14807097 Torrag said:
Quote:
We gave up almost a full yard less per rush attempt and nearly 60% of our sacks and QB pressure occurred after he was acquired. Both Tomlinson and Golden's results improved dramatically as a result of the attention he drew. The DL as a whole played better. That much was obvious just watching the games even without delving into the numbers. The only individual statistical category LW didn't produce above the curve was sacks for himself.
Giants had 36 sacks for the year. 20 came before LW arrived. 16 post LW.
Golden had 10 sacks for the year - 4.5 pre-LW, 5.5 with LW here. He had 18 tackles for losses. 10 of those were before LW arrived.
Tomlinson had 2 sacks before LW arrived. 1.5 after he arrived. He had 49 total tackles for the year. 27 of those before LW arrived. He had 23 solo tackles for the year. 11 pre LW, 12 post LW.
So I’m not sure the words “dramatically improved” come to mind...
Again, with LW we allowed 2 more ppg on D and we had the same record - 2/6 - with and without LW.
He just didn’t materially impact the D. Maybe some incremental changes in some areas. But nothing that got passed through to helping us win more games...
Of course you leave out the impact of a possible failed scheme, poor coaching, low morale. Just because something can't be put on a stat sheet doesn't mean it isn't important to the overall good of the team.
I did. And I left off community service, charity work, good guy factor, the "LW wants to stay in NY" factor, etc.
If you want to take a crack how you can apply those intangibles to justify a $15-$17M salary, I'm all ears...
No you're not "all ears". You made up your mind a long time ago that the giants way is always wrong no matter what information comes your way.
Sadly ur probably right.
Quote:
doing your Sisyphus thing this morning?
Confession time. I had to look up "Sisyphus".
Yes, I suppose I am.
Pink Floyd - Sysyphus (All Parts)
Yes, they spelled it like that.
No you're not "all ears". You made up your mind a long time ago that the giants way is always wrong no matter what information comes your way.
The Giants have been mostly wrong for a long time. So I see know reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. That trust needs to be restored with many in the fan base. In my judgment...
I was arguing with Torrag trying to use numerical facts that dismiss some of this narrative that LW made such a big impact on this defense. And I stand by the numbers. They are telling.
Quote:
No you're not "all ears". You made up your mind a long time ago that the giants way is always wrong no matter what information comes your way.
The Giants have been mostly wrong for a long time. So I see know reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. That trust needs to be restored with many in the fan base. In my judgment...
I was arguing with Torrag trying to use numerical facts that dismiss some of this narrative that LW made such a big impact on this defense. And I stand by the numbers. They are telling.
Numbers like Dalvin Tomlinson's marginal drop off in some areas of production after Williams joined the team?
Did that account for snaps played by Tomlinson, which likely decreased?
One would think the unit's overall numbers on a per play basis, like YPC by opponents, is a more reliable metric.
I know Hill's took a big hit, hadn't really considered McIntosh as a factor, but still wondered if Dalvin's decreased.
Other individual metrics are skewed by LW taking plays away from other DL, and I truly prefer eyeballing to stat counts. Especially if one doesn't factor in situational stats.
I strongly believe the DL unit now is much stronger than it was even with Damon Harrison on it because they are better in short yardage. The eyeball test tells me LW, DL, and DT don't lose as much territory at the LOS, our DL is often playing the game on our opponents' side if the LOS, and that will increase with continued experience on DL's part and Hill's part and fewer snaps for individuals and more rotation.
Whatever, I'm in favor of a dominant DL and while we are not there yet, we are approaching that goal if we re-sign LW.
Everyone know we really need an elite or close to elite edge guy, but was it a mistake to pass on Allen for Jones? Can't make that call yet, can we?
Williams is a plus player. Moreso if a plus than Golden IMO.
They had 22 out their 35 sacks as a team after LW left.
Their rushing D improved.
So how are those signs of a "plus player"...as you call LW...
as you use them can be made to support specious arguments as you have. You completely ignore the rushing statistics because they negate your position. Allowing an entire yard less per rush is significant. It's not his fault the back 8 couldn't defend a pass or deny a 3rd down conversion to save their asses.
You also have errors in your statistical arguments. Golden's TFL numbers were 13 for the season, 4 before LW and 9 after the trade. That speaks to disruption at the LoS. Tomlinson had 29 TCKLs after LW and 20TCKLs before. Again an indication LW was helping the DL produce. You also have his sack numbers flipped not that it's significant but telling to your 'research'.
We can't know the answer to the following question but we can infer it...how would the DL have performed if they had all been asked to play another 100 snaps or with guys like McIntosh and Chris Slayton playing significant minutes in LW's stead? Answer? Not well.
So going back to what started this. You said he was 'superfluous'...here are some definitions:
useless · unproductive · pointless . One man can't make a bad defense good, but he can do his job well. He can do it better than the other options available on the roster. LW did. I don't think that's superfluous.
This is why I hate even debating this crap. The money side of It just obliterates any objective and rational talk on a player’s worth.
When is is a good DT who is under 26 NOT worth market value? It ain’t your money!
We also don’t know for sure that spending 15 or so on Williams means the giants can’t spend 15 on another (Better) player. I love how this is just commonly assumed by so many. Doesn’t always work that way. Hate to tell you this.
The TFL are indeed 18, not 13. But I had those backwards. I knew one of them showed a greater bump with LW in the line-up. I did a quick review, but it looks like 7.5 pre, 10.5 with LW.
The TFL are indeed 18, not 13. But I had those backwards. I knew one of them showed a greater bump with LW in the line-up. I did a quick review, but it looks like 7.5 pre, 10.5 with LW.
That was for Torrag.
That’s why I’d spend money on Williams. He helped the cause. To me golden was just another passenger on the shitty back seven unit. He was the best of a bad lot. Williams was the best of a good lot. The DL is good in my view. The LBs were terrible. If golden were cheap and controlled he’d be fine but that won’t be the case....
Golden had 12.5 sacks in 2016 with the Cards. So he's shown double digit sacks capabilities...
What didn't get better is the actual defense or the team.
Is Williams better than BJ Hill? Yes. Is Williams a single-handed difference maker? No.
Do the Giants need many more, better defensive players. Yes.
Leonard Williams is not the type of player to get yourself wrapped around a pole about and build your off season and defense around. If he were a Jet still, I find it hard to believe many Giants would be scraping the barrel to find reasons to make him paid like the upper tier interior lineman.
Hopefully the Giants acquire several more good defensive players. If Leonard Williams is among them, cool.
Just trading a 3 for a guy looking for too much money is grounds for firing the GM. He gave up more.
This team isn’t close. They should have traded veterans for draft picks. Not the other way around.
The jets did it right. We did not. Not close.
Now we’re debating whether this “good” player should be one of the highest paid players on the team. While in 2 months, the jets will be getting a very good prospect at the top of round 3.
Yup fire the guy who made this move.
And for me, we shouldn't be in that market competing.
If we could get LW for $8M/year, which I know is ridiculous under the circumstances, it would be much more worthwhile. But that's the point, really. What we should be willing to pay for LW is nowhere near his overrated market value...
But no draft picks from moron GMs.
They had 22 out their 35 sacks as a team after LW left.
Their rushing D improved.
So how are those signs of a "plus player"...as you call LW...
BW, you constantly remind me of a phrase my late Botanical Ecology professor at Berkeley, Professor Herbert Baker, taught me, as a warning against using statistics to support your argument. Too many (academic authors, he was referring to) "use statistic like a blind man uses a street lamp: for support rather than illumination."
That describes you to a T!
Why you need to discerdit DG any way you possibly can is your issue, not mine. I see an improving club at the LOS vs what Reese concocted over years of serious mis-allocation of draft picks. I saw an improved OL last year despite Solder falling into very hard times.
You see what you want to see, and certainly we haven't earned any wins to validate the improvement I see. We have a very young roster, getting younger too I imagine when one of our big FA signings will in all likelihood be the 25 year old Williams.
The problem is LW plays position that has become commoditized. DTs are just getting easier to find. Big guys who can fill gaps and provide just enough to disruption to be effective. Which is basically LW. A good, solid player.
So why overpay? Unless you get a generational talent like Aaron Donald, who plays with a skill set the overlaps DT and DE, save the cap space and pay for more needed positions on defense...
Why you need to discerdit DG any way you possibly can is your issue, not mine. I see an improving club at the LOS vs what Reese concocted over years of serious mis-allocation of draft picks. I saw an improved OL last year despite Solder falling into very hard times.
You see what you want to see, and certainly we haven't earned any wins to validate the improvement I see. We have a very young roster, getting younger too I imagine when one of our big FA signings will in all likelihood be the 25 year old Williams.
Our OTs were one of the worst duos in the NFL at pass blocking. And our overall run blocking was in the bottom third of the league. Just read Sy's reviews. Not sure why anyone would want to hitch their wagon to that...
I do find it amusing the lengths many here go to suggest LW is somehow this force multiplier and makes our D so much better. The Jets D got materially better without him - +8 ppg improvement - and our D may have gotten, and I'll be kind, a little better.
Fletcher Cox is the highest paid player on Philly @ 17.5m.
Grady Jarrett is the 5th highest paid player on Atl @ 17m.
Geno Atkins is the 2nd highest paid player on the Cin @16.5m.
Jurrell Casey is the 2nd highest paid player on Ten @ 15.1m.
Brandon Williams is the 3rd highest paid player on Bal @ 10.5m.
Star Lotuleiei is the 2nd highest paid player on Buff @ 10m.
2 of the Bears top 5 salaries are Edddie Goldman (10.5m) & Akiem Hicks (12.5m).
Linval Joseph is the 7th highest paid player on Min @ 12.5m.
KC (Chris Jones), Seattle (Jarran Reed), SF (Armstead), Houston (DJ Reader), and Pittsburgh (Hargrave) will likely all soon join that list since they are getting new contracts this year.
Most of those guys aren't putting up big sack numbers and yet quite a few well run playoff organizations still gave them big contracts.
It's what the market is for these guys. Now I don't believe LW is in the $15M value group but $12-12.5 is in fact fair market value.
Quote:
and that would help his reputation how exactly? He would get a little respect maybe if he said the contract demands were too high and moved on. Signing him to save face is assi ine.
Plausible deniability. If Williams walks there's no denying the trade was a waste, a team going nowhere losing two draft picks for 8 games (in the hopes that a comp pick could possibly offset one of them) would be an outright, undeniable waste of resources.
If they sign him, then they can at least try to play up his value.
I just don't see what in LW's career trajectory anyone sees that warrants him being paid $15M a season. So far, the best case argument is 'well, the Giants have a lot of money to burn and so does everyone else', but that still stops short of explaining why they'd give up a 3rd, a 4th, and $15M a season to keep this guy.
Just trading a 3 for a guy looking for too much money is grounds for firing the GM. He gave up more.
This team isn’t close. They should have traded veterans for draft picks. Not the other way around.
The jets did it right. We did not. Not close.
Now we’re debating whether this “good” player should be one of the highest paid players on the team. While in 2 months, the jets will be getting a very good prospect at the top of round 3.
Yup fire the guy who made this move.
Quote:
Tomlinson's snap count remained about the same as before the acquisition of Williams. B.J. Hill's, however, took a big hit, and McIntosh's became almost non-existent.
I know Hill's took a big hit, hadn't really considered McIntosh as a factor, but still wondered if Dalvin's decreased.
Other individual metrics are skewed by LW taking plays away from other DL, and I truly prefer eyeballing to stat counts. Especially if one doesn't factor in situational stats.
I strongly believe the DL unit now is much stronger than it was even with Damon Harrison on it because they are better in short yardage. The eyeball test tells me LW, DL, and DT don't lose as much territory at the LOS, our DL is often playing the game on our opponents' side if the LOS, and that will increase with continued experience on DL's part and Hill's part and fewer snaps for individuals and more rotation.
Whatever, I'm in favor of a dominant DL and while we are not there yet, we are approaching that goal if we re-sign LW.
Everyone know we really need an elite or close to elite edge guy, but was it a mistake to pass on Allen for Jones? Can't make that call yet, can we?
Williams is a plus player. Moreso if a plus than Golden IMO.
Gettleman's argument for doing it the way he did is two-fold, one part which makes very little sense and one part that makes no sense at all. The part that makes no sense at all is the part where he claims they will gain a comp pick if he leaves via free agency (because it's highly unlikely that the Giants lose more A- and B-list free agents than they sign this year). The part that makes at least a little bit of sense is the part where he claims having him in the Giants locker room and learning the system gives them a leg up on assessing his free agent value (character? work ethic? teammate? etc). Gettleman may not have been anticipating the coaching change so the value of him learning the system and the coaches learning him was lost, but he did benefit from learning his teammates.
The problem with that is the confirmation bias that comes from having already invested 3rd and 4th (or 5th) round picks in him. Will Gettleman (and Abrams) be able to put an unbiased market value on Williams that allows him to test the free agent waters?
p.s.--The biggest humiliation would be if Williams leaves the Giants for the Jets in free agency.
The 'we'll have money to burn' and the 'the cap is going up' angles have already been exhausted in this thread. They didn't get much mileage the first time around, and for good reason.
The Giants do need to spend on the defensive side of the ball. They do not need, nor can they afford to, waste on either side, let alone on defense. Williams @ $15M a year, even if it was effectively $13M pre-cap raise, is a waste of resources, worsened by the fact that two cost controlled entities were disposed of for the right to pay him that money.
Williams is a young player. He's a good player, at best thus far in his career and getting older, his play is more likely to decline than improve. Paying him $15M a year would be abject stupidity from a team that exhibits boatloads of it.
Fletcher Cox is the highest paid player on Philly @ 17.5m.
Grady Jarrett is the 5th highest paid player on Atl @ 17m.
Geno Atkins is the 2nd highest paid player on the Cin @16.5m.
Jurrell Casey is the 2nd highest paid player on Ten @ 15.1m.
Brandon Williams is the 3rd highest paid player on Bal @ 10.5m.
Star Lotuleiei is the 2nd highest paid player on Buff @ 10m.
2 of the Bears top 5 salaries are Edddie Goldman (10.5m) & Akiem Hicks (12.5m).
Linval Joseph is the 7th highest paid player on Min @ 12.5m.
KC (Chris Jones), Seattle (Jarran Reed), SF (Armstead), Houston (DJ Reader), and Pittsburgh (Hargrave) will likely all soon join that list since they are getting new contracts this year.
Most of those guys aren't putting up big sack numbers and yet quite a few well run playoff organizations still gave them big contracts.
You can't include Donald and Cox. They are the crossover guys I was talking about - DT with DE/pass-rushing skills.
Even Atkins has 75.5 sacks in his career with three double digit sacks season.
And the players from Brandon Williams down, are more reasonably paid. They are in a salary range that reflect LW's production...granted, going against the current flow of the market.
With the increased salary cap room for all teams reflecting increased revenue on the coming free agent market LW's market is squarely in that field.
People can cling to their narratives and opinions but Eric's post laid it bare. Accept it or not those are the facts supported by existing DT salaries and their statistical production on the field when examined as a group.
As I stated yesterday, LW is just superfluous.
We just have bigger needs.
If he thinks he's elite, he may believe that he can get there.
It's starting to feel like Maugham's Verger -- can you imagine what this defense would be with Williams and a double digit sack edge rusher?
Yes, 2019 Giants.
If he thinks he's elite, he may believe that he can get there.
And if anybody else in the league offers $14 straight up?
It's what the market is for these guys. Now I don't believe LW is in the $15M value group but $12-12.5 is in fact fair market value.
$12-$12.5M may be fair market value but it's fiction.
LW just made $14M this past season. The tag on him, regardless of whether it's franchise or transition, regardless of whether he's considered a DE or DT, is in the neighborhood of $17M. These are all factors that were available for even a layperson to be aware of at the time that the trade was executed.
If you're going to claim that "$12-12.5M is in fact fair market value," will you also acknowledge that LW is overpaid by your own definition of fair market value when he inevitably comes in at around $16M AAV (or more)?
As I stated yesterday, LW is just superfluous.
We just have bigger needs.
Good post. You want to see the value of Lawrence Tomlinson and Hill...bring in some decent inside LBs versus spending superfluous $ on LW.
Just don’t use the 3rd round pick to do it because it’s gone.
Quote:
...so offer $10-11 with a double digit incentive of $4-5.
If he thinks he's elite, he may believe that he can get there.
And if anybody else in the league offers $14 straight up?
To me the tag still makes the most sense because I'd rather pay the few m$ premium for 0 risk. Short term FA deals in all sports are almost always higher AAV, and I'd rather pay now than in the future.
And re: Tomlinson, I'd try to sign him long term to a deal at or just under $10m for 3-4 years. Early extensions below FMV are a key to building a strong roster (just like they did with Tuck back 07). Then in 3 years when Lawrence is due a 2nd contract he can swap into 1 of these salary slots.
To me the tag still makes the most sense because I'd rather pay the few m$ premium for 0 risk. Short term FA deals in all sports are almost always higher AAV, and I'd rather pay now than in the future.
And re: Tomlinson, I'd try to sign him long term to a deal at or just under $10m for 3-4 years. Early extensions below FMV are a key to building a strong roster (just like they did with Tuck back 07). Then in 3 years when Lawrence is due a 2nd contract he can swap into 1 of these salary slots.
Pump the brakes.
$12-12.5M AAV might be fair market value, but I'll bet all the hair that's left on my head that LW is not taking a pay cut from his 2019 salary ($14.2M), even in AAV terms. In other words, we can agree on what his value should be and also objectively predict that he will be overpaid above that FMV.
It's already above that for LW.
No matter what tag is applied, LW's 2020 salary on a tag is $17M because the prevailing calculus is 120% of his 2019 salary ($14.2M).
Because that's really what this is,an extension of other arguments.
But 1 thing people are not discussing in this debate,is the amount of players these days who are flaming out.Go back and take a look at recent drafts and see where a lot of these guys are.It's very alarming.
So if the Giants wanted to proceed with caution,that is,bring him into there environment and see if they felt comfortable paying him.I don't have much of a problem with it.
It's already above that for LW.
No matter what tag is applied, LW's 2020 salary on a tag is $17M because the prevailing calculus is 120% of his 2019 salary ($14.2M).
You have to figure the LW team knows that, right?
Which makes me wonder why - if you lend any credibility to the reports - the LW team isn't starting their ask too low at $15M/yr.
Or maybe that's their magnanimous gesture to give a home town discount.... ;)
Quote:
that actually seems like progress as far as bbi arguments go and a relatively fair number to peg for Williams. I don't know how this year's inflated market will impact what we are saying, but I think that's a reasonable point of view and if the final deal ended up in the middle of that number and what LW supposedly wants, i'd be happy with that contract (4 years 55m?).
To me the tag still makes the most sense because I'd rather pay the few m$ premium for 0 risk. Short term FA deals in all sports are almost always higher AAV, and I'd rather pay now than in the future.
And re: Tomlinson, I'd try to sign him long term to a deal at or just under $10m for 3-4 years. Early extensions below FMV are a key to building a strong roster (just like they did with Tuck back 07). Then in 3 years when Lawrence is due a 2nd contract he can swap into 1 of these salary slots.
Pump the brakes.
$12-12.5M AAV might be fair market value, but I'll bet all the hair that's left on my head that LW is not taking a pay cut from his 2019 salary ($14.2M), even in AAV terms. In other words, we can agree on what his value should be and also objectively predict that he will be overpaid above that FMV.
We can also predict that just like almost every contract in the NFL, the cap #'s each season will be manipulated with the highest 1 being the last year when he will be most maneuverable with a non-prohibitive amount of dead money.
Let's use Grady Jarrett's 17m AAV as an example. Last year he got tagged and then extended for 4/68m with 38m guaranteed. Here are his 4 season's cap numbers, as well as the (dead cap) if cut/traded:
year 1 - 11m (38m)
year 2 - 12m (27m)
year 3 - 20m (14.6m)
year 4 - 23m (7m)
So for all intents and purposes, that is a 3 year deal with a 14m AAV, with a 4th year as an option year.
The way they structured the $7m guaranteed in year 4 is more dead money than ideal in a final "option" year and obviously the Giants could get a little more creative - but even if they mirrored this exact structure with LW and simply scaled back each year's salary evenly by 2m to hit an overall "15m AAV", you are looking at a first 3 years AAV that = $12.3m, with a cuttable, tradable, or restructurable 4th year. Nate Solder's contract was actually structured pretty similarly actually, so maybe this is where things end up with a 4/60m.
I'd personally still prefer the tag to get 1 more years worth of performance to see if a deal like this is worthwhile, but I do think it'd be a fair contract for both sides based on what we know now.
Quote:
In comment 14807916 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
that actually seems like progress as far as bbi arguments go and a relatively fair number to peg for Williams. I don't know how this year's inflated market will impact what we are saying, but I think that's a reasonable point of view and if the final deal ended up in the middle of that number and what LW supposedly wants, i'd be happy with that contract (4 years 55m?).
To me the tag still makes the most sense because I'd rather pay the few m$ premium for 0 risk. Short term FA deals in all sports are almost always higher AAV, and I'd rather pay now than in the future.
And re: Tomlinson, I'd try to sign him long term to a deal at or just under $10m for 3-4 years. Early extensions below FMV are a key to building a strong roster (just like they did with Tuck back 07). Then in 3 years when Lawrence is due a 2nd contract he can swap into 1 of these salary slots.
Pump the brakes.
$12-12.5M AAV might be fair market value, but I'll bet all the hair that's left on my head that LW is not taking a pay cut from his 2019 salary ($14.2M), even in AAV terms. In other words, we can agree on what his value should be and also objectively predict that he will be overpaid above that FMV.
We can also predict that just like almost every contract in the NFL, the cap #'s each season will be manipulated with the highest 1 being the last year when he will be most maneuverable with a non-prohibitive amount of dead money.
Let's use Grady Jarrett's 17m AAV as an example. Last year he got tagged and then extended for 4/68m with 38m guaranteed. Here are his 4 season's cap numbers, as well as the (dead cap) if cut/traded:
year 1 - 11m (38m)
year 2 - 12m (27m)
year 3 - 20m (14.6m)
year 4 - 23m (7m)
So for all intents and purposes, that is a 3 year deal with a 14m AAV, with a 4th year as an option year.
The way they structured the $7m guaranteed in year 4 is more dead money than ideal in a final "option" year and obviously the Giants could get a little more creative - but even if they mirrored this exact structure with LW and simply scaled back each year's salary evenly by 2m to hit an overall "15m AAV", you are looking at a first 3 years AAV that = $12.3m, with a cuttable, tradable, or restructurable 4th year. Nate Solder's contract was actually structured pretty similarly actually, so maybe this is where things end up with a 4/60m.
I'd personally still prefer the tag to get 1 more years worth of performance to see if a deal like this is worthwhile, but I do think it'd be a fair contract for both sides based on what we know now.
When you keep playing around with final year balloon payments that never get paid, you preclude yourself from being one of those teams who typically picks up comp picks each year. Go look at who those teams are - it's the same list that tends to be consistently good each year (plus the Bengals, who get there by way of being cheap in FA).
Yes, you can manipulate contracts and let agents "win" the headlines - occasionally, this is a sound strategy if it lets you sign a player to a favorable contract without having the player or agent look bad in the media. But it shouldn't be your general practice, which it has been for too often with the Giants.
They need to start getting more of their players to the end of their contract and not cutting them before then, and it's not just because of dead money - it's also because it tends to be a sound business practice to have a bit more authenticity and transparency in negotiations and the huge element is that it will begin to pay dividends over time by helping the Giants compile compensatory picks on a more regular basis.
We get a third back for Landon Collins albeit lower in the round, but it’s still a 3rd and you can and should get quality in that round
When you keep playing around with final year balloon payments that never get paid, you preclude yourself from being one of those teams who typically picks up comp picks each year. Go look at who those teams are - it's the same list that tends to be consistently good each year (plus the Bengals, who get there by way of being cheap in FA).
Yes, you can manipulate contracts and let agents "win" the headlines - occasionally, this is a sound strategy if it lets you sign a player to a favorable contract without having the player or agent look bad in the media. But it shouldn't be your general practice, which it has been for too often with the Giants.
They need to start getting more of their players to the end of their contract and not cutting them before then, and it's not just because of dead money - it's also because it tends to be a sound business practice to have a bit more authenticity and transparency in negotiations and the huge element is that it will begin to pay dividends over time by helping the Giants compile compensatory picks on a more regular basis.
i agree with some of your points but you can structure contracts creatively and not suffer the pitfalls you list so profoundly.
for example, our contract last year with golden, while 4x38 was really a 2x22. and that's ok, it's not going poison our relationship with anyone or make us look like inauthentic business partners - that's the way the nfl operates and players and their agents have a responsibility to understand the contracts they're signing and the rights of the parties involved throughout its term.
exercising a negotiated right in your contract doesn't make you a bad business partner.
i don't really buy the tactic for comp picks you mention. nor do i think even if you structure some deals to get a comp pick out of it it means that strategy has to influence every deal. different deals can have different tactics, the strategy they need to support is one where you get the best players on the field as frequently as you can.
When you keep playing around with final year balloon payments that never get paid, you preclude yourself from being one of those teams who typically picks up comp picks each year. Go look at who those teams are - it's the same list that tends to be consistently good each year (plus the Bengals, who get there by way of being cheap in FA).
Yes, you can manipulate contracts and let agents "win" the headlines - occasionally, this is a sound strategy if it lets you sign a player to a favorable contract without having the player or agent look bad in the media. But it shouldn't be your general practice, which it has been for too often with the Giants.
They need to start getting more of their players to the end of their contract and not cutting them before then, and it's not just because of dead money - it's also because it tends to be a sound business practice to have a bit more authenticity and transparency in negotiations and the huge element is that it will begin to pay dividends over time by helping the Giants compile compensatory picks on a more regular basis.
Completely agree - but the problem you are describing is the direct result of the poor output from the 2015-2016 drafts. Those are the guys whose contracts should be ending right now and we haven't even been able to get guys to the end of their affordable rookie contracts because the drafting was so poor. Collins is the only guy who made it to the end of his rookie deal and was worth a multi-year deal elsewhere.
Shepard is the only player from those 2 drafts who made it to a 2nd contract here so there are a lot of holes to fill from non-homegrown sources. Leonard Williams (another team's 2015 draft pick) is one of those hole fillers. Guys like Ngakwoue, Simmons, and Conklin are potentially others. I'm not saying they need to or should spend on all those guys, just pointing out why those needs are there in the first place.
The only way to get to the better position you describe in the future is to have multiple players from every draft not only be worthy of second contracts here, but also be worthy of big enough 2nd contracts elsewhere to return comp picks. As it is right now, the 2017 class looks a little better with Tomlinson and Engram both likely being good enough to get multi-year second contracts from someone else if we don't extend them.
Quote:
If it goes over 12 million a year, hard fucking pass. I would rather invest in the OL including depth. If we can keep the D off the field with a strong running game it will help the DL more than signing LW.
It's already above that for LW.
No matter what tag is applied, LW's 2020 salary on a tag is $17M because the prevailing calculus is 120% of his 2019 salary ($14.2M).
Quote:
In comment 14807929 Thegratefulhead said:
Quote:
If it goes over 12 million a year, hard fucking pass. I would rather invest in the OL including depth. If we can keep the D off the field with a strong running game it will help the DL more than signing LW.
It's already above that for LW.
No matter what tag is applied, LW's 2020 salary on a tag is $17M because the prevailing calculus is 120% of his 2019 salary ($14.2M).
I thought the estimated DT Transition number would be 12.3M but that was 2019...Looks like 2020 is estimated to be 13.2M. Am I missing something?
Because the value of the tag becomes irrelevant if it falls below 120% of a player's prior year salary. In LW's case, 120% of his 2019 salary ($14.2M) will surpass all applicable tag values, so that's the 2020 salary number that will correspond to any tag placed on LW, whether that's franchise or transition, and similarly, whether he's defined as a DT or DE.
So any discussion of the various tag values, while interesting and mostly factually accurate, does not apply to LW.
If you disagree with the importance of gathering comp picks in general, that's fine - certainly you're within your rights to feel as though getting more draft picks than the teams that you're competing against is not a measurable advantage and that it might just be a coincidence that the Patriots, Ravens, Eagles, etc. are historically among the league leaders in comp picks each year. I suppose they might be consistently good in spite of having to spend scouting resources on all those extra draft picks that didn't cost them anything else to acquire.
As for the tactic itself for gaining those comp picks, it's not like that's some far-fetched theory that I've come up with; it's a fairly straight line that results in comp picks and relies entirely on having players reach the end of their contract.
Quote:
i don't really buy the tactic for comp picks you mention. nor do i think even if you structure some deals to get a comp pick out of it it means that strategy has to influence every deal. different deals can have different tactics, the strategy they need to support is one where you get the best players on the field as frequently as you can.
If you disagree with the importance of gathering comp picks in general, that's fine - certainly you're within your rights to feel as though getting more draft picks than the teams that you're competing against is not a measurable advantage and that it might just be a coincidence that the Patriots, Ravens, Eagles, etc. are historically among the league leaders in comp picks each year. I suppose they might be consistently good in spite of having to spend scouting resources on all those extra draft picks that didn't cost them anything else to acquire.
As for the tactic itself for gaining those comp picks, it's not like that's some far-fetched theory that I've come up with; it's a fairly straight line that results in comp picks and relies entirely on having players reach the end of their contract.
i didn't say in general. so please don't mischaracterize what i said. instead, i specifically said it in response to your idea of limiting your FA options - by taking creative contract structures off the table in order to try to get comp picks is the strategy i understand you saying that i'm disagreeing with.
as far as the teams you mention, i'd like to see which contracts you cite specifically and how they were structured as your evidence that led to them leading the league in total comp picks awarded. as far as my i can tell they mainly got those picks by developing their rookies.
i think we should start there too and then see what happens.
i want our tactics to support our strategy of getting the best players on the field. if you can show you have a tactic that furthers that then i'd be all ears. i'm not opposed to seeing your evidence and evaluating it and changing my view if it is compelling.
If you disagree with the importance of gathering comp picks in general, that's fine - certainly you're within your rights to feel as though getting more draft picks than the teams that you're competing against is not a measurable advantage and that it might just be a coincidence that the Patriots, Ravens, Eagles, etc. are historically among the league leaders in comp picks each year. I suppose they might be consistently good in spite of having to spend scouting resources on all those extra draft picks that didn't cost them anything else to acquire.
As for the tactic itself for gaining those comp picks, it's not like that's some far-fetched theory that I've come up with; it's a fairly straight line that results in comp picks and relies entirely on having players reach the end of their contract.
You keep ignoring the obvious - to get those comp picks you have to draft well enough to have an excess of players other teams want to sign as FA. You can't just snap your fingers and materialize an overabundance of players other GM's value with multi-year 2nd contracts. That develops over multiple years of strong drafts, as Belichek + his GM's have done in NE and Ozzie Newsome in Baltimore, and Howie Roseman in Philly. That's why all 3 orgs have won SB's and executive of the year awards over the past decade.
Your argument is to complain over the spilled milk of the drafts from 2012-2016 which produced very few players who got 2nd contracts in the corresponding offseasons when those players first contracts ended. A quick count reveals 0 players from 2012 got multi-year second contracts in 2016, 1 such player from 2013 (Pugh), 2 from 2014 (Richburg, Kennard), and 1 from 2015 (Collins). Eli Apple is the lone candidate from the 2016 class, though obviously he already got traded for picks.
Good news though, Jerry Reese already got fired and DG seems to pay close attention to the comp pick formula in the moves he makes.
Quote:
In comment 14807947 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14807929 Thegratefulhead said:
Quote:
If it goes over 12 million a year, hard fucking pass. I would rather invest in the OL including depth. If we can keep the D off the field with a strong running game it will help the DL more than signing LW.
It's already above that for LW.
No matter what tag is applied, LW's 2020 salary on a tag is $17M because the prevailing calculus is 120% of his 2019 salary ($14.2M).
I thought the estimated DT Transition number would be 12.3M but that was 2019...Looks like 2020 is estimated to be 13.2M. Am I missing something?
Because the value of the tag becomes irrelevant if it falls below 120% of a player's prior year salary. In LW's case, 120% of his 2019 salary ($14.2M) will surpass all applicable tag values, so that's the 2020 salary number that will correspond to any tag placed on LW, whether that's franchise or transition, and similarly, whether he's defined as a DT or DE.
So any discussion of the various tag values, while interesting and mostly factually accurate, does not apply to LW.
Or not. We won't know and certainly can't speculate with any accuracy until the chips fall.
Quote:
In comment 14808045 MM_in_NYC said:
Quote:
i don't really buy the tactic for comp picks you mention. nor do i think even if you structure some deals to get a comp pick out of it it means that strategy has to influence every deal. different deals can have different tactics, the strategy they need to support is one where you get the best players on the field as frequently as you can.
If you disagree with the importance of gathering comp picks in general, that's fine - certainly you're within your rights to feel as though getting more draft picks than the teams that you're competing against is not a measurable advantage and that it might just be a coincidence that the Patriots, Ravens, Eagles, etc. are historically among the league leaders in comp picks each year. I suppose they might be consistently good in spite of having to spend scouting resources on all those extra draft picks that didn't cost them anything else to acquire.
As for the tactic itself for gaining those comp picks, it's not like that's some far-fetched theory that I've come up with; it's a fairly straight line that results in comp picks and relies entirely on having players reach the end of their contract.
i didn't say in general. so please don't mischaracterize what i said. instead, i specifically said it in response to your idea of limiting your FA options - by taking creative contract structures off the table in order to try to get comp picks is the strategy i understand you saying that i'm disagreeing with.
as far as the teams you mention, i'd like to see which contracts you cite specifically and how they were structured as your evidence that led to them leading the league in total comp picks awarded. as far as my i can tell they mainly got those picks by developing their rookies.
i think we should start there too and then see what happens.
i want our tactics to support our strategy of getting the best players on the field. if you can show you have a tactic that furthers that then i'd be all ears. i'm not opposed to seeing your evidence and evaluating it and changing my view if it is compelling.
The comp pick strategy shows up in a number of ways among the teams that appear to have a goal of enhancing their opportunity to collect them: obviously and most importantly, they draft well so that they have a steady pipeline to allow fungible players to leave as FA.
But they also tend to target players who have been cut instead of players who reach FA on expired contracts, or sign 2nd tier free agents to 1-year prove-it contracts to bridge their talent pipeline with stopgap options that they then let walk for a comp pick. Occasionally, they'll even trade for impending free agents when they can identify an opportunity for the comp pick value to exceed the cost in trade value (or as a way of offsetting the trade value so that they essentially trade nothing for players that they use as in-season rentals).
I don't think comp picks need to be the driving factor in structuring free agency contracts, but it would appear to me that it has barely even been a minimal factor in the Giants' approach. I think DG/KA can do a much better job in this area. It's literally one of the few opportunities for a free advantage that exists in a league where every other resource is finite and equal across all 32 teams.
Or not. We won't know and certainly can't speculate with any accuracy until the chips fall.
I can appreciate your POV on this, but I think it's wishful thinking to assume that DG will divorce himself from the trade when it comes to the negotiations - that was clear to me when he lied to reporters about the comp pick he'd receive if LW didn't re-sign (or he just doesn't understand comp picks, which is a more worrisome scenario than him lying, IMO).
Whether we like it or not, and this is my speculation but I think it's fair, DG is not going to let LW walk. The idea that LW's market value will be tested is the part that I think is fictional.
They're good contemporaries because they were drafted the same year, the only difference is since Williams was a first round pick he had a 5th year option whereas Jarrett was due to become a FA last offseason. Jarrett also had his best sack year in his walk year whereas Williams had his worst.
I guess the question I have is that if this is a player that isn't going to command a bidding war on the open market, why did we need to trade draft picks for him when we were already 2-6 and out of contention?
Offer him $12M with a $500K bonus for 5 sacks. $1.5M for 10 sacks and an additional $100K for each additional sack above that.
If he's confident in his claim he's an elite DE he shouldn't have a problem betting on himself.
They're good contemporaries because they were drafted the same year, the only difference is since Williams was a first round pick he had a 5th year option whereas Jarrett was due to become a FA last offseason. Jarrett also had his best sack year in his walk year whereas Williams had his worst.
Jarrett, and even Jurrel Casey, is the right comp. But Jarrett was a 5th round pick. So his production has been gravy for the Falcons because of the expectations. He's been a find. They probably view him as draft capital well spent...
I wouldn't have paid that rate, but I could see why they felt good taking the chance.
Meanwhile, LW was a "lottery pick" and his production hasn't reflected that, especially, as you state, in his walk year.
It was a bad trade and we shouldn't further compound it by giving him a big deal when he just hasn't done the work to warrant it...
Quote:
and then extended at 17m AAV. Leonard Williams has 17.5 sacks in 5 years right now. Jarrett had never made a pro bowl prior to his extension, Williams has.
They're good contemporaries because they were drafted the same year, the only difference is since Williams was a first round pick he had a 5th year option whereas Jarrett was due to become a FA last offseason. Jarrett also had his best sack year in his walk year whereas Williams had his worst.
Jarrett, and even Jurrel Casey, is the right comp. But Jarrett was a 5th round pick. So his production has been gravy for the Falcons because of the expectations. He's been a find. They probably view him as draft capital well spent...
I wouldn't have paid that rate, but I could see why they felt good taking the chance.
Meanwhile, LW was a "lottery pick" and his production hasn't reflected that, especially, as you state, in his walk year.
It was a bad trade and we shouldn't further compound it by giving him a big deal when he just hasn't done the work to warrant it...
Quote:
Has a DL that isn't a true NT ever earned more than $12M AAV coming off a 15 game season where he had .5 sack? Yes, that .5...the number that is less than 1.
I guess the question I have is that if this is a player that isn't going to command a bidding war on the open market, why did we need to trade draft picks for him when we were already 2-6 and out of contention?
If they walk away now, all they lose is a draft pick.
Signing him just to "save face" ties up the cap for years in a player who will never be worth what he is paid, and is effectively hurting you ability to go get a star pass rusher (or fill any other need).
Management already admitted they made a mistake in trying to win and rebuild at the same time. Just admit you made a mistake now and nobody will remeber this in a year.
Or we'll be complaining about Leonard Williams never being a pass rusher for the next 3-5 years.
1) having been good decisions
2) a good value/contribution to the vision the new staff has for defense Giants defense
My view, if you're investing in a Jarret type of contract (4/68 38 guaranteed), you expect an impact not complimentary player, regardless of position.
1) having been good decisions
2) a good value/contribution to the vision the new staff has for defense Giants defense
My view, if you're investing in a Jarret type of contract (4/68 38 guaranteed), you expect an impact not complimentary player, regardless of position.
We have been around the block on this argument, but in this instance we are in complete agreement - which is why I'd tag him and ensure that's what we are getting before signing that kind of deal. Like Ngakoue, Conklin, and Justin Simmons, LW is the exact type of very young/high upside FA I want them to target, so if you told me I could get any of them on a 1 year deal I'd be all over it - even at a high AAV.
If LW is willing to take less on a favorable structure longer term, let's say the 4th year is a true option year and the AAV of the first 3 is really more like 12m (my math is in a post above), then I'd be willing to extend now because if he has a good year next year (5+ sacks) he'd command more than Jarrett got.
Offer him $12M with a $500K bonus for 5 sacks. $1.5M for 10 sacks and an additional $100K for each additional sack above that.
If he's confident in his claim he's an elite DE he shouldn't have a problem betting on himself.
Good idea. Incentives reached make him affordable still.
Gettleman should only sign Williams to a contract proportionate to the value he and the staff put on the position and his likely contribution. That has to be the only factor. Otherwise it's a comedy.
Quote:
In comment 14808257 Torrag said:
Quote:
Has a DL that isn't a true NT ever earned more than $12M AAV coming off a 15 game season where he had .5 sack? Yes, that .5...the number that is less than 1.
I guess the question I have is that if this is a player that isn't going to command a bidding war on the open market, why did we need to trade draft picks for him when we were already 2-6 and out of contention?
$12M is too much. He really isn't worth all that much. Let someone else pay him.
It's a fair question.
The notable DG apologists will pretend they didn't see this thread because they only exist where there are polarizing arguments - there's literally no other way to defend Poughkeepsie's favorite driver's ed teacher.
Gettleman should only sign Williams to a contract proportionate to the value he and the staff put on the position and his likely contribution. That has to be the only factor. Otherwise it's a comedy.
I don't know you well enough to issue predictions, but I would be willing to bet that you and I both agree that DG is not going to view the picks traded away as a sunk cost. Instead, we, as fans, get to watch him piss away cap dollars in pursuit of the picks he already pissed away.
Even a feral cat knows when he has marked his territory. I'll stake my BBI credibility on the presumption that DG is not as smart as a feral cat.
Quote:
Forget about the picks, they are a sunk cost. Add it to the long term evaluation of Gettleman, but shouldn't be a part of the re-signing calculation.
Gettleman should only sign Williams to a contract proportionate to the value he and the staff put on the position and his likely contribution. That has to be the only factor. Otherwise it's a comedy.
I don't know you well enough to issue predictions, but I would be willing to bet that you and I both agree that DG is not going to view the picks traded away as a sunk cost. Instead, we, as fans, get to watch him piss away cap dollars in pursuit of the picks he already pissed away.
Even a feral cat knows when he has marked his territory. I'll stake my BBI credibility on the presumption that DG is not as smart as a feral cat.
Damn
I always thought "feral" was spelled "farrell". Like colin farrell.
Mind blown.
He did cut Omameh mid-season, so I do think he is capable of cutting losses.
For me, I just don't see Williams as the type of player to be wrapping up time and resources around. I view him as a secondary target in UFA.
If he hadn't been acquired, and was the "prize" of UFA this off season, I'd be underwhelmed.
I agree, but now they are in a can't win. If they don't re-sign him, it makes the trade look even worse. If they sign him, they have to grossly overpay. And, the reality is there is little to no chance he plays at a level to warrant the picks or the salary.
It's only a win if we sign LW and he turns into a player well above his pedestrian output to date. Then the traded picks are forgotten, etc.
But, and I think Torrag said this somewhere, if LW couldn't do something like that his walk year, why would we think he's going to do that with a lot more money?
If we let LW walk, many of us, against the trade in the first place, would consider that the less damaging option.