Just had a conversation with a fellow Giants fan at my work about Saquon. He was very disappointed when the Giants used the #2 pick on him, and at the time wanted them to get Sam Darnold instead. But our conversation got me thinking about Saquon's future with the team.
As it stands right now, Saquon has two years remaining on his rookie contract. I wouldn't be surprised if come this time next year we start hearing grumblings from Saquon's camp of him wanting to "get paid" and extend his deal, and hopefully it doesn't lead to possible hold-out threats. It's almost certain he is going to look for a contract close to $100 million (Zeke Elliot signed a 6yr/$90mil extenstion). It's also considered by many NFL "gurus" to be unwise for a team to have a good portion of their salary cap allocated toward the RB position, as history shows good RBs can be found all over the draft.
With that said, when the time comes to make a decision, do you think the Giants end up re-signing Saquon, letting him walk, or possibly trading him away next off-season?
I wouldnt even consider giving him a long term deal. Its almost certainly going to happen and almost certainly is going to be a poor decision in the long run.
Betting on someone being an exception to a rule with large money on the line is bad business.
If we have to pay Barkley it means he’s earned it and producing. Not really a problem unless we are still working through a lot of bad contract by then.
Except Barkley will probably be making something dumb like $20 mil.
Long term deal wouldnt even be an option.
If he wants to hold out as a result, fine.
I think he will have a bounce back tremendous season and will get paid by the Giants when the time comes. He is the type of person you want on your team and a guy everyone should root for, he just needs to play like we know he can play. he's in his head too much right now.
If he looks more like 2018, then it's a question of extend now or let him hit the market and set a price later. Given the average RB's lifespan, I would imagine the latter wouldn't be the worst thing in the world (option + FT + possibly more later).
But if we don't do that, which, alas, we won't, I still wouldn't re-sign him. It's just such a waste to give out these big cap dollars to RBs. Sure, it may work. But I'd play the odds and assume it won't work much longer since RBs traditionally have the shortest shelf life in the NFL.
Anyone saying we shouldn’t give him a contract doesn’t know shit right now, to be perfectly honest. We don’t even know what the new CBA will be, but hey, don’t pay your best player under any circumstances, right?
Saquon could’ve won MVP and you guys would still talk down on the pick. I hope my son becomes a receiver or a qb
Lots of questions can be answered, and to be answered.
We could have two studs.
Now, personally, I'd let him walk at the end of his deal, but Mara and whomever is the GM won't do it. I will say though that having your best player eating up the lion's share of your cap as a RB isn't wise. And I think that's exactly where we are heading....
pay 5th year option and then let him walk.
That gives them 3 years to figure out if they want to pay him for his 2nd contract. He's a remarkable talent, but their is a limit to what I would pay a RB.
Huh?
Solder would still suck, because he is past his prime. Why would Chubb have still gotten hurt?
Both teams are trying to figure a way out of them less then 2 years later.
I guess we need to see how Zeke does.
We really dodged a bullet there. And yet, the Darnold contingency still cannot get over it.
Both teams are trying to figure a way out of them less then 2 years later.
I guess we need to see how Zeke does.
I don't think Zeke was great this year. He looked less explosive...actually, he was less explosive. So he may be right at the point where he tips the wrong way.
There is just a lot of evidence that going big on the RB comp in this era is a misuse of cap funds. There are just more positions that are more critical for success.
Unless you want to say we dodged a bullet only to die a slower death by knife.
We really dodged a bullet there. And yet, the Darnold contingency still cannot get over it.
Darnold looked really good the back half of the year. I think him and Jones are in absolutely awful positions.
AND Barkly on the team.
It's not sour grapes about Darnold, either; Jones just has more up-side - bigger, can run better, just as good an arm and more accurate.
Wether or not he will be an integral part of a championship caliber team is another discussion
Unless you want to say we dodged a bullet only to die a slower death by knife.
In retrospect, Gettleman was wise to not pick a QB.
And that's evident in the number of posters who wanted darnold suddenly changing their tune to say they wanted Nelson or Chubb.
If we selected Darnold, we're likely in worse shape than we are now, with a QB that will become an albatross to team building.
I sure as hell will care if those personal achievements are reached as a member of mediocre/bad teams.
Then it is worth it in my opinion.
Quote:
in finding a replacement for Manning in 2018.
Unless you want to say we dodged a bullet only to die a slower death by knife.
In retrospect, Gettleman was wise to not pick a QB.
And that's evident in the number of posters who wanted darnold suddenly changing their tune to say they wanted Nelson or Chubb.
If we selected Darnold, we're likely in worse shape than we are now, with a QB that will become an albatross to team building.
Well I think its more fair to say he just didn't pick a QB. But not because he had ultimate wisdom, but moreso because he was convinced Eli still had it so he had his QB and he went head over heels with Barkley.
Our guy wasn't at the firing range that day.
Then again - I'm responding to a 2/20 poster on a shitload of threads questioning Gettleman.
It's like the standard dupe playbook move these days here.
Unless you want to say we dodged a bullet only to die a slower death by knife.
Maybe he didn't think any of the QB's were the answer. If so, he may have been right.
Then again - I'm responding to a 2/20 poster on a shitload of threads questioning Gettleman.
It's like the standard dupe playbook move these days here.
Easy pal. I didn't say anything about just picking a QB. I said DG wasn't interested in any of these QBs because he was convinced he had his QB already.
Quote:
in finding a replacement for Manning in 2018.
Unless you want to say we dodged a bullet only to die a slower death by knife.
Maybe he didn't think any of the QB's were the answer. If so, he may have been right.
Maybe. Or maybe he wasn't really interested in the question because he thought Eli was his answer already.
A good coach, a good line, and good weapons make a QB.
I cross my fingers Barkely stays healthy, and when he inevitably pulls down a huge contract, he's still healthy and proportionately productive.
Quote:
In comment 14809879 LBH15 said:
Quote:
in finding a replacement for Manning in 2018.
Unless you want to say we dodged a bullet only to die a slower death by knife.
Maybe he didn't think any of the QB's were the answer. If so, he may have been right.
Maybe. Or maybe he wasn't really interested in the question because he thought Eli was his answer already.
Exactly why you draft a RB #2 overall...he's supposed to be the missing piece for a playoff run
That's really what should happen, but it won't. If he has a really good season and the team makes the playoffs or contends to the final week, people will bitch and moan about how much we'll have to pay him in another two years.
And then there will be some that will actually root against his success because they dug in so hard about him being a terrible pick and they've gone all-in on stabbing the shit out of Gettleman with pitchforks.
And Gettleman may not be well-liked and is used plenty as a punching bag in the media and here on BBI, but those views are also not unfounded. He has made plenty of mistakes in his short time here and his second as a GM.
Why do you feel the need to defend him so?
Why would you sign up on a message board and in two weeks post almost exclusively about the job the GM is doing?
What page of the dupe playbook is that on?
But its not that difficult to get a feel on here.
Right.
LBH15 : 4:50 pm : link : reply
because the supply of good ones isn't that plentiful this year?
Yet there was no discussion prior to that about Gettleman or even discussing RB's. It's less about defending Gettleman and more about pointing out your stupidity and obsession with posting about him.
For a fucking guy who supposedly just signed up 2 weeks ago.
Quote:
if we had Quentin Nelson on this team, Solder would still suck. If we had Bradley Chubb, he would’ve still tore his ACL and missed the whole year.
Huh?
Solder would still suck, because he is past his prime. Why would Chubb have still gotten hurt?
Solder is NOT past his prime. OL last longer than any other position.
He sucks because he sucks, not his age.
Anyone saying we shouldn’t give him a contract doesn’t know shit right now, to be perfectly honest. We don’t even know what the new CBA will be, but hey, don’t pay your best player under any circumstances, right?
Saquon being our best player isn't a good thing. If in 2 years he's still the Giants best player, it will be a disaster.
If Barkley is our best player in 2 years still that means he’s putting up 2000 yard seasons, which I thought would be a good thing until I read on here that it’s actually bad.
And I’ll bring it up for the third time now - Ezekiel Elliott’s contract is very team friendly and they have an easy out after his age 27 season. He’s the cheapest by a mile when it comes to him Cooper and Dak, and he’s the most valuable. That contract is in no way shape or form preventing them from getting better elsewhere. They haven’t paid the other 2 guys yet because it’s those contracts that could be back breaking. Cooper isn’t worth elite WR money and Dak sure as fuck isn’t worth $35m per year.
Barkley being good is bad!! You can't make some of these takes up by those jilted by not drafting Darnold. As I said above, there are people openly rooting against Barkley - supposedly in the name of making the team better!!
The Giants roster needs to get to the point where the best player isnt a running back. Because it's not anywhere near valuable enough of a position to win big when your best player by far is your running back.
No one said barkley being good is bad. He just can't be the Giants best player if they want to truly contend. Right now he is, and that's resulted in 2 horrendous seasons.
He sucks because he sucks, not his age.
Offensive lineman hitting the end of the road at or near their 10th NFL season isn't uncommon.
The history of Giants offensive lineman is littered with it.
Sad
If Barkley and his team sign-ups for the discount Dak did, that's good for the Giants.
Zzzzzzz
If Barkley and his team sign-ups for the discount Dak did, that's good for the Giants.
If Barkley and his team sign-ups for the discount Dak did, that's good for the Giants.
You had me combing the internet for a Dak signing. Not understanding your post.
The Giants roster needs to get to the point where the best player isnt a running back. Because it's not anywhere near valuable enough of a position to win big when your best player by far is your running back.
No one said barkley being good is bad. He just can't be the Giants best player if they want to truly contend. Right now he is, and that's resulted in 2 horrendous seasons.
Ummm Derrick Henry. Pretty much dominated the first two games. And Mostert wants to know why you're dismissing his 200+ yard game.
Like just use your fucking eyes to watch him play. If what you’re saying doesn’t match up with what logically makes sense, think about the numbers you’re quoting in context of the player, the position, the team, and the scheme. He catches everything, makes at least one guy miss every time he catches the ball (when healthy), and even is a pretty damn good route runner when split out wide or in the slot.
Sorry just had to get that off my chest because I’ve seen so many places on this board people say Barkley’s overrated as a receiving back and the posters always quote some fantasy football number or some other random stat completely out of context.. Rant over.
The Giants roster needs to get to the point where the best player isnt a running back. Because it's not anywhere near valuable enough of a position to win big when your best player by far is your running back.
No one said barkley being good is bad. He just can't be the Giants best player if they want to truly contend. Right now he is, and that's resulted in 2 horrendous seasons.
This is largely true.
But differently put, Barkley is the best player by too large a margin over other critical positions that need to be better on this team: OL, QB, Edge, LB, TE, Corner, WR.
If those other positions are better, than having an upper level RB becomes less necessary. And the team is more balanced to compete.
That's why trading Barkley is really the best move. It would hopefully enable us to get more players to help bolster those other positions of greater need.
SB is at his highest asset value right now. So let's capitalize while there is still a market...
Barkley is a really good RB (maybe even great) but the idea that he is indispensable is a shocking overstatement.
Is allocating $$ to the RB position detrimental to a team's success. Can teams succeed when they do that?
Quote:
Dallas did with Elliot is a real and wise option. Elliott’s extension only included $28m in guarantees, something completely glosses over in these discussions. He’s very cuttable before he turns 28 if it comes to that.
Anyone saying we shouldn’t give him a contract doesn’t know shit right now, to be perfectly honest. We don’t even know what the new CBA will be, but hey, don’t pay your best player under any circumstances, right?
Saquon being our best player isn't a good thing. If in 2 years he's still the Giants best player, it will be a disaster.
But Saquon being the best player on the team has to do with the rest of the team sucking ass. Why are you pointing a finger at him as though it’s his fault for being good? I don’t understand your logic. You want to get rid of our best player simply because our best player can’t be a RB? So we get rid of Saquon and then we have no good players, or at least our best player won’t be a RB, and you’ll be happy then? This will result in a super bowl championship I presume? How about we keep Barkley and build the rest of the team up to have other good players in addition?
You’re acting like getting rid of Barkley will automatically result in us getting better players at every other position. It won’t. For instance we have like $80M in cap space, yet we won’t be able to sign our way to victory in one offseason. Because we can’t just sign any and every good player, they have to actually become available In FA, not be tagged, and sign with us out of 32 possible teams. If we’re going to win we’re going to have to build through the draft no matter what. Getting rid of Barkley isn’t going to automatically result in us signing all these amazing OL and DL and having the best lines on both sides of the ball simply because it looks that way on paper.
Barkley has proven to be one of the few RBs in the league worth a top 5 pick who can actually be a difference maker unto himself. Regardless of the position he plays, there are 8,000 different ways to win in the NFL. All of them Include at least having multiple good players at multiple positions.
That's why trading Barkley is really the best move. It would hopefully enable us to get more players to help bolster those other positions of greater need.
SB is at his highest asset value right now. So let's capitalize while there is still a market...
The Giants trading their best player is the right move? Think about what you just wrote...the Giants would be better trading their best player to get other lesser players.
Is allocating $$ to the RB position detrimental to a team's success. Can teams succeed when they do that?
I think you meant to say big $$.
Is it detrimental to success? Most of the time, yes.
There are always exceptions - if you are a great team and are in full luxury mode - but why risk it when you can pump money into other vital positions. Upgrade the OL, upgrade the pass rush, upgrade the secondary, etc. Don't those ideas just sound better for improving a football team?
We've been down this road many, many times. It's always easier to hedge on RB because you can usually count on the available supply. The examples seem endless...
Quote:
That's why trading Barkley is really the best move. It would hopefully enable us to get more players to help bolster those other positions of greater need.
SB is at his highest asset value right now. So let's capitalize while there is still a market...
The Giants trading their best player is the right move? Think about what you just wrote...the Giants would be better trading their best player to get other lesser players.
I expect most players to be less great than Barkley.
What would be better right now for this team? A very good, dependable OL? Or the current state of affairs - a great RB and piss poor OL?
You wouldn't trade Barkley to upgrade a position that will have a larger ripple effect for the team?
Is it detrimental to success? Most of the time, yes.
Relative money says that all 4 SB teams the past two years have spent pretty well on the RB position, including SF who was #1 this season.
Worst was 14th place and the rest were 4th and 9th. I'm sure you are trying to make a point, but I'm not sure what it is. The #1 spending team was literally just in the SB.
Quote:
bottom line this.
Is allocating $$ to the RB position detrimental to a team's success. Can teams succeed when they do that?
I think you meant to say big $$.
Is it detrimental to success? Most of the time, yes.
There are always exceptions - if you are a great team and are in full luxury mode - but why risk it when you can pump money into other vital positions. Upgrade the OL, upgrade the pass rush, upgrade the secondary, etc. Don't those ideas just sound better for improving a football team?
We've been down this road many, many times. It's always easier to hedge on RB because you can usually count on the available supply. The examples seem endless...
Guys, winning a super bowl is not about having more money tied up in one position compared to another. The main thing is you just don’t want a bunch of money either tied up in dead cap or in shitty players who aren’t worth the big contracts you gave them. Barkley is a difference maker and a fantastic player, if you bet he’s going to continue being a great player, you pay him and you don’t worry about it. GREAT players are worth big money, regardless of their position (besides maybe punter, but even a great punter is worth the market price of a great punter). The exception is when they cause more trouble than their worth (like OBJ perhaps), but Barkley is not that guy. He’s an awesome leader and presence in the locker room.
If this past year in the NFL has taught us anything, it’s that there is no “one way to win”. Old school /new school /new age... doesn’t matter, there are a million ways to skin a cat, just do what you do better than anyone else does their thing and you can win. One common denominator though: Having good players on your team regardless of position and using them correctly and efficiently is how you win football games.
Maybe QB is the one position where it especially helps your SB Chances to have a good player on a rookie deal (especially when a mediocre starting QB can cost like $40M ), but for the most part if you have a guy who is a top 5 player at his position, is a proven difference maker as opposed to just being an easily replaceable piece, and is a fantastic influence on the team from a leadership/intangibles standpoint, you pay that guy and keep him on your team. Getting rid of him or trading him doesn’t guarantee that you’re replacing him and his cap number with equal or better value.
This team does not suck because of Barkley, nor will we suck because we paid him. We’ve sucked because of awful drafting mostly by Jerry Reese for a long long time and we suck because of the dead cap and 10s of millions of $ in resources tied up in shitty things: like ogletree, solder, the ghost of Odell Beckham, and this past season our backup QB (no offense Eli). Saquon freakin’ Barkley and the $15m per year we pay him should be the least of our concerns, he will not be the end all be all reason why we don’t win a super bowl, trust me.
Quote:
The Cowboys signed Dak to a very favorable deal. The Rams signed Gurley to a horror show.
If Barkley and his team sign-ups for the discount Dak did, that's good for the Giants.
You had me combing the internet for a Dak signing. Not understanding your post.
Lord Almighty, in my defense I took a long flight today and am jet lagged.
I meant Zeke.
Elliot signed an incredibly favorable deal. When you add up what his rookie deal 4th and 5th year salary were, the Cowboys didn't actually commit too much more in guarantees.
Quote:
I think you meant to say big $$.
Is it detrimental to success? Most of the time, yes.
Relative money says that all 4 SB teams the past two years have spent pretty well on the RB position, including SF who was #1 this season.
Worst was 14th place and the rest were 4th and 9th. I'm sure you are trying to make a point, but I'm not sure what it is. The #1 spending team was literally just in the SB.
Re: 9ers cap situation with RBs. You failed to add context. So I will. As you know, McKinnon's has been hurt and they've had to invest in replacements. They aren't big costs, but compounded with McKinnon's contract, the numbers inflate overall.
But here is the key piece you overlook - the costs for the running back position includes BOTH RBs and FBs. And the 9ers have invested a big chunk in their FB, Juszczyk. And that spills into that total cost. But his value is in his blocking. He's essentially another lineman to their running game and that is an enormous asset. Money very wisely spent...
So, of the top ten teams with most money spent on RBs, only 3 made the playoffs. Those teams were the 9ers, Pats, and Ravens. Throw the Pats out because, well, they are the Pats and they can afford to take luxury chances. And now we have more color on the 9ers situation. Incidentally, McKinnon's cap hit in 2020 is only $8.8M.
Of the next ten teams with most money spent on RBs, 6 made the playoffs.
Of the bottom twelve teams, 3 made the playoffs.
So you can see where the distribution is across the league. Essentially, the majority of the teams who made the playoffs were not in the top ten in RB spend. And 3 made it in the bottom end. The Chiefs, btw, were 20th in RB spend...
The Niners have the most allocation to the RB position in the NFL.
That, by definition, is the largest cost out there.
I was using both 2019 and 2020 Spotrac data. I wanted to see McKinnon's cap hit in 2020.
In 2019, the Chiefs are 17th. They are going to be 20th in 2020...pending the outcome of free agency.
Top Spend by Position. - ( New Window )
The Niners have the most allocation to the RB position in the NFL.
That, by definition, is the largest cost out there.
The total costs are high, but they haven't over-invested in replacements for McKinnon. They have just spread the costs over more bodies in their RBBC format.
And they thought highly enough of Juscczyk to make him an old school blocking FB. Essentially another blocker. An unconventional move in today's game...
The Giants had success with Rb by committee before, but before that they had a decade of success with Tiki Barber. Trends in the NFL are constantly cycling. Positional value is not the freakin Bible and even if it was, it should be questioned.
Belicheck traded away Chandler Jones in his prime for a second rd pick, a trade that just spits in the face of the whole positional value concept and just look where those teams are.
I repeat, positional value is not gospel.
The Rams may have been top 5 with rb salary . But who is the other team ? Pats are not top 5 nor the chiefs ? Maybe the 49ers since they signed Mckinnon and he never played? Either way , go ask Les Snead about how the Rams feel about investing all that $ into a rb who has an arthritic knee. Also Gurley was good in the regualar season in 2018 but contributed very little on their run to the Superbowl.
Rams would love to get out of the Gurley deal , one of the all time dumbest nfl contracts (signed him with 2 years left on his rookie deal).
49ers are paying Mostert less then 3mill per and he signed the deal after the nfc champ game.
Barkley is good but it was a dumb pick with how many holes we had to fill and an oline that was/is awful. Like someone living in a shanty and spending all their money on Lexus.
And the Chiefs have the best QB in the league - of course they don’t need to go out and spend a ton on a RB. That said I’m not convinced they don’t pay Hunt if he didn’t fuck himself over.
Quote:
that the past two SB's have had two teams in the top 5 in salary allocation to RB's. And the other two teams were in the top 10 and top 15.
The Rams may have been top 5 with rb salary . But who is the other team ? Pats are not top 5 nor the chiefs ? Maybe the 49ers since they signed Mckinnon and he never played? Either way , go ask Les Snead about how the Rams feel about investing all that $ into a rb who has an arthritic knee. Also Gurley was good in the regualar season in 2018 but contributed very little on their run to the Superbowl.
Rams would love to get out of the Gurley deal , one of the all time dumbest nfl contracts (signed him with 2 years left on his rookie deal).
49ers are paying Mostert less then 3mill per and he signed the deal after the nfc champ game.
Barkley is good but it was a dumb pick with how many holes we had to fill and an oline that was/is awful. Like someone living in a shanty and spending all their money on Lexus.
With Gurley healthy the Rams are a top 3 team in the NFL, without Gurley they can’t even make the playoffs. If Gurley doesn’t deserve a contract, who does??
That’s like me saying when Cam Newton is healthy the Panthers are a playoff team, now that Cam has been consistently hurt for 3 years and they’ve been a bottom dwelling team for most of that period, they should’ve never gave Newton that 5 yr contract. The contract was a waste.
Your example has nothing to do with the position that is being played. All positions get hurt, you don’t want to sign anyone to a long term contract that is going to get hurt.
You pay your best players, or you play like Belicheck and pay who you want to pay with your inside info. But you live and die by that as well
That time period also coincides when Reese was basically the worst drafter in the NFL. And the RB position did not escape that fact. He used plenty of picks on RBs and they all pretty much sucked and had major flaws.
that doesn't mean i think sb isn't good.
it also doesn't mean team's can't win with money invested in rb.
it does mean that you need to be much better constructing the rest of your roster at the traditionally higher priced positions.
and that is harder.
and so it does increase your risk of not attaining the success we seek.
so i am wary of giving a rb a massive, long term contract. yet, we have sb on our team now and we can't squander that.
unless we can get an overwhelming offer now i don't view this as decision we need to make until after his 4th year - i don't think the original post correctly values the 5th year option we have.
let's judge where our roster is then. i'd play hard ball of this.
And the Chiefs have the best QB in the league - of course they don’t need to go out and spend a ton on a RB. That said I’m not convinced they don’t pay Hunt if he didn’t fuck himself over.
Gurley's knee has also been an issue since college.
Saquon's knees are not.
I dont think the question is whether the team would be better with Darnold because I dont think Gettlemen and crew thought he was a franchise QB or he would have been the pick. I think the question is would this team have been better picking up a positional player like Nelson or even trading the pick for multiple picks. I think that answer is yes.
I don't hate Barkley, I got my kids Barkley Jerseys because he is the kind of kid you want them to root for but the RB position was not the problem on this team. the guys blocking for him continue to be the problem. the lack of players on D are the problem. 1 offensive lineman can improve the whole unit. We had arguably the best WR and barkley in 2018 and the O still sucked. In 2017 we were 21st in total O, in 2018 we were 16th. the Colts on the other hand went from 31st in 2017 to 6th in 2018. Is it all because of nelson no, but it cant be ignored.
If you look at the top 10 AAV for running backs, and subtract the guys on rookie deals you have plenty of cautionary tales.
Gurley, Bell, David Johnson, Devonta Freeman, and McKinnon are all deals that don't look great now.
We'll see if Elliot can buck the trend.
There just aren't a lot of running backs that are big time players 5+ years.
You can find individuals who were, but in my view there are many more who fizzle out.
Quote:
you can find an example of anything to counter an argument in the nfl. There aren’t 20 deals like Gurleys, not sure why people post as such.
If you look at the top 10 AAV for running backs, and subtract the guys on rookie deals you have plenty of cautionary tales.
Gurley, Bell, David Johnson, Devonta Freeman, and McKinnon are all deals that don't look great now.
We'll see if Elliot can buck the trend.
There just aren't a lot of running backs that are big time players 5+ years.
You can find individuals who were, but in my view there are many more who fizzle out.
Yup whole lot of cautionary tales . And just to be clear , the reason Gurleys contract was so dumb for the Rams was he had 2+ full seasons of cheap control when they extended him. Why wouldn't they wait at least till one year left on such a fragile position ? If they had ,his knee condition would be known and they could have had him cheap or just let go. I get keeping players happy but it was a poorly thought out move by LA
+1. I agree. Its amazing to me that a top, premier talent like Barkley (who is also a good citizen and Giant) generates this much dislike. He is an awesome player who is constantly striking fear in the defense (really our only offensive player that does). Even in 2019, when he was out for 3.5 games and injured for another 4, he still got to 1k yards rushing. Plus he's a great receiver.
As for he hasn't turned the team around single handedly, who can? There are 22 players out there. Did Jones turn us around? You need to pick up a number of good players to turn it around, and Barkley is the key piece to that puzzle (along with Jones).
David Johnson is somewhat a victim of circumstance as well. That entire team changed, Rosen stunk at getting him the ball (coupled with the old Offense which was terribly contracted) so they just wasted signing him. I don't think he fell off a cliff, its just mis management at its finest. His contract also isn't backbreaking like many would lead you to believe RB contracts are. Generally speaking the guaranteed money is a lot lower than most other positions (check them vs WR's for a good laugh) so cutting them is much easier if need be.
Again, look at Elliotts contract. Its unbelievably flexible for Dallas to get out of.
Worst contract for each team - ( New Window )
So I wouldn't call that contract a benchmark, in terms of Dallas's flexibility, going forward.
David Johnson is somewhat a victim of circumstance as well. That entire team changed, Rosen stunk at getting him the ball (coupled with the old Offense which was terribly contracted) so they just wasted signing him. I don't think he fell off a cliff, its just mis management at its finest. His contract also isn't backbreaking like many would lead you to believe RB contracts are. Generally speaking the guaranteed money is a lot lower than most other positions (check them vs WR's for a good laugh) so cutting them is much easier if need be.
Again, look at Elliotts contract. Its unbelievably flexible for Dallas to get out of.
Just to clarify, my point isn't that RB contracts are prohibitive.
My point is that many of the higher paid (granted this a relative figure to other positions) RBs haven't produced after getting a big pay raise.
I don't have any misgivings about extending Barkley. I just don't expect him to buck the trend of recent RBs who tail off.
I also hope the Giants copy the Cowboys and construct a deal they can exit if Barkley's production declines in the same way as the players I mentioned.
if he's either of those guys and stays healthy why wouldn't you want him after the rookie contract? money be damned.
if he's either of those guys and stays healthy why wouldn't you want him after the rookie contract? money be damned.
Because he isn’t. And as great as Barry Sanders was, and Barkley is not Barry Sanders, Sanders won how many playoff games?
But I guess in Giants land jersey sales and how nice a guy is, is more important than winning.
I won’t because despite what the stats say Emmitt Smith isn’t in the same league as Barry Sanders...
I won’t because despite what the stats say Emmitt Smith isn’t in the same league as Barry Sanders...
Ha!
I have a huge problem paying open market dollars to Leonard Williams, Nate Solder, Marcus Golden, or Golden Tate, to name a few.
Spend smart, don't shop hungry and there will be plenty of cap space. No reason the aforementioned caliber of players should be able to hold NYG over the barrel.
The Tiki Barber, Adrian Peterson, Emmit Smith types are major outliers.
I don't mind investing a lot in Barkley in years 4 and 5, and in exchange for that securing control in years 6 and 7 with the ability to get out cheaply.
Quote:
like emmitt smith and barry sanders.
if he's either of those guys and stays healthy why wouldn't you want him after the rookie contract? money be damned.
Because he isn’t. And as great as Barry Sanders was, and Barkley is not Barry Sanders, Sanders won how many playoff games?
But I guess in Giants land jersey sales and how nice a guy is, is more important than winning.
How in the world can say what Barkley will be relative to sanders after two years? It's impossible.
And this constant harping on Saners' career record is just stupid. He made his team much better than it would have been without him. There's no debate on this. But ultimately football is a team sport, and no single player can completely overcome significant shortcomings of his surrounding cast. Archie Manning has a career record of 35-101. So what?
p.s.--This is why I believe that extending players after three years who have outperformed their rookie contracts is the right thing to do. The players sacrificed the right to demand extensions after only a year or two so the flipside should be the owners willingness to give extensions after three (assuming reasonable demands and stellar performance).
Haha. I was thinking the same thing.
The problem isn’t Saquon, it’s the guy and the front office who drafted him two overall
If Gettleman and company don’t put out an OL that can open holes for him and allow him to carry the offense like he is capable of THIS YEAR, he may decide that this is not the place for him and move on to a team that is more committed to capitalizing on his significant skill set.