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?
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.