I might consider giving him the Kamara deal before it gets even higher.
Odell got 95 million. Let me ask you... Right now, who would you rather have making 95 million on your team? Odell, or Saquon? Who provides more value? They are both a threat to take it to the house every time they touch it.
The era of devaluing the RB is over. I'm sure like everything else in the NFL, it will come again. But this is now gearing back towards a running driven league, especially with mobile QB's in style the way they are.
Saquon isn't just a great RB, he's a great football player, period.
Nice to see you posting again. Weird season ahead.
Hey buddy. Hope all's well.
Weird season indeed. Without any preseason and such limited access to the team, I really don't know what to expect this year. But, I'm glad football is back and there's a Giants game in a couple of days.
New seasons are always exciting. Clean slate. Chance to turn things around.
Just want to see progress and a smarter, better-coached football team on the rise this year. I don't know if you can put an exact win total on that, but if we beat a couple of good teams and compete with others and don't keep beating ourselves with stupid penalties and mistakes, I'm good with it.
I'm hoping the weirdness, along with a couple of lucky breaks/bounces here and there, and if the team is as scrappy as I hope it is, they can claw out a .500 or even above record. You never know. I'm hopeful every season until there's reason not to be (lately around week 2).
Anyways, clean slate like you said. Take the wrapper off Monday night. A new era begins.
But really, I'm just looking for some normalcy once a week.
Didn't Dallas give Elliott a 90M extension before the start of last year?
He ran for like 1300 yards, rushed for 12 scores and added 54 receptions.
Was he a bad spend for Dallas? I don't think he was, personally. He's an elite player. I hate the guy, but I don't really believe in just letting talent like that walk away. I think they'll get solid value out of it.
Two of the other headline running backs that BBI used as justification were shipped out by their respective teams... pay a running back at your own peril.
Two of the other headline running backs that BBI used as justification were shipped out by their respective teams... pay a running back at your own peril.
They got shipped out because they were jerks. Just like Odell.
He only got $28 million guaranteed so not exactly breaking the bank. If Barkley gets an extension and we do a similar amount I'm all for it but otherwise should probably let him walk.
Didn't Dallas give Elliott a 90M extension before the start of last year?
He ran for like 1300 yards, rushed for 12 scores and added 54 receptions.
Was he a bad spend for Dallas? I don't think he was, personally. He's an elite player. I hate the guy, but I don't really believe in just letting talent like that walk away. I think they'll get solid value out of it.
One good statistical season for an 8-8 team is not worth $90 million. Let’s see him do it for a few more years first. Elliott is 4 years in, the statistical odds are that he has maybe 1 or 2 more big years left (if he doesn’t get hurt) before he’s a replacement level player. Maybe he’s different or one of these other guys will be different in terms of their impact and longevity, but as I already said, if any of them are, it will be the first time it’s happened.
RB is devalued because it's much harder to win games on their own
Without a decent line. You think EE would have the same success without Dallas o-line?
That's why qb play will always be the key to a successful offense. If the defense doesn't respect the qb or o-line play, it's load up the box to stop the rb. How many times have we seen, 'load the box make Prescott beat you'? It worked to his advantage his rookie year quite well
If you have a good cheap o-line, you can pay the rb, but it's a lot harder if you have an expensive o-line.
If I am ranking position players on importance relative to independence on other positions:
Plenty have, you must not be paying attention. Their contracts have less guaranteed money than many other positions too, so IMO the risk is lower yet their production is sky high.
Didn't Dallas give Elliott a 90M extension before the start of last year?
He ran for like 1300 yards, rushed for 12 scores and added 54 receptions.
Was he a bad spend for Dallas? I don't think he was, personally. He's an elite player. I hate the guy, but I don't really believe in just letting talent like that walk away. I think they'll get solid value out of it.
One good statistical season for an 8-8 team is not worth $90 million. Let’s see him do it for a few more years first. Elliott is 4 years in, the statistical odds are that he has maybe 1 or 2 more big years left (if he doesn’t get hurt) before he’s a replacement level player. Maybe he’s different or one of these other guys will be different in terms of their impact and longevity, but as I already said, if any of them are, it will be the first time it’s happened.
His year last year also doesn't scream "mistake" and holding singular players accountable for team records is lazy. Paying him isn't the sole reason they finished 8-8.
Dallas amassed more offensive yardage than any other team in football last year and were 6th in points scored. Elliott should be a top flight player for another few years.
There are no guarantees in football. You're taking on a risk with any player you pay big money to. Elliott has barely missed any time due to injury to date and has carried heavy workloads each year. Anyone can get hurt. Elliott is only 25 years old.
RE: RB is devalued because it's much harder to win games on their own
Without a decent line. You think EE would have the same success without Dallas o-line?
That's why qb play will always be the key to a successful offense. If the defense doesn't respect the qb or o-line play, it's load up the box to stop the rb. How many times have we seen, 'load the box make Prescott beat you'? It worked to his advantage his rookie year quite well
If you have a good cheap o-line, you can pay the rb, but it's a lot harder if you have an expensive o-line.
If I am ranking position players on importance relative to independence on other positions:
It won't come to an end until these deals work out for teams on a consistent basis.
Signing them to a big money deal doesn't mean they made the right decision.
People said the same thing here when Gurley signed his massive deal. That one didn't take long to blow up in their faces.
Well the deals all just happened, clearly front offices of successful franchises don’t feel the same way you do. The guarantees are low as well, so much risk has already been accounted for.
25% of the total guaranteed essentially makes it a big 1 year deal for some of these guys yet it’s being talked about like they are getting fully guaranteed contracts.
So, just to be clear, the "don't pay RB's" crowd would have let Christian McCaffrey walk?
No extension, no offer, just let him go and take the compensation?
That's a hell of a football player that you'd be wiling to just let waltz out of the building because of the position he plays and would be a tough one to justify to fans. The guy has over 200 receptions in the last 2 years to go with about 2500 rush yards and 32 scores.
You don't just say "eh, hes a running back" and wave goodbye to a player like that. Obviously Carolina didn't.
I truly think people are so dig in on the whole RB debate that they either don’t want to actually look at how favorable some of these terms or or do and simply pretend that it doesn’t exist.
Out of all the top players in the NFL on deal #2 CMCs is incredibly attractive. Elliots is great too and Cooks is fantastic. I don’t know the Kamara details but it sounds like his is right in line as well.
Neither of those look like huge extensions — 34 and 28 million guaranteed respectively put both of those deals outside of the top 60 in the NFL.
The details will probably mirror the other high profile running back deals lately, geared towards having an option to cut ties with the player after their 6th NFL season.
So, just to be clear, the "don't pay RB's" crowd would have let Christian McCaffrey walk?
No extension, no offer, just let him go and take the compensation?
That's a hell of a football player that you'd be wiling to just let waltz out of the building because of the position he plays and would be a tough one to justify to fans. The guy has over 200 receptions in the last 2 years to go with about 2500 rush yards and 32 scores.
You don't just say "eh, hes a running back" and wave goodbye to a player like that. Obviously Carolina didn't.
It's not that black and white. How expensive is your QB? How expensive is your defense? Are you going to have to cut good players because you paid an RB?
You can pay a RB, but you need a lot of good young talent on cheaper contracts to make it work. Like the Rams and Gurley. Then they had to pay everyone else and cut him.
Zeke Elliott article on his performance last season
Without a decent line. You think EE would have the same success without Dallas o-line?
That's why qb play will always be the key to a successful offense. If the defense doesn't respect the qb or o-line play, it's load up the box to stop the rb. How many times have we seen, 'load the box make Prescott beat you'? It worked to his advantage his rookie year quite well
If you have a good cheap o-line, you can pay the rb, but it's a lot harder if you have an expensive o-line.
If I am ranking position players on importance relative to independence on other positions:
I don't agree with this at all. ALL of those positions need line play.
The QB can't find the open WR if he's constantly on his back or running for his life. Isn't that what we've been watching for the better part of the last decade?
So, just to be clear, the "don't pay RB's" crowd would have let Christian McCaffrey walk?
No extension, no offer, just let him go and take the compensation?
That's a hell of a football player that you'd be wiling to just let waltz out of the building because of the position he plays and would be a tough one to justify to fans. The guy has over 200 receptions in the last 2 years to go with about 2500 rush yards and 32 scores.
You don't just say "eh, hes a running back" and wave goodbye to a player like that. Obviously Carolina didn't.
It's not that black and white. How expensive is your QB? How expensive is your defense? Are you going to have to cut good players because you paid an RB?
You can pay a RB, but you need a lot of good young talent on cheaper contracts to make it work. Like the Rams and Gurley. Then they had to pay everyone else and cut him.
Of course all of that stuff matters - my question was, given Carolina's actual situation, would anyone here have just not offered McCaffrey anything and let him go?
I have a hard time believing that anyone would say yes for any reason other than playing Devil's Advocate.
This is a 1st team, All-Pro player. The goal is to accumulate talent, not refuse to pay for it.
I don't think every good RB should get paid, but players like McCaffrey, Barkley, Elliott... these guys are game-changers who are a threat to score every time they have the football. If it's my money, I am willing to pay for that.
RE: RE: Paying for Barkley isn't the issue as much as
its whether the team can foresee actually competing before the bulk of that second contract/useful life wears out.
Otherwise deal him and start the restructuring over again.
I understand this conservative approach, but I look at it like a poker tournament.
If you keep folding, you're eventually going to blind out. Eventually, you have to commit to hands in order to advance.
Its not a fold if you can still extract trade value to rebuild properly. Consider it more like the dealer gave you another hand for free to find the next good running back.
Committing to Barkley is much easier than some other types of players but he is far more marketable to other GMs.
It's just not a wise allocation of resources to devote huge bucks to a position that has such a short shelf life. What are the chances we will be in contention in Barkley's prime? It'll just be eating into the cap significantly and prevent us from filling other holes.
We have an infinite amount of holes - O-Line, WR, CB, S, DL, LB. The offensive and defensive lines are both among the worst in the league, and we have a lack of playmakers.
We can't have a WR eating up so much of our cap when we're so far away from contention and have so many holes. Saints, Cowboys, and Vikings can all sign RBs to massive deals because they are legitimate contenders.
This is not a knock on SB's talent, he's just not the right fit at the right time for our team.
The 5th year option plus a franchise tag is likely about 2/3 maybe more of the guaranteed money CMC just got. It’s way more than what Cook just got.
There’s plenty of ways to build successful teams. I know for a fact it’s harder with less talent. The tough guy act of take it or leave it rarely works. Outside of Belichick who earned the ability to get away with that, it’s almost guaranteed to backfire way more than it will workout.
3rd year (completed in the books) rbs should get paid
It's just not a wise allocation of resources to devote huge bucks to a position that has such a short shelf life. What are the chances we will be in contention in Barkley's prime? It'll just be eating into the cap significantly and prevent us from filling other holes.
We have an infinite amount of holes - O-Line, WR, CB, S, DL, LB. The offensive and defensive lines are both among the worst in the league, and we have a lack of playmakers.
We can't have a WR eating up so much of our cap when we're so far away from contention and have so many holes. Saints, Cowboys, and Vikings can all sign RBs to massive deals because they are legitimate contenders.
This is not a knock on SB's talent, he's just not the right fit at the right time for our team.
Our defensive line is among the worst in the league?
I don't agree with that at all.
RE: RE: RE: Paying for Barkley isn't the issue as much as
its whether the team can foresee actually competing before the bulk of that second contract/useful life wears out.
Otherwise deal him and start the restructuring over again.
I understand this conservative approach, but I look at it like a poker tournament.
If you keep folding, you're eventually going to blind out. Eventually, you have to commit to hands in order to advance.
Its not a fold if you can still extract trade value to rebuild properly. Consider it more like the dealer gave you another hand for free to find the next good running back.
Committing to Barkley is much easier than some other types of players but he is far more marketable to other GMs.
I liken letting arguably one of the best players walk, in their prime, because of what might happen in the next year or two to folding a pair of Aces because you're scared of what's going to come on the river.
For more than both Cook and Kamara. I think just about everybody would be in agreement that Cook and Kamara are “better” players. Neither deal is larger than what Gurley signed a few years back despite other positions increasing in value over that time (ie Ramsey crossing the 20m/yr threshold). The position has most certainly been devalued.
Teams are being more careful with big money extensions at the position in the way they structure these deals and RBs are pushing for extensions earlier in their rookie deals. The market has actually settled.
They are all multi-dimensional offensive talents. The Giants should absolutely give Barkley another contract (and they will). I just wish they were more proactive about it and did it before these deals.
RE: These players are more than just “running backs”
They are all multi-dimensional offensive talents. The Giants should absolutely give Barkley another contract (and they will). I just wish they were more proactive about it and did it before these deals.
I'm not sure Barkley and his agent would have agreed to that. I think he knows what he's worth. If he has a monster year this season, in year three, I think we'll start to see some movement towards this.
Also, you cite a lack of playmakers in the middle of trying to make a case as to why we should let the best one we have walk and not pay him.
Not really sure how that works...
It’s idiocy. And he isn’t just our best player, he’s our franchise player on and off the field. This isn’t lightening rod Odell, this is THE player any franchise wants as the guy.
I’m sure Joe Judge wants to trade away Barkley for some picks that might not work out. We just cut last years first rounder, another 1st rounder got a DUI. Plenty don’t get in trouble and still bust.
I’d like to start playing better and that happens by keeping Barkley and building a sound foundation.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Paying for Barkley isn't the issue as much as
its whether the team can foresee actually competing before the bulk of that second contract/useful life wears out.
Otherwise deal him and start the restructuring over again.
I understand this conservative approach, but I look at it like a poker tournament.
If you keep folding, you're eventually going to blind out. Eventually, you have to commit to hands in order to advance.
Its not a fold if you can still extract trade value to rebuild properly. Consider it more like the dealer gave you another hand for free to find the next good running back.
Committing to Barkley is much easier than some other types of players but he is far more marketable to other GMs.
I liken letting arguably one of the best players walk, in their prime, because of what might happen in the next year or two to folding a pair of Aces because you're scared of what's going to come on the river.
I am not suggesting just trade him today. Let this year play out, and if Giants still struggling too much and or Jones regresses much then need to consider it. On a restructuring team, he is worth more to us in a trade than running and catching the ball during another loss.
The 5th year option plus a franchise tag is likely about 2/3 maybe more of the guaranteed money CMC just got. It’s way more than what Cook just got.
There’s plenty of ways to build successful teams. I know for a fact it’s harder with less talent. The tough guy act of take it or leave it rarely works. Outside of Belichick who earned the ability to get away with that, it’s almost guaranteed to backfire way more than it will workout.
If Gettleman could get this team to a reasonably competitive level, I would agree we should pay Barkley sooner vs later. But he is giving up picks and franchise tagging run stuffers instead of cohesively building a valuable roster.
It's just not a wise allocation of resources to devote huge bucks to a position that has such a short shelf life. What are the chances we will be in contention in Barkley's prime? It'll just be eating into the cap significantly and prevent us from filling other holes.
At a glance these don't look like QB or WR-type salaries that are going to consume a huge part of the cap and prevent retaining other talent.
There’s a place and nice price tag for both productive WRs and big time backs. Being a difference maker at RB requires a physical advantage that often only youth and health can provide. There’s very little substitute for the burst and speed required. The only real offset is a fantastic line. If I’m making the decision, I’m not handcuffing myself to a RB after their 5th or 6th season.
Regardless of the position, pay the guy who can get the most first downs, yards, and touchdowns on the fewest touches for the most amount of years. To me CMC, Elliot, Barkley are top shelf and then come guys like Cook and Kamara at the RB position. None of their extensions really tie their teams to them after their 6th pro year. I hope the Giants follow suit with Barkley.
It was a dumb argument based on the fact that the RB skillset saught
out by today's NFL took a few years to catch up to the lower ranks. Guys in the mold of Marshall Faulk or LDT. Kamara is a good example of what teams are looking for in their RB position now. Physical two down backs are a dime a dozen and don't last. 15 years ago can anyone imagine Kamara being anything more than a 3rd down back? That's what makes Sean Peyton such a good coach, he's ahead of the curve offensively and has been since he was here. Nick Chubb is a great player, but how valuable is he going to be when you need to give him a second contract and can't afford someone like Hunt behind him? Should be interesting what type of contract him and Henry get. I wouldn't pay either of those guys.
The 5th year option plus a franchise tag is likely about 2/3 maybe more of the guaranteed money CMC just got. It’s way more than what Cook just got.
There’s plenty of ways to build successful teams. I know for a fact it’s harder with less talent. The tough guy act of take it or leave it rarely works. Outside of Belichick who earned the ability to get away with that, it’s almost guaranteed to backfire way more than it will workout.
What's lost on people is that BB does that with ALL positions, not just RB. CMC, Zeke, and Saquon inarguably the 3 best RBs in football all went top 10. When was the last time he even had a chance to draft one of these guys.
I've heard the argument that BB the coach bails out BB the GM all the time. I think that's hogwash. He rarely overspends on players vs their talent. What is extremely common in NFL is that a player that is maybe 5-10 best at their position signs a contract that will put him as the highest paid player at that position. Teams are scare to let their talent walk so they almost all fall into this trap. BB smartly shuns this notion.
What BB the coach helps with is he has built a culture there that doesn't turn these miscontents around (at age 25+ how many people do you know that actually change?), but they know they are at their lowest value, and they generally play ball because they know they'll get paid in a year. Rinse and repeat.
NFL teams are getting a bit wiser though, see Dallas with Earl Clark. Not a doubt in my mind if Jerry was calling the shots he'd be there making 10 million a year which talent wise he is probably worth, but what happens when he almost inevitable causes problems in the locker room. Tough pill to swallow to cut a guy making that type of money.
All these little decisions add up and it's why the Pats are the Pats (plus the Tom Brady advantage). Combine that with the fact BB is an X's and O's genius its the last dynasty we are going to see in the Salary Cap era for a very long time. I'm thinking it's going to be the last one as teams get more and more data and wake up to making analytical based decisions around the cap. What I don't understand is this stuff is all fairly obvious, the dollars and cents part, but in reality most people are terrified of losing their jobs. This is where the Giants should have a competitive advantage since we are such a "conservative organization that keeps people around too long".
Joe Judge is never going to be the defensive genius that BB is, but I think he can bring a lot of the stuff that has made the Pats so good. I think we are facing a 6-10 season, but this is the first time I've had hope in the future outside of either "maybe Eli can put the team on his back in the 4th quarter again like 2011" or "I think Eli has a little more left in the tank, put a team around him and he's clutch, we can catch lightning in a bottle(pre 2019)."
Cook is a tough one because of health concerns, though I think they
historical perspective on tagging "run stuffers" as if it is a seldom-used tactic.
Since 2007 when the franchise tag was first available, 23 defensive tackles have been tagged making that position tied for the 3rd most tags used.
It was Gettleman that got tagged, not Leonard Williams.
Keep running with that narrative, Googs
Not him, but keep running with the idea that franchising LW was anything more than a last resort. Great strategy for a team with 12 wins in last three years. Was that part of the master plan?
There's a certain subset of fans that will always glorify cap space over actual talent - probably because cap space can just be imagined as talent. The cap space argument is easy because you don't need to actually tie any player to it - you can just use hindsight to say "well, we could have signed this player if we had x amount of space"
I also think folks have short memories and might be undervaluing how good Barkley really is because he played hurt most of last year.
Violent runners like Derrick Henry or Chris Carson who don't really play in the pass game - those are guys I think you spend on at your own peril (and TEN did pay Henry beyond his rookie deal, but didn't break the bank on it)
But, much in the way you can look at Lamar Jackson as a QB/RB - you can look at Barkley as a RB/WR. When you see guys like Minkah Fitzpatrick and Derwin James and the versatility they bring to defenses, it's that type of multi-positional value that makes them special.
Barkley, McCaffrey, Kamara, etc... they are the RB versions of that. I personally think you can very easily justify paying these players.
I hate using anomalies as the basis of an argument. There’s a reason why no one in the last 25 years has done what BB has done (or longer) and it’s a combination of a ton of things with cap management being towards the bottom of the list. He can afford things everyone else can’t because he’s so much better a coach. BB the GM greatly benefits for BB the coach.
agreed and on top of that you aren’t really paying a whole lot for it. These RB deals keep getting friendly and friendlier yet fans are still stuck in the mud from 5 years ago.
agreed and on top of that you aren’t really paying a whole lot for it. These RB deals keep getting friendly and friendlier yet fans are still stuck in the mud from 5 years ago.
Yup. I get the impression many of them aren't even really looking at the terms of these extensions and deals. They're really not crippling.
Keeping Barkley here isn't going to put NYG in cap hell and quite honestly, I think it would be horribly irresponsible not to.
Assuming health and the type of performance we'd expect, I have no idea how a Giants front office could justifiably with a straight face just say "we don't think we need this guy, we want the cap space."
I hate using anomalies as the basis of an argument. There’s a reason why no one in the last 25 years has done what BB has done (or longer) and it’s a combination of a ton of things with cap management being towards the bottom of the list. He can afford things everyone else can’t because he’s so much better a coach. BB the GM greatly benefits for BB the coach.
I think BB is the greatest coach of all time, full stop. However, I just think the competitive advantage he has built around the cap is a reason for the sustained success and not the endless ups and downs other teams have. The Rams come to mind recently, I think they are pretty doomed to mediocrity here for a little bit and I think McVay is a great coach in his own right. They, however, have taken the tact to go with a boom/bust cycle which can work in its own right. The Eagles took that approach as well and it netted them a Superbowl, unfortunately. Another team doomed to mediocrity I believe for a few years unless Wentz turns his injury history around miraculously. I think there is something to be said for that approach as well, my own fantasy drafts come to mind lol.
Example being the point is to finish 1st in the end right? You do that by scoring the most points for the most part. I'd rather take an approach that nets me equal chance to finish with most points as last, then an approach the gurantees me the 6th most points and hopefully squeek my way to a championship. This year that is taking Jonathan Taylor in the end of 3rd round. My personal opinion is he will most likely be a guy that explodes in second half of the year, especially with Mack's injury history and I think his talent will be obvious. Risky? Sure, but like I said the point is to win it all, not to finish outside of last.
Most teams outside of the Pats that won were the most talented teams, with good QB play, with good health. The Pats have built their success on having the most talented rosters top to bottom, having a great QB, and the best HC of all time so injury doesn't really play a chance as much. Of course using them as an example to follow isn't a great model because there is only one BB. I know this is a pretty unpopular opinion, but I don't think Brady is in the conversation as best QB of a generation without BB. I think that unamiously would have went to Payton followed by Rodgers.
agreed and on top of that you aren’t really paying a whole lot for it. These RB deals keep getting friendly and friendlier yet fans are still stuck in the mud from 5 years ago.
That is the problem with the pure analytics guys. Sometimes there are explanations outside of the pure numbers. The game was slow to produce the types of RBs that the modern NFL game required. How many super stud RB's came into the league before 2005 that couldn't pass block a lick? A ton because they were the man at every level, didn't need to know how to block. Now these guys know they better learn in college or they are killing their draft stock. Same goes with pass catching ability and route running more recently.
RE: Amass the good player then. What’s stopping us? If LW is the goods
then why isn’t he signed up to fair value deal versus trading picks, paying an over-market one year salary, and using a franchise tag.
Must be that there will be run stoppers available next year.
I don't really think you grasp the concept of a "over-market one year salary". You have to run with that line to keep pushing the narrative that it was a bad move, but it isn't true.
But as usual - you don't really care about the truth.
the team isn't getting better with one good move offset by a bad move like this. And that is what we have gotten for the past 3 years.
As for you, you can't discuss or debate without looking for the extreme on any thread or the chance to defend the Front Office when able for some reason. Even when those positions are 1% of the opinions on the thread, you jump on that 1%.
But I guess it makes it easier for you to step into a thread and throw out a LOL and call somebody a shitstain.
Value add.
What big money second contract has worked the past decade at RB?
the team isn't getting better with one good move offset by a bad move like this. And that is what we have gotten for the past 3 years.
As for you, you can't discuss or debate without looking for the extreme on any thread or the chance to defend the Front Office when able for some reason. Even when those positions are 1% of the opinions on the thread, you jump on that 1%.
But I guess it makes it easier for you to step into a thread and throw out a LOL and call somebody a shitstain.
Value add.
Again - it isn't a bad move. That isn't looking for the extreme. You keep talking about how we aren't building a good roster and I disagree. LW is part of building a good roster. As are the draft picks of Jones, Barkley and Lawrence.
But it is funny getting lectured on the "extreme" when you ranted and raved about the Jonathan Stewart contract and still do.
To me that this is even a discussion. Something that was universally accepted as poor franchise move ten minutes before the selection of Barkley is now vigorously defended on BBI. There are very few positions that drive a football team and RB isn’t one of them. The odds are not in favor of a running lasting long in this league. Of course there are exceptions. But they are just that, exceptions, not the rule.
Now I am reading that that multiple franchise running backs were dumped merely because they were jerks? Can someone tell me the last franchise qb, DE, or LT that was released, without compensation or receiving minimal return , that was a jerk? I can tell you three rbs in the last 4 years: Bell, Gurley, and Fourtenette. I’m sure the response will be, “there were no franchise qbs, DE, or LT that were jerks.”
to know what they do. What will Judge want? His influences have been BB and NS. Would they?
Right now they have a rookie QB on contract for four years. The OL has a chance to be inexpensive resource wise other than Hernandez if he is retained and things work out with the young players.
So there will be money to spend and I don't think you know exactly where. We know Judge values smart, tough, versatile players. I just hope the money goes to game changers. I think a big mistake they made around the 2009 timeframe was the allocation of resources to the OL. All of the them had sizeable contracts and some were given a third contract. I do believe TC had a say in that and it really hurt the team when they all fell in production close in time with no replacements on the roster. Hopefully they have learned.
This is building a good roster? We have been at top of draft now for 3 straight years, what players do you envision getting an extension next year? I am hopeful Judge can turn the trajectory around because Shurmer seems like a pretty bad coach but as it stands right now I can’t say this is an up and coming roster.
This is building a good roster? We have been at top of draft now for 3 straight years, what players do you envision getting an extension next year? I am hopeful Judge can turn the trajectory around because Shurmer seems like a pretty bad coach but as it stands right now I can’t say this is an up and coming roster.
When you have two young players like Daniel Jones and Barkley, how can you seriously say that the roster isn't turning around? Just the picks on the OL alone in the draft might be good enough to turn the team around. Plus, you have Lawrence and Williams anchoring the DL and a lot of young LB's and DB's that will make a big impact if they round into form.
If the OL is improved and becomes a strength, how can people complain about the path taken? The ironic thing is that you heard a bunch of posters use the Niners as an example of great roster building, but they often left out that it took several years for that roster to show promise. People that expected an immediate turnaround are the ones that complain the loudest.
I mean, just look above. Supposedly it was "universally accepted" that Barkley was a bad "franchise move", even though that statement is pure bullshit. So many people here wanted a QB or a different player that they make outrageous statements to crap on a pick that didn't align with their wants.
RE: Universally accepted as a poor franchise move?
I might consider giving him the Kamara deal before it gets even higher.
Dalvin Cook - 2nd round pick #41
Alvin Kamara - 3rd round pick #67
I might consider giving him the Kamara deal before it gets even higher.
Odell got 95 million. Let me ask you... Right now, who would you rather have making 95 million on your team? Odell, or Saquon? Who provides more value? They are both a threat to take it to the house every time they touch it.
The era of devaluing the RB is over. I'm sure like everything else in the NFL, it will come again. But this is now gearing back towards a running driven league, especially with mobile QB's in style the way they are.
Saquon isn't just a great RB, he's a great football player, period.
Kenyan Drake should get paid soon.
Hey buddy. Hope all's well.
Weird season indeed. Without any preseason and such limited access to the team, I really don't know what to expect this year. But, I'm glad football is back and there's a Giants game in a couple of days.
New seasons are always exciting. Clean slate. Chance to turn things around.
Just want to see progress and a smarter, better-coached football team on the rise this year. I don't know if you can put an exact win total on that, but if we beat a couple of good teams and compete with others and don't keep beating ourselves with stupid penalties and mistakes, I'm good with it.
Anyways, clean slate like you said. Take the wrapper off Monday night. A new era begins.
Serious question. Can you explain to me why it's okay to pay a WR that kind of money but not a RB?
I posed the question above, who do you think you get more value from? Odell for $95 million or Saquon?
That is a dual thread.
Look at Christian McCaffrey. Same thing. Dual threat.
These guys are just as much a threat to catch a 30 yard pass over the shoulder downfield for a score as they are to bust one from scrimmage.
Bottom line, they are great football players. You're putting limiting them when you call them "just a RB".
Great players get paid.
Didn't Dallas give Elliott a 90M extension before the start of last year?
He ran for like 1300 yards, rushed for 12 scores and added 54 receptions.
Was he a bad spend for Dallas? I don't think he was, personally. He's an elite player. I hate the guy, but I don't really believe in just letting talent like that walk away. I think they'll get solid value out of it.
They got shipped out because they were jerks. Just like Odell.
Quote:
that works out will be the first.
Didn't Dallas give Elliott a 90M extension before the start of last year?
He ran for like 1300 yards, rushed for 12 scores and added 54 receptions.
Was he a bad spend for Dallas? I don't think he was, personally. He's an elite player. I hate the guy, but I don't really believe in just letting talent like that walk away. I think they'll get solid value out of it.
One good statistical season for an 8-8 team is not worth $90 million. Let’s see him do it for a few more years first. Elliott is 4 years in, the statistical odds are that he has maybe 1 or 2 more big years left (if he doesn’t get hurt) before he’s a replacement level player. Maybe he’s different or one of these other guys will be different in terms of their impact and longevity, but as I already said, if any of them are, it will be the first time it’s happened.
That's why qb play will always be the key to a successful offense. If the defense doesn't respect the qb or o-line play, it's load up the box to stop the rb. How many times have we seen, 'load the box make Prescott beat you'? It worked to his advantage his rookie year quite well
If you have a good cheap o-line, you can pay the rb, but it's a lot harder if you have an expensive o-line.
If I am ranking position players on importance relative to independence on other positions:
QB
WR (needs QB play)
RB (needs o-line and QB play)
Plenty have, you must not be paying attention. Their contracts have less guaranteed money than many other positions too, so IMO the risk is lower yet their production is sky high.
Otherwise deal him and start the restructuring over again.
Quote:
In comment 14968128 eugibs said:
Quote:
that works out will be the first.
Didn't Dallas give Elliott a 90M extension before the start of last year?
He ran for like 1300 yards, rushed for 12 scores and added 54 receptions.
Was he a bad spend for Dallas? I don't think he was, personally. He's an elite player. I hate the guy, but I don't really believe in just letting talent like that walk away. I think they'll get solid value out of it.
One good statistical season for an 8-8 team is not worth $90 million. Let’s see him do it for a few more years first. Elliott is 4 years in, the statistical odds are that he has maybe 1 or 2 more big years left (if he doesn’t get hurt) before he’s a replacement level player. Maybe he’s different or one of these other guys will be different in terms of their impact and longevity, but as I already said, if any of them are, it will be the first time it’s happened.
His year last year also doesn't scream "mistake" and holding singular players accountable for team records is lazy. Paying him isn't the sole reason they finished 8-8.
Dallas amassed more offensive yardage than any other team in football last year and were 6th in points scored. Elliott should be a top flight player for another few years.
There are no guarantees in football. You're taking on a risk with any player you pay big money to. Elliott has barely missed any time due to injury to date and has carried heavy workloads each year. Anyone can get hurt. Elliott is only 25 years old.
That's why qb play will always be the key to a successful offense. If the defense doesn't respect the qb or o-line play, it's load up the box to stop the rb. How many times have we seen, 'load the box make Prescott beat you'? It worked to his advantage his rookie year quite well
If you have a good cheap o-line, you can pay the rb, but it's a lot harder if you have an expensive o-line.
If I am ranking position players on importance relative to independence on other positions:
QB
WR (needs QB play)
RB (needs o-line and QB play)
Assuming you are ranking just these 3 positions, and not all of them, right? Because OT, ER and CB probably need to get above WR and RB imv.
Signing them to a big money deal doesn't mean they made the right decision.
People said the same thing here when Gurley signed his massive deal. That one didn't take long to blow up in their faces.
Quote:
that works out will be the first.
Serious question. Can you explain to me why it's okay to pay a WR that kind of money but not a RB?
I posed the question above, who do you think you get more value from? Odell for $95 million or Saquon?
Because WR's primes are generally into their 2nd contract.
RB's 95% of the time their primes are on their rookie deal.
Signing them to a big money deal doesn't mean they made the right decision.
People said the same thing here when Gurley signed his massive deal. That one didn't take long to blow up in their faces.
Well the deals all just happened, clearly front offices of successful franchises don’t feel the same way you do. The guarantees are low as well, so much risk has already been accounted for.
25% of the total guaranteed essentially makes it a big 1 year deal for some of these guys yet it’s being talked about like they are getting fully guaranteed contracts.
No extension, no offer, just let him go and take the compensation?
That's a hell of a football player that you'd be wiling to just let waltz out of the building because of the position he plays and would be a tough one to justify to fans. The guy has over 200 receptions in the last 2 years to go with about 2500 rush yards and 32 scores.
You don't just say "eh, hes a running back" and wave goodbye to a player like that. Obviously Carolina didn't.
I truly think people are so dig in on the whole RB debate that they either don’t want to actually look at how favorable some of these terms or or do and simply pretend that it doesn’t exist.
Out of all the top players in the NFL on deal #2 CMCs is incredibly attractive. Elliots is great too and Cooks is fantastic. I don’t know the Kamara details but it sounds like his is right in line as well.
The details will probably mirror the other high profile running back deals lately, geared towards having an option to cut ties with the player after their 6th NFL season.
No extension, no offer, just let him go and take the compensation?
That's a hell of a football player that you'd be wiling to just let waltz out of the building because of the position he plays and would be a tough one to justify to fans. The guy has over 200 receptions in the last 2 years to go with about 2500 rush yards and 32 scores.
You don't just say "eh, hes a running back" and wave goodbye to a player like that. Obviously Carolina didn't.
It's not that black and white. How expensive is your QB? How expensive is your defense? Are you going to have to cut good players because you paid an RB?
You can pay a RB, but you need a lot of good young talent on cheaper contracts to make it work. Like the Rams and Gurley. Then they had to pay everyone else and cut him.
https://sportdfw.com/2020/06/10/dallas-cowboys-teams-still-fear-ezekiel-elliott/
Otherwise deal him and start the restructuring over again.
I understand this conservative approach, but I look at it like a poker tournament.
If you keep folding, you're eventually going to blind out. Eventually, you have to commit to hands in order to advance.
That's why qb play will always be the key to a successful offense. If the defense doesn't respect the qb or o-line play, it's load up the box to stop the rb. How many times have we seen, 'load the box make Prescott beat you'? It worked to his advantage his rookie year quite well
If you have a good cheap o-line, you can pay the rb, but it's a lot harder if you have an expensive o-line.
If I am ranking position players on importance relative to independence on other positions:
QB
WR (needs QB play)
RB (needs o-line and QB play)
I don't agree with this at all. ALL of those positions need line play.
The QB can't find the open WR if he's constantly on his back or running for his life. Isn't that what we've been watching for the better part of the last decade?
Quote:
So, just to be clear, the "don't pay RB's" crowd would have let Christian McCaffrey walk?
No extension, no offer, just let him go and take the compensation?
That's a hell of a football player that you'd be wiling to just let waltz out of the building because of the position he plays and would be a tough one to justify to fans. The guy has over 200 receptions in the last 2 years to go with about 2500 rush yards and 32 scores.
You don't just say "eh, hes a running back" and wave goodbye to a player like that. Obviously Carolina didn't.
It's not that black and white. How expensive is your QB? How expensive is your defense? Are you going to have to cut good players because you paid an RB?
You can pay a RB, but you need a lot of good young talent on cheaper contracts to make it work. Like the Rams and Gurley. Then they had to pay everyone else and cut him.
Of course all of that stuff matters - my question was, given Carolina's actual situation, would anyone here have just not offered McCaffrey anything and let him go?
I have a hard time believing that anyone would say yes for any reason other than playing Devil's Advocate.
This is a 1st team, All-Pro player. The goal is to accumulate talent, not refuse to pay for it.
I don't think every good RB should get paid, but players like McCaffrey, Barkley, Elliott... these guys are game-changers who are a threat to score every time they have the football. If it's my money, I am willing to pay for that.
Quote:
its whether the team can foresee actually competing before the bulk of that second contract/useful life wears out.
Otherwise deal him and start the restructuring over again.
I understand this conservative approach, but I look at it like a poker tournament.
If you keep folding, you're eventually going to blind out. Eventually, you have to commit to hands in order to advance.
Its not a fold if you can still extract trade value to rebuild properly. Consider it more like the dealer gave you another hand for free to find the next good running back.
Committing to Barkley is much easier than some other types of players but he is far more marketable to other GMs.
We have an infinite amount of holes - O-Line, WR, CB, S, DL, LB. The offensive and defensive lines are both among the worst in the league, and we have a lack of playmakers.
We can't have a WR eating up so much of our cap when we're so far away from contention and have so many holes. Saints, Cowboys, and Vikings can all sign RBs to massive deals because they are legitimate contenders.
This is not a knock on SB's talent, he's just not the right fit at the right time for our team.
I'd utilize the franchise tag. If the player doesn't like it too fucking bad, don't show up and you don't get paid.
Utilize the 5th year option, franchise after that, and after 6 years say adios.
There’s plenty of ways to build successful teams. I know for a fact it’s harder with less talent. The tough guy act of take it or leave it rarely works. Outside of Belichick who earned the ability to get away with that, it’s almost guaranteed to backfire way more than it will workout.
We have an infinite amount of holes - O-Line, WR, CB, S, DL, LB. The offensive and defensive lines are both among the worst in the league, and we have a lack of playmakers.
We can't have a WR eating up so much of our cap when we're so far away from contention and have so many holes. Saints, Cowboys, and Vikings can all sign RBs to massive deals because they are legitimate contenders.
This is not a knock on SB's talent, he's just not the right fit at the right time for our team.
Our defensive line is among the worst in the league?
I don't agree with that at all.
Quote:
In comment 14968148 LBH15 said:
Quote:
its whether the team can foresee actually competing before the bulk of that second contract/useful life wears out.
Otherwise deal him and start the restructuring over again.
I understand this conservative approach, but I look at it like a poker tournament.
If you keep folding, you're eventually going to blind out. Eventually, you have to commit to hands in order to advance.
Its not a fold if you can still extract trade value to rebuild properly. Consider it more like the dealer gave you another hand for free to find the next good running back.
Committing to Barkley is much easier than some other types of players but he is far more marketable to other GMs.
I liken letting arguably one of the best players walk, in their prime, because of what might happen in the next year or two to folding a pair of Aces because you're scared of what's going to come on the river.
Teams are being more careful with big money extensions at the position in the way they structure these deals and RBs are pushing for extensions earlier in their rookie deals. The market has actually settled.
Not really sure how that works...
I'm not sure Barkley and his agent would have agreed to that. I think he knows what he's worth. If he has a monster year this season, in year three, I think we'll start to see some movement towards this.
Not really sure how that works...
It’s idiocy. And he isn’t just our best player, he’s our franchise player on and off the field. This isn’t lightening rod Odell, this is THE player any franchise wants as the guy.
I’m sure Joe Judge wants to trade away Barkley for some picks that might not work out. We just cut last years first rounder, another 1st rounder got a DUI. Plenty don’t get in trouble and still bust.
I’d like to start playing better and that happens by keeping Barkley and building a sound foundation.
Quote:
In comment 14968181 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
In comment 14968148 LBH15 said:
Quote:
its whether the team can foresee actually competing before the bulk of that second contract/useful life wears out.
Otherwise deal him and start the restructuring over again.
I understand this conservative approach, but I look at it like a poker tournament.
If you keep folding, you're eventually going to blind out. Eventually, you have to commit to hands in order to advance.
Its not a fold if you can still extract trade value to rebuild properly. Consider it more like the dealer gave you another hand for free to find the next good running back.
Committing to Barkley is much easier than some other types of players but he is far more marketable to other GMs.
I liken letting arguably one of the best players walk, in their prime, because of what might happen in the next year or two to folding a pair of Aces because you're scared of what's going to come on the river.
I am not suggesting just trade him today. Let this year play out, and if Giants still struggling too much and or Jones regresses much then need to consider it. On a restructuring team, he is worth more to us in a trade than running and catching the ball during another loss.
There’s plenty of ways to build successful teams. I know for a fact it’s harder with less talent. The tough guy act of take it or leave it rarely works. Outside of Belichick who earned the ability to get away with that, it’s almost guaranteed to backfire way more than it will workout.
If Gettleman could get this team to a reasonably competitive level, I would agree we should pay Barkley sooner vs later. But he is giving up picks and franchise tagging run stuffers instead of cohesively building a valuable roster.
Since 2007 when the franchise tag was first available, 23 defensive tackles have been tagged making that position tied for the 3rd most tags used.
Quote:
that works out will be the first.
Serious question. Can you explain to me why it's okay to pay a WR that kind of money but not a RB
?
Traditionally WRs have been far more likely to be productive for multiple seasons than RBs have. But hopefully that is changing.
At a glance these don't look like QB or WR-type salaries that are going to consume a huge part of the cap and prevent retaining other talent.
Keenan Allen - $20m
AJ Green - $18m
Cooks - $16m
Top 3 paid RBs
CMC - $16m
Elliott - $15m
Bell and Johnson - $13m
Yeah, I know who on this list I’m paying. Keenan Allen makes $12m more guaranteed than CMCs new deal. Please think about that for a moment.
Since 2007 when the franchise tag was first available, 23 defensive tackles have been tagged making that position tied for the 3rd most tags used.
It was Gettleman that got tagged, not Leonard Williams.
Regardless of the position, pay the guy who can get the most first downs, yards, and touchdowns on the fewest touches for the most amount of years. To me CMC, Elliot, Barkley are top shelf and then come guys like Cook and Kamara at the RB position. None of their extensions really tie their teams to them after their 6th pro year. I hope the Giants follow suit with Barkley.
Quote:
historical perspective on tagging "run stuffers" as if it is a seldom-used tactic.
Since 2007 when the franchise tag was first available, 23 defensive tackles have been tagged making that position tied for the 3rd most tags used.
It was Gettleman that got tagged, not Leonard Williams.
Keep running with that narrative, Googs
There’s plenty of ways to build successful teams. I know for a fact it’s harder with less talent. The tough guy act of take it or leave it rarely works. Outside of Belichick who earned the ability to get away with that, it’s almost guaranteed to backfire way more than it will workout.
What's lost on people is that BB does that with ALL positions, not just RB. CMC, Zeke, and Saquon inarguably the 3 best RBs in football all went top 10. When was the last time he even had a chance to draft one of these guys.
I've heard the argument that BB the coach bails out BB the GM all the time. I think that's hogwash. He rarely overspends on players vs their talent. What is extremely common in NFL is that a player that is maybe 5-10 best at their position signs a contract that will put him as the highest paid player at that position. Teams are scare to let their talent walk so they almost all fall into this trap. BB smartly shuns this notion.
What BB the coach helps with is he has built a culture there that doesn't turn these miscontents around (at age 25+ how many people do you know that actually change?), but they know they are at their lowest value, and they generally play ball because they know they'll get paid in a year. Rinse and repeat.
NFL teams are getting a bit wiser though, see Dallas with Earl Clark. Not a doubt in my mind if Jerry was calling the shots he'd be there making 10 million a year which talent wise he is probably worth, but what happens when he almost inevitable causes problems in the locker room. Tough pill to swallow to cut a guy making that type of money.
All these little decisions add up and it's why the Pats are the Pats (plus the Tom Brady advantage). Combine that with the fact BB is an X's and O's genius its the last dynasty we are going to see in the Salary Cap era for a very long time. I'm thinking it's going to be the last one as teams get more and more data and wake up to making analytical based decisions around the cap. What I don't understand is this stuff is all fairly obvious, the dollars and cents part, but in reality most people are terrified of losing their jobs. This is where the Giants should have a competitive advantage since we are such a "conservative organization that keeps people around too long".
Joe Judge is never going to be the defensive genius that BB is, but I think he can bring a lot of the stuff that has made the Pats so good. I think we are facing a 6-10 season, but this is the first time I've had hope in the future outside of either "maybe Eli can put the team on his back in the 4th quarter again like 2011" or "I think Eli has a little more left in the tank, put a team around him and he's clutch, we can catch lightning in a bottle(pre 2019)."
Quote:
In comment 14968260 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
historical perspective on tagging "run stuffers" as if it is a seldom-used tactic.
Since 2007 when the franchise tag was first available, 23 defensive tackles have been tagged making that position tied for the 3rd most tags used.
It was Gettleman that got tagged, not Leonard Williams.
Keep running with that narrative, Googs
Not him, but keep running with the idea that franchising LW was anything more than a last resort. Great strategy for a team with 12 wins in last three years. Was that part of the master plan?
Lamenting having good players is a really odd take. Predictable from you, but odd nonetheless.
I also think folks have short memories and might be undervaluing how good Barkley really is because he played hurt most of last year.
Violent runners like Derrick Henry or Chris Carson who don't really play in the pass game - those are guys I think you spend on at your own peril (and TEN did pay Henry beyond his rookie deal, but didn't break the bank on it)
But, much in the way you can look at Lamar Jackson as a QB/RB - you can look at Barkley as a RB/WR. When you see guys like Minkah Fitzpatrick and Derwin James and the versatility they bring to defenses, it's that type of multi-positional value that makes them special.
Barkley, McCaffrey, Kamara, etc... they are the RB versions of that. I personally think you can very easily justify paying these players.
Yup. I get the impression many of them aren't even really looking at the terms of these extensions and deals. They're really not crippling.
Keeping Barkley here isn't going to put NYG in cap hell and quite honestly, I think it would be horribly irresponsible not to.
Assuming health and the type of performance we'd expect, I have no idea how a Giants front office could justifiably with a straight face just say "we don't think we need this guy, we want the cap space."
Must be that there will be run stoppers available next year.
Agreed, if we get better this year. If we don’t and/or he becomes greedy then we should move him.
I think BB is the greatest coach of all time, full stop. However, I just think the competitive advantage he has built around the cap is a reason for the sustained success and not the endless ups and downs other teams have. The Rams come to mind recently, I think they are pretty doomed to mediocrity here for a little bit and I think McVay is a great coach in his own right. They, however, have taken the tact to go with a boom/bust cycle which can work in its own right. The Eagles took that approach as well and it netted them a Superbowl, unfortunately. Another team doomed to mediocrity I believe for a few years unless Wentz turns his injury history around miraculously. I think there is something to be said for that approach as well, my own fantasy drafts come to mind lol.
Example being the point is to finish 1st in the end right? You do that by scoring the most points for the most part. I'd rather take an approach that nets me equal chance to finish with most points as last, then an approach the gurantees me the 6th most points and hopefully squeek my way to a championship. This year that is taking Jonathan Taylor in the end of 3rd round. My personal opinion is he will most likely be a guy that explodes in second half of the year, especially with Mack's injury history and I think his talent will be obvious. Risky? Sure, but like I said the point is to win it all, not to finish outside of last.
Most teams outside of the Pats that won were the most talented teams, with good QB play, with good health. The Pats have built their success on having the most talented rosters top to bottom, having a great QB, and the best HC of all time so injury doesn't really play a chance as much. Of course using them as an example to follow isn't a great model because there is only one BB. I know this is a pretty unpopular opinion, but I don't think Brady is in the conversation as best QB of a generation without BB. I think that unamiously would have went to Payton followed by Rodgers.
That is the problem with the pure analytics guys. Sometimes there are explanations outside of the pure numbers. The game was slow to produce the types of RBs that the modern NFL game required. How many super stud RB's came into the league before 2005 that couldn't pass block a lick? A ton because they were the man at every level, didn't need to know how to block. Now these guys know they better learn in college or they are killing their draft stock. Same goes with pass catching ability and route running more recently.
Must be that there will be run stoppers available next year.
I don't really think you grasp the concept of a "over-market one year salary". You have to run with that line to keep pushing the narrative that it was a bad move, but it isn't true.
But as usual - you don't really care about the truth.
As for you, you can't discuss or debate without looking for the extreme on any thread or the chance to defend the Front Office when able for some reason. Even when those positions are 1% of the opinions on the thread, you jump on that 1%.
But I guess it makes it easier for you to step into a thread and throw out a LOL and call somebody a shitstain.
Value add.
As for you, you can't discuss or debate without looking for the extreme on any thread or the chance to defend the Front Office when able for some reason. Even when those positions are 1% of the opinions on the thread, you jump on that 1%.
But I guess it makes it easier for you to step into a thread and throw out a LOL and call somebody a shitstain.
Value add.
Again - it isn't a bad move. That isn't looking for the extreme. You keep talking about how we aren't building a good roster and I disagree. LW is part of building a good roster. As are the draft picks of Jones, Barkley and Lawrence.
But it is funny getting lectured on the "extreme" when you ranted and raved about the Jonathan Stewart contract and still do.
But again - what was that about "extremes"??
This is what turns the NYG into winners?
But again - what was that about "extremes"??
Not googs, nor said it. This guy haunts you huh?
Now I am reading that that multiple franchise running backs were dumped merely because they were jerks? Can someone tell me the last franchise qb, DE, or LT that was released, without compensation or receiving minimal return , that was a jerk? I can tell you three rbs in the last 4 years: Bell, Gurley, and Fourtenette. I’m sure the response will be, “there were no franchise qbs, DE, or LT that were jerks.”
“The best player in this draft” “a perfect pick” “best back to come out since Adrian Pederson” - ( New Window )
Right now they have a rookie QB on contract for four years. The OL has a chance to be inexpensive resource wise other than Hernandez if he is retained and things work out with the young players.
So there will be money to spend and I don't think you know exactly where. We know Judge values smart, tough, versatile players. I just hope the money goes to game changers. I think a big mistake they made around the 2009 timeframe was the allocation of resources to the OL. All of the them had sizeable contracts and some were given a third contract. I do believe TC had a say in that and it really hurt the team when they all fell in production close in time with no replacements on the roster. Hopefully they have learned.
Did you learn that from experience?
When you have two young players like Daniel Jones and Barkley, how can you seriously say that the roster isn't turning around? Just the picks on the OL alone in the draft might be good enough to turn the team around. Plus, you have Lawrence and Williams anchoring the DL and a lot of young LB's and DB's that will make a big impact if they round into form.
If the OL is improved and becomes a strength, how can people complain about the path taken? The ironic thing is that you heard a bunch of posters use the Niners as an example of great roster building, but they often left out that it took several years for that roster to show promise. People that expected an immediate turnaround are the ones that complain the loudest.
I mean, just look above. Supposedly it was "universally accepted" that Barkley was a bad "franchise move", even though that statement is pure bullshit. So many people here wanted a QB or a different player that they make outrageous statements to crap on a pick that didn't align with their wants.
Lol. I love when people think their own opinions are "universally accepted."
I dont get the need for people to insist things are turning around before they actually do.