And some very good comments from Leonard Williams. While I disagreed with trading picks for him and thought they should have just waited for FA, I have to say I am impressed with his play and his character.
What controversial Giants firing says about Joe Judge - (
New Window )
He's not playing 'much' better. Maybe relative to his short stint with the Giants last year when he had to learn the schemes on the fly, but his overall numbers this year aren't significantly better than his career bests.
If you want to see what 'playing for a contract' looks like, look up Dupree's numbers last year and this.
I don’t know if there’s a limit but next year it would cost about $20m to tag him again. So it’s technically an option and one I’d consider if he is looking for $20m a year and won’t budge down to $16-17m give/take. But it depends on the guarantees - if we can sign him to a Dee Ford type deal I’d do that in a heartbeat.
no defensive lineman will show an impact when you have a weak secondary (last year). Watch the games, Williams gets double teamed 90% of the time.
Now with Bradberry/Martinez being here things are different.
That's an excellent point. Williams did have 11 QBHits with the Giants last season. Having a CB like Bradberry that makes the QB hesitate a split second or go to his second read allows the rushers to turn a few of those hits into sacks.
Career averages (excluding 2020): 3.5 sacks 7 TFL 20 QBHits
2016: 7 sacks 11 TFL 19 QBHits
2017: 2 sacks 3 TFL 25 QBHits
2018: 5 sacks 11 TFL 20 QBHits
2020 (pro-rated): 8 sacks 11 TFL 26 QBHits
Career bests
His pro-rated numbers aren't that much better than his average and/or best seasons.
Quote:
that limits how many times you can Tag a player?
I don’t know if there’s a limit but next year it would cost about $20m to tag him again. So it’s technically an option and one I’d consider if he is looking for $20m a year and won’t budge down to $16-17m give/take. But it depends on the guarantees - if we can sign him to a Dee Ford type deal I’d do that in a heartbeat.
Gotcha. Thanks buddy..
Also, Eagles dealt a 3rd(?) for half a season of Golden Tate before we signed him.
This situation would be easier to shit all over if he stunk but since he doesn’t finding things to complain about gets harder.
I didn't suggest Sanu was a good trade or player to sign. And I don't have an angle other than if LW is so good and critical that he should be signed. Don't argue with me...yell at the Gettleman.
And you can depart discussing the situation any time.
Quote:
Williams is doing more in 1 game than Sanu ever did for the Pats. I don’t get your angle on this anyway. We don’t know when negotiations started and you can force either side to make a deal.
This situation would be easier to shit all over if he stunk but since he doesn’t finding things to complain about gets harder.
I didn't suggest Sanu was a good trade or player to sign. And I don't have an angle other than if LW is so good and critical that he should be signed. Don't argue with me...yell at the Gettleman.
And you can depart discussing the situation any time.
Do take special pleasure in being an arrogant a...
Quote:
that limits how many times you can Tag a player?
I don’t know if there’s a limit but next year it would cost about $20m to tag him again. So it’s technically an option and one I’d consider if he is looking for $20m a year and won’t budge down to $16-17m give/take. But it depends on the guarantees - if we can sign him to a Dee Ford type deal I’d do that in a heartbeat.
Why tag him again? He should just be signed to an extended deal.
If they can't work it out then let him go to free agency and then match his best offer if the Giants can't live without him.
What's the problem with that?
Quote:
In comment 15055888 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
Williams is doing more in 1 game than Sanu ever did for the Pats. I don’t get your angle on this anyway. We don’t know when negotiations started and you can force either side to make a deal.
This situation would be easier to shit all over if he stunk but since he doesn’t finding things to complain about gets harder.
I didn't suggest Sanu was a good trade or player to sign. And I don't have an angle other than if LW is so good and critical that he should be signed. Don't argue with me...yell at the Gettleman.
And you can depart discussing the situation any time.
Do take special pleasure in being an arrogant a...
I'm not. Nor am I getting rude about the discussion in the thread.
Quote:
Williams is doing more in 1 game than Sanu ever did for the Pats. I don’t get your angle on this anyway. We don’t know when negotiations started and you can force either side to make a deal.
This situation would be easier to shit all over if he stunk but since he doesn’t finding things to complain about gets harder.
I didn't suggest Sanu was a good trade or player to sign. And I don't have an angle other than if LW is so good and critical that he should be signed. Don't argue with me...yell at the Gettleman.
And you can depart discussing the situation any time.
Ehh you called the poster out and you were given examples you weren’t thinking of which debunked your angle.
You’re the one arguing with anyone on anything that looks like it might be better than you predicted. Would be lovely to ever see you say “shit I got that one wrong” but alas, you can’t help yourself.
Quote:
set you back years..Countless times, many teams have screwed the pooch on their first, second and 3rd rounders. The man is solid, 26 years old and can anchor our line for years.
The trade is done. Let’s keep him if possible. If not, so be it..
BB56 can't agree more. The timing of the tarde may have caught folks off guard but, he is here and for a 3-4 (ish) he is a perfect fit for that. If we had a true Edge guy Williams numbers would be even better. At times he just mauls through guys and I think we need to keep him long term.
Agree? What if the Giants missed out on a stud player with one, or both, picks the gave up for Williams? Not to mention, he's making more this year than he should be (franchise tag), which means we'll seriously overpay when/if we resign him.
You can like the player, but it doesnt change the fact it was a terrible trade.
Nor did I predict anything on this deal. LW is playing good and he appears to be exactly the vision of what the GM wants to do with in building up this team. What I don't understand is why he is not signed longer term.
Williams was right for holding out for a better offer and taking the tag, bad news for him is that he’s likely not getting it in this market.
Maybe. But if not, there is a sure-fire way to sort out LW's approx. market value.
Quote:
In comment 15055804 LBH15 said:
Quote:
and then don't sign them to an extended deal...all the time?
Actually, I didn't realize it was so commonplace. Who are some of these guys?
Off the top of my head from last year there's Clowney (traded for a 3rd rd pick plus players to Seattle) and Sanu (for a 2nd rd pick to the Pats).
I think the Patriots just released Sanu. He was under contract. Clowney is more comparable, although he was left to just go into free agency.
Why do we seem to forget or ignore that Williams has been here now for nearly 2 years when this season is all said n done? What if the giants keep winning this season and win the east and Williams gets 2 sacks in the playoff game? Does that make the trade just a little better?
We have had Williams for nearly 2 seasons now. Doesn't that count for anything?
Quote:
I’m confident they’ll work it out. Imo.
Maybe. But if not, there is a sure-fire way to sort out LW's approx. market value.
Then it would have to be a Transition tag
Quote:
In comment 15055823 JB_in_DC said:
Quote:
In comment 15055804 LBH15 said:
Quote:
and then don't sign them to an extended deal...all the time?
Actually, I didn't realize it was so commonplace. Who are some of these guys?
Off the top of my head from last year there's Clowney (traded for a 3rd rd pick plus players to Seattle) and Sanu (for a 2nd rd pick to the Pats).
I think the Patriots just released Sanu. He was under contract. Clowney is more comparable, although he was left to just go into free agency.
Why do we seem to forget or ignore that Williams has been here now for nearly 2 years when this season is all said n done? What if the giants keep winning this season and win the east and Williams gets 2 sacks in the playoff game? Does that make the trade just a little better?
We have had Williams for nearly 2 seasons now. Doesn't that count for anything?
He has basically played just over one full season for the Giants. Don't follow the logic. I am suggesting that the Giants should sign him longer-term because he matches the vision of the GM.
Quote:
In comment 15055996 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
I’m confident they’ll work it out. Imo.
Maybe. But if not, there is a sure-fire way to sort out LW's approx. market value.
Then it would have to be a Transition tag
Why?
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or, you redeploy that money you don't use on LW and beef up the secondary. It's not a bumper crop for top edge guys. So find a better counterpart to Bradberry and/or another slot corner.
Or look on the other side of the ball and add another WR. Another T/G or C for depth.
I'm growing more confident that Graham can scheme an effective pass rush without the big brand name to do it.
Quote:
Redeploying his cap space to sign an edge rusher, a position which is even more expensive than a 3-4 DL and where there is a real risk of the acquired edge player being a bust due to a lack of fit.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or, you redeploy that money you don't use on LW and beef up the secondary. It's not a bumper crop for top edge guys. So find a better counterpart to Bradberry and/or another slot corner.
Or look on the other side of the ball and add another WR. Another T/G or C for depth.
I'm growing more confident that Graham can scheme an effective pass rush without the big brand name to do it.
But Williams is what this GM has in mind in building up this team. He could have "deployed" those resources differently but this DT is what he feels the team needs which is why he was traded for and sure as hell why he was franchised.
No?
But Williams is what this GM has in mind in building up this team. He could have "deployed" those resources differently but this DT is what he feels the team needs which is why he was traded for and sure as hell why he was franchised.
No?
That trade was made pre-Judge. So I don't know how much he's committed to that idea.
Remember, if Judge subscribes to the Belichick School of Team Building, paying top dollar for DTs isn't a big priority. So it's going to be very interesting how this lands...
Quote:
In comment 15056004 LBH15 said:
Quote:
In comment 15055996 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
I’m confident they’ll work it out. Imo.
Maybe. But if not, there is a sure-fire way to sort out LW's approx. market value.
Then it would have to be a Transition tag
Why?
The only way we’d have a GUARANTEED shot at matching ANY offer made to him, no?
Quote:
But Williams is what this GM has in mind in building up this team. He could have "deployed" those resources differently but this DT is what he feels the team needs which is why he was traded for and sure as hell why he was franchised.
No?
That trade was made pre-Judge. So I don't know how much he's committed to that idea.
Remember, if Judge subscribes to the Belichick School of Team Building, paying top dollar for DTs isn't a big priority. So it's going to be very interesting how this lands...
Vince Wilfork says Hi.
I think the whole BB doesn't pay this or that is so overblown. BB pays players that stay healthy and our tops at their position. The NFL already has a sliding scale for what their positions are worth to account for positional importance. The people say he doesn't is because so often do teams pay their top 10-15 guys like top 5. That shit isn't smart. Let those guys walk and take the comp picks. LW is certainly a top 5 penetrating DT who stays healthy.
Quote:
But Williams is what this GM has in mind in building up this team. He could have "deployed" those resources differently but this DT is what he feels the team needs which is why he was traded for and sure as hell why he was franchised.
No?
That trade was made pre-Judge. So I don't know how much he's committed to that idea.
Remember, if Judge subscribes to the Belichick School of Team Building, paying top dollar for DTs isn't a big priority. So it's going to be very interesting how this lands...
Hmm, he better get his title changed then. Otherwise there will be some fireworks on this one.
Quote:
In comment 15056010 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
In comment 15056004 LBH15 said:
Quote:
In comment 15055996 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
I’m confident they’ll work it out. Imo.
Maybe. But if not, there is a sure-fire way to sort out LW's approx. market value.
Then it would have to be a Transition tag
Why?
The only way we’d have a GUARANTEED shot at matching ANY offer made to him, no?
Why would Williams not ensure the Giants are in the mix? Seemingly the almighty dollar is driving his strategy and no point in not driving up his demand. Hasn't that been his strategy?
It's indisputable that we will have to pay much more to sign him to a contract than if we had just signed him as a free agent when his value was perhaps at an all time low.
Trading a pick to rent him on a team that is going no where playoff-wise so he could boost his free agent value is just an extra kick in the nuts.
Zero chances with a transition tag..
It's indisputable that we will have to pay much more to sign him to a contract than if we had just signed him as a free agent when his value was perhaps at an all time low.
Trading a pick to rent him on a team that is going no where playoff-wise so he could boost his free agent value is just an extra kick in the nuts.
Does it REALLY matter if we wind up paying a few million more per year in the scheme of things? That wouldn’t break the cap, imo
Zero chances with a transition tag..
That is fair. They could have done the transition this year though and received that same assurance, but didn't.
Quote:
It's the fact that we lost our leverage and will have to pay much more to keep him now that he's playing better.
It's indisputable that we will have to pay much more to sign him to a contract than if we had just signed him as a free agent when his value was perhaps at an all time low.
Trading a pick to rent him on a team that is going no where playoff-wise so he could boost his free agent value is just an extra kick in the nuts.
Does it REALLY matter if we wind up paying a few million more per year in the scheme of things? That wouldn’t break the cap, imo
Exactly BB56. Why hasn't Gettleman just done that already if LW is his guy?
Quote:
In comment 15056078 widmerseyebrow said:
Quote:
It's the fact that we lost our leverage and will have to pay much more to keep him now that he's playing better.
It's indisputable that we will have to pay much more to sign him to a contract than if we had just signed him as a free agent when his value was perhaps at an all time low.
Trading a pick to rent him on a team that is going no where playoff-wise so he could boost his free agent value is just an extra kick in the nuts.
Does it REALLY matter if we wind up paying a few million more per year in the scheme of things? That wouldn’t break the cap, imo
Exactly BB56. Why hasn't Gettleman just done that already if LW is his guy?
Not sure
Vince Wilfork says Hi.
I think the whole BB doesn't pay this or that is so overblown. BB pays players that stay healthy and our tops at their position. The NFL already has a sliding scale for what their positions are worth to account for positional importance. The people say he doesn't is because so often do teams pay their top 10-15 guys like top 5. That shit isn't smart. Let those guys walk and take the comp picks. LW is certainly a top 5 penetrating DT who stays healthy.
Someone tried that Wilfork & Seymour move on me before. Alas, I don't think either contract ate up the % of the cap that LW's ask price will.
Well, I agree that BB is very malleable with his approach. But there is enough evidence out there that he targets under-valued assets over the big name of the moment. The examples are endless, and at almost every position it seems...
There are a few exceptions like Gilmore or Revis.
For crissakes, the guy has over two decades of personnel decisions to study. There are certainly misses, but there are a lot of hits...and hits with these undervalued assets.
Quote:
In comment 15056049 LBH15 said:
Quote:
But Williams is what this GM has in mind in building up this team. He could have "deployed" those resources differently but this DT is what he feels the team needs which is why he was traded for and sure as hell why he was franchised.
No?
That trade was made pre-Judge. So I don't know how much he's committed to that idea.
Remember, if Judge subscribes to the Belichick School of Team Building, paying top dollar for DTs isn't a big priority. So it's going to be very interesting how this lands...
Hmm, he better get his title changed then. Otherwise there will be some fireworks on this one.
This off-season is going to be very interesting to see how the delegations of authority really work with such uncertainty surrounding Gettleman's tenure...
Quote:
In comment 15056080 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
In comment 15056078 widmerseyebrow said:
Quote:
It's the fact that we lost our leverage and will have to pay much more to keep him now that he's playing better.
It's indisputable that we will have to pay much more to sign him to a contract than if we had just signed him as a free agent when his value was perhaps at an all time low.
Trading a pick to rent him on a team that is going no where playoff-wise so he could boost his free agent value is just an extra kick in the nuts.
Does it REALLY matter if we wind up paying a few million more per year in the scheme of things? That wouldn’t break the cap, imo
Exactly BB56. Why hasn't Gettleman just done that already if LW is his guy?
Not sure
At the beginning of this year, most posters defending this trade were expecting LW to get signed up in the $12-14M/year range. Now even a price tag of nearly $20M/year doesn't even phase some as an option as this gets discussed more.
LW has become an inelastic product to some degree in the eyes of many.
For the educated poster - no.
Obviously Team LW would say no.
Quote:
but was that ever realistic?
For the educated poster - no.
Not many "educated posters" thought much of Will Grier, and they were right.
Not many "educated posters" thought much of Will Grier, and they were right.
Grier was a subjective idea.
Projecting LW's ask was simply math and understanding market comps. In other words, a fairly objective exercise.
It's going to be very interesting to see how that plays out.
If these vaccines are the game changers they are expected to be, that could accelerate a reset in revenues pretty quickly.
I definitely didn’t think DW would net $18m but that was then and this is now. He’s playing at a high level and it’s translating to a much better defense this year. This isn’t a hard concept to grasp and it doesn’t mean people we stupid for thinking he’d be less expensive last year.
Nevertheless, if he keeps playing better I guess he should get more, right? So if the Giants make the playoffs and he gets 2 sacks in the playoff game (per djm example) do you want to give him above $20M/year? That would be then not now, so not hard to grasp.
Ok, it seemed like you were. But I must have got that one wrong.
Does it matter that the guy in charge doesn't seem to understand any of this? Uh, yes. It was a questionable move to begin with in a lost season, and without signing LW to a reasonable extension at the time of the trade it became indefensible.
It's definitely less than ideal to have a GM that is trading assets away in lost seasons to save his own ass.