|
|
Quote: |
3. Leonard Williams, Edge/DT 2020 team: New York Giants | Age entering 2021 season: 27 The past year has been awfully good for Williams, who was traded to the Giants in 2019 and found a home in new coach Joe Judge's defense. His 11.5 sacks were a career high and more than he had amassed in the previous three seasons combined. And now Williams has enormous leverage over the Giants, who decided not to sign him to an extension before finalizing the trade. He spent 2020 as their franchised player. |
He's priority #1, IMO.
Quote:
Even if you feel the trade was not a great one with regards to the timing, the draft picks sent out, the failure to sign an extension a year ago ... and I agree DG gets a poor grade on the execution aspect of bringing LW in here.
Separately, the kid put a fantastic season up and now it's on to the next decision tree. He is recognizing his potential and the FOOTBALL aspect of the trade looks terrific. Now, where does DG go from here with LW is a big key to this offseason. And, they need to get it done so they're able to have more focus on the Jones situation. They need to see where he's at a year from now so they're prepared to pick up his fifth year option or start looking for a replacement.
Perfectly put JonC.
Quote:
In comment 15127909 chuckydee9 said:
Quote:
You are wrong all they offered at best was a late 3rd.. none of them offered a better trade than us.. which was a 3rd.. for a good DL playoff teams are willing to offer much more..
Oh ok, they offered a #3 but it wasn't like our #3. That kind of logic is laughable. Sounds more like "yeah but, but, but...."
Not many in season trades net much more than a 3 unless a QB. Most a 5, it seems.
Just to get back to this. Dallas is not reported to have given an offer for Williams, nor any other team for that matter.
Further, Dallas withdrew their interest a week earlier and traded for Michael Bennett for a 6th or 7th rd pick. The Giants were not competing in the end with Dallas for Leonard Williams.
Yes it was reported. It didn't come to me in a dream...
So many people went bonkers and dug in about the trade being a "fireable offense" that they still don't have a fucking clue how to put the pitchfork back in the garage.
Maybe it is still sticking in Gettleman, or maybe they jabbed it up their rectum and can't dislodge it.
But so many posters gave passionate posts about how the trade was one of the worst in NFL history and how Gettleman was a complete buffoon for doing it that they just can't backtrack now.
Sad, but unfortunately true.
Well said. The goalposts continue to move. When we do sign him the same characters will be begging to cut him for cap space.
Wasn't he playing for a "big contract" in '19? Before and after the trade?
Could it be that maybe, just maybe, he now has a good coaching staff and that he's maturing (he reached out to Richard Seymour last offseason for help training) and he's finally reaching the potential that made him the 6th overall pick?
Is that really so hard to believe?
Quote:
Or he is playing for a big contract, had a career year and will go back to what he was for the Jets and his first half season- good player but not worthy of being paid as a top 3 player at his position.
Wasn't he playing for a "big contract" in '19? Before and after the trade?
Could it be that maybe, just maybe, he now has a good coaching staff and that he's maturing (he reached out to Richard Seymour last offseason for help training) and he's finally reaching the potential that made him the 6th overall pick?
Is that really so hard to believe?
I hope you are correct and. He plays at this level for the next 5 years..
Quote:
traded a 3rd for JPP, and that’s worked out for both parties. He was signed already so not exactly apples to apple but bad teams trade picks for players and this is a fairly comparable example.
so you're comparing a deadline deal for a pending free agent....to an offseason deal for a guy under team control for 3 years? That's not comparable at all.
I am not, hence “not exactly apples to apples”. When you take into account JPPs injury history and amount owed with LWs age and upside, it’s a lot closer than you think. If you don’t agree that’s fine
Just to get back to this. Dallas is not reported to have given an offer for Williams, nor any other team for that matter.
Further, Dallas withdrew their interest a week earlier and traded for Michael Bennett for a 6th or 7th rd pick. The Giants were not competing in the end with Dallas for Leonard Williams.
Yes it was reported. It didn't come to me in a dream...
Section 125 I am not trying to be argumentative, but that just isn't the case. Dallas lost interest with Williams and did the deal with the Patriots a week earlier for Bennett.
Quote:
Or he is playing for a big contract, had a career year and will go back to what he was for the Jets and his first half season- good player but not worthy of being paid as a top 3 player at his position.
Wasn't he playing for a "big contract" in '19? Before and after the trade?
Could it be that maybe, just maybe, he now has a good coaching staff and that he's maturing (he reached out to Richard Seymour last offseason for help training) and he's finally reaching the potential that made him the 6th overall pick?
Is that really so hard to believe?
Dr. D It is exactly what we all would like to believe. But the Giants are still left in the same situation even if they do believe it, and that is how much is Williams worth and do they want to pay it based on their other roster concerns.
As for the why he didn't sign, no clue.
Quote:
In comment 15128014 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
traded a 3rd for JPP, and that’s worked out for both parties. He was signed already so not exactly apples to apple but bad teams trade picks for players and this is a fairly comparable example.
so you're comparing a deadline deal for a pending free agent....to an offseason deal for a guy under team control for 3 years? That's not comparable at all.
I am not, hence “not exactly apples to apples”. When you take into account JPPs injury history and amount owed with LWs age and upside, it’s a lot closer than you think. If you don’t agree that’s fine
you called it a "fairly comparable example". It's not.
Quote:
traded a 3rd for JPP, and that’s worked out for both parties. He was signed already so not exactly apples to apple but bad teams trade picks for players and this is a fairly comparable example.
He was signed already-makes a big difference. I don't know that there are really any legitimate complaints with the trade. Trades occur all the time.
if there are other examples of losing teams trading picks at the deadline for pending free agents, I'd love to hear them. Kenyan Drake is sorta similar, but it was only for a sixth rounder.
Now, we give up a 3 and 5 and get a 25 year old with almost no injury history and lots of upside, but in a contract year (this decreases his price). And the 3 years before the trade he had a few less sacks than JPP did in his 3 years prior to the trade.
I don't think the two are far off despite the scenarios being different.
Quote:
In comment 15127985 JonC said:
Quote:
Even if you feel the trade was not a great one with regards to the timing, the draft picks sent out, the failure to sign an extension a year ago ... and I agree DG gets a poor grade on the execution aspect of bringing LW in here.
Separately, the kid put a fantastic season up and now it's on to the next decision tree. He is recognizing his potential and the FOOTBALL aspect of the trade looks terrific. Now, where does DG go from here with LW is a big key to this offseason. And, they need to get it done so they're able to have more focus on the Jones situation. They need to see where he's at a year from now so they're prepared to pick up his fifth year option or start looking for a replacement.
Perfectly put JonC.
Or he is playing for a big contract, had a career year and will go back to what he was for the Jets and his first half season- good player but not worthy of being paid as a top 3 player at his position.
I don't recall hearing anything about him being lazy or disinterested as a player. And as we've all seen, coaching makes a huge difference. Graham and staff have unlocked not only LWs but Peppers and others too.
Quote:
In comment 15127991 Victor in CT said:
Quote:
In comment 15127985 JonC said:
Quote:
Even if you feel the trade was not a great one with regards to the timing, the draft picks sent out, the failure to sign an extension a year ago ... and I agree DG gets a poor grade on the execution aspect of bringing LW in here.
Separately, the kid put a fantastic season up and now it's on to the next decision tree. He is recognizing his potential and the FOOTBALL aspect of the trade looks terrific. Now, where does DG go from here with LW is a big key to this offseason. And, they need to get it done so they're able to have more focus on the Jones situation. They need to see where he's at a year from now so they're prepared to pick up his fifth year option or start looking for a replacement.
Perfectly put JonC.
Or he is playing for a big contract, had a career year and will go back to what he was for the Jets and his first half season- good player but not worthy of being paid as a top 3 player at his position.
I don't recall hearing anything about him being lazy or disinterested as a player. And as we've all seen, coaching makes a huge difference. Graham and staff have unlocked not only LWs but Peppers and others too.
DG traded for an impending free agent and many fans kept saying that DG must have already had a handshake agreement in place with LW's representation prior to FA. Obviously, that wasn't the case.
These things tend to go this way when a team is reactive.
Just another Giants fan, here . But I cannot fathom and will not accept the Giants losing him. That said , I am totally confident Gettleman will screw this up .
Quote:
situation really boils down to one main thing.
So many people went bonkers and dug in about the trade being a "fireable offense" that they still don't have a fucking clue how to put the pitchfork back in the garage.
Maybe it is still sticking in Gettleman, or maybe they jabbed it up their rectum and can't dislodge it.
But so many posters gave passionate posts about how the trade was one of the worst in NFL history and how Gettleman was a complete buffoon for doing it that they just can't backtrack now.
Sad, but unfortunately true.
Well said. The goalposts continue to move. When we do sign him the same characters will be begging to cut him for cap space.
Let me ask something...
With a confirmed reduced cap by close to $20M, and knowing what you know on both sides of the ball, what is more important? Using significant cap dollars for LW or finding more infantry for DJ, who plays the most important position in the sport?
Because we aren't awash in cap space, despite what former Enron accountant djm says...
It was a dice roll, but a 3rd round pick isn't a huge investment for a dice roll. The way some of you continue to harp on this one would think that the investment was much greater.
He will get his contract or he will be tagged.
Do you have any idea what the repeat tag value is for LW? With a cap that's likely to decrease for 2021?
Tagging LW a second time would be an extremely expensive move, and it would essentially equate to giving LW almost as much guaranteed money over two seasons as they would have had to give him on a long-term deal even if they had met his demands last offseason.
Tagging him again is very unlikely, and if they do it, it will represent a very significant drag on their ability to make any other notable moves this offseason.
If they can't agree on a multi-year contract before FA opens this year, the better move is probably to let LW test the market, hope to have a chance to match any offers, and take the comp pick (likely a 3rd rounder, which would basically recoup the trade value given up) if he signs elsewhere. Tagging him a second time would be a much more challenging scenario financially, and it also introduces a real risk of a disgruntled star player on a young team that will be looking to LW as a leadership influence.
Just another Giants fan, here . But I cannot fathom and will not accept the Giants losing him. That said , I am totally confident Gettleman will screw this up .
Mara and Gettleman intimated a possible different higher priority. And that's to find more playmakers for the offense.
Clueless. Sure. We've now gone from "Gettleman and Williams's agent must have had an understanding before the trade, otherwise Gettleman wouldn't have done it"
Ha, I completely forgot that so many people were insisting that we had such an understanding, that it was the only way such a trade would make sense.
Quote:
In comment 15127710 KDavies said:
Quote:
In comment 15127695 djm said:
Quote:
The giants are so stupid for trading for a player and unearthing his potential.
And they are really stupid because they didn’t sign him for cheap. Because we all know players always take less money.
Some of you are clueless.
Agreed. It's comical. The Giants have gone from idiots to even trading for this player and giving up a 3rd rounder, to idiots for not signing this player who wasn't worth giving up a 3rd round pick to a big extension.
You're utterly clueless
Please explain to me why I am clueless.
He a humorless sort who can't comprehend that your post was mocking positions, not asserting them.
Weird. Maybe should be titled "most expensive AAV FA available.
Weird. Maybe should be titled "most expensive AAV FA available.
Yeah, I mentioned above that ranking an oft injured 33 year-old Player as a #2is truly a joke, imv
Quote:
But is a QB with questionable arm skill and coming off a brutal injury along with a 33 year old LT with an injury history really being ranked higher than a 27 year old DE/DT (they have him listed as an edge...he isnt EDGE) who is elite at stopping the run, very good in pass rush, and with NO injury history?
Weird. Maybe should be titled "most expensive AAV FA available.
Yeah, I mentioned above that ranking an oft injured 33 year-old Player as a #2is truly a joke, imv
TW was PFF First Team All Pro this year. ;)
Quote:
In comment 15128244 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
But is a QB with questionable arm skill and coming off a brutal injury along with a 33 year old LT with an injury history really being ranked higher than a 27 year old DE/DT (they have him listed as an edge...he isnt EDGE) who is elite at stopping the run, very good in pass rush, and with NO injury history?
Weird. Maybe should be titled "most expensive AAV FA available.
Yeah, I mentioned above that ranking an oft injured 33 year-old Player as a #2is truly a joke, imv
TW was PFF First Team All Pro this year. ;)
I guess...althpugh there was really no comp for him. Lots of top guys hurt (Bak, Smith, Lewan) or got too old (Whitworth, Peters Castonzo). Either way, I would be more inclined to pay LW that TW.
Quote:
Everyone is an idiot that questions a GM that trades draft picks for a player that will be a UFA in a couple months, then doesn't get a contract done before free agency, then uses the franchise tag on the player so that all $16+ million goes against the cap this past year, and then still doesn't get a long term deal done before the season starts, and now will have to sign the guy to considerably more than he would have taken before having a career season? And there's still no guarantee he will even sign with the Giants?
That's a bit of revisionistic history. Last year everyone bitched that he shouldn't be signed until he proved himself. That the Franchise Tag was the way to go to see if he was legit or not.
Now we are claiming that because he did prove himself DG screwed it up by not signing him last year. Here's the funny thing, people that are bitching that losing a 3rd draft pick and a 4th or 5th the next year, also bitch that DG shouldn't be making those picks. I just find it really odd that giving away mid-round picks for a guy who was our best defensive player last year is somehow proof that DG sucks.
I don't think it's fair to say that "everyone" said that. I know I was against the use of the tag, and I was not alone. I remember arguing with Eric in Li about it a number of times last year - if memory serves, he was the one who was most adamantly in favor of the tag right from the moment the trade happened. My POV then was that it was silly to trade for an impending FA simply for the right to use the tag, and that LW was the type of player that you might pursue aggressively in free agency, but not one (at that time) who was worth giving up draft picks for without a contract in place.
I can admit that I was wrong about my view of LW's on-field value; the way he played this season places him in that upper echelon of defensive linemen across the league. But I was never in favor of the tag last offseason because my personal view was that the only way that it made sense for a non-contending team to trade for an impending FA was if they had assurances that he was going to sign a multi-year deal, and that he was willing to sign for slightly below market rate to stay in the area (and if you go back to the articles written around the time of the trade, as well as some well-informed posts here on BBI, there was quite a bit of chatter about LW preferring to stay in the area, which supposedly gave the Giants a leg up in re-signing him).
Using the tag was not only a pretty strong indicator that there was never any sort of deal in place at the time of the trade or thereafter, and it meant that there was no bargain to be had for this year - we were going to be paying top dollar (which the FT basically is, by definition) for a single season which left us with two possibilities: either he would continue at the level of production he had in the previous few seasons, in which case the trade itself AND the money spent this season would be wasteful, or he would further increase his value and leverage over what he already had last offseason. And even in a "prove it" scenario, we actually were still paying LW the type of money in 2020 that corresponds to already having proven it.
I'm thrilled with the way LW played this year and I'm glad to have been wrong about his value as a player, but I still don't agree with the way the whole scenario has played out. Regardless, it's water under the bridge now, and I hope we are able to sign him to a multi-year deal before he hits FA this offseason, because I think he's going to get big money even in a depressed market.
The only benefit of the tag, and I will admit that I was dismissive of it last year, is that if we don't end up re-signing LW, we're likely to recoup some of the trade value via comp pick. Given that, along with LW's production this season, we're in a better position now than I expected a year ago. As long as we don't tag LW again this offseason, there's a bright side to however this plays out.
Quote:
In comment 15127860 sb from NYT Forum said:
Quote:
Everyone is an idiot that questions a GM that trades draft picks for a player that will be a UFA in a couple months, then doesn't get a contract done before free agency, then uses the franchise tag on the player so that all $16+ million goes against the cap this past year, and then still doesn't get a long term deal done before the season starts, and now will have to sign the guy to considerably more than he would have taken before having a career season? And there's still no guarantee he will even sign with the Giants?
That's a bit of revisionistic history. Last year everyone bitched that he shouldn't be signed until he proved himself. That the Franchise Tag was the way to go to see if he was legit or not.
Now we are claiming that because he did prove himself DG screwed it up by not signing him last year. Here's the funny thing, people that are bitching that losing a 3rd draft pick and a 4th or 5th the next year, also bitch that DG shouldn't be making those picks. I just find it really odd that giving away mid-round picks for a guy who was our best defensive player last year is somehow proof that DG sucks.
I don't think it's fair to say that "everyone" said that. I know I was against the use of the tag, and I was not alone. I remember arguing with Eric in Li about it a number of times last year - if memory serves, he was the one who was most adamantly in favor of the tag right from the moment the trade happened. My POV then was that it was silly to trade for an impending FA simply for the right to use the tag, and that LW was the type of player that you might pursue aggressively in free agency, but not one (at that time) who was worth giving up draft picks for without a contract in place.
I can admit that I was wrong about my view of LW's on-field value; the way he played this season places him in that upper echelon of defensive linemen across the league. But I was never in favor of the tag last offseason because my personal view was that the only way that it made sense for a non-contending team to trade for an impending FA was if they had assurances that he was going to sign a multi-year deal, and that he was willing to sign for slightly below market rate to stay in the area (and if you go back to the articles written around the time of the trade, as well as some well-informed posts here on BBI, there was quite a bit of chatter about LW preferring to stay in the area, which supposedly gave the Giants a leg up in re-signing him).
Using the tag was not only a pretty strong indicator that there was never any sort of deal in place at the time of the trade or thereafter, and it meant that there was no bargain to be had for this year - we were going to be paying top dollar (which the FT basically is, by definition) for a single season which left us with two possibilities: either he would continue at the level of production he had in the previous few seasons, in which case the trade itself AND the money spent this season would be wasteful, or he would further increase his value and leverage over what he already had last offseason. And even in a "prove it" scenario, we actually were still paying LW the type of money in 2020 that corresponds to already having proven it.
I'm thrilled with the way LW played this year and I'm glad to have been wrong about his value as a player, but I still don't agree with the way the whole scenario has played out. Regardless, it's water under the bridge now, and I hope we are able to sign him to a multi-year deal before he hits FA this offseason, because I think he's going to get big money even in a depressed market.
The only benefit of the tag, and I will admit that I was dismissive of it last year, is that if we don't end up re-signing LW, we're likely to recoup some of the trade value via comp pick. Given that, along with LW's production this season, we're in a better position now than I expected a year ago. As long as we don't tag LW again this offseason, there's a bright side to however this plays out.
Hope you’re well. At this point, we’re gonna have to sign him for whatever the premium market bucks may be. So be it.
Hopefully big Leonard's career year is the new norm.
Its actually a VERY good point UCONN. I never considered it. JPP was coming off of spirited effort given his injury, he really didnt produce much with 8 sacks in 20 games as a 4-3 DE btwn2015-16. But he then signs a deal avging 15.5 mill a year for that, then goes out and puts up 8.5 sacks for 15 mill, we trade him for a 3rd and he has flourished. We did almost the same thing except for a player who spearheads a defense, plays both ways well and is not getting much help.
Im sick of arguing this.
DG should have had some inkling of what it was going to take to re-sign LW and been willing to meet that price BEFORE making the trade. LW did not have the kind of finish to year 2019 to have significantly raised his stock, so either LW put out a low ball figure in bad faith, or DG mismanaged the situation.
in 2020, LW bet on himself and won. He'll get paid. Now, the only question is whether it's by the Giants, or someone else.
Too many holes to put too many eggs into just one LW basket.
I would point out that during the summer it was considered heretical on here to question whether Daniel Jones really is our franchise quarterback. So now, there is a certain herd mentality on here that it's insane to question whether re-signing Williams is the best way forward.
I would point out that during the summer it was considered heretical on here to question whether Daniel Jones really is our franchise quarterback. So now, there is a certain herd mentality on here that it's insane to question whether re-signing Williams is the best way forward.
I don't think that's accurate at all. We shouldn't be signing him to any dollar amount, there's gotta be a threshold we don't cross and if that's what it takes tag or release. Many people feel this way.
As for consistency, I'd need some hard data on it. How many of his games did he grade out poorly? How many did he dominate? The eye test tells me he had some dominant games (Seattle and Dallas especially) and very few poor games. Of the poor games was he doubled and what percentage of snaps?
In sum after Bradberry he was our best defender and helped a defense do a complete 180 from the disaster it was the last couple of years. We shouldn't be writing him a blank check but he's earned a big payday.
Amen brother.
Supposedly he and Tomlinson are best friends. Let's see if he'll sign a below market deal to stay with the Giants and Dalvin 4 more years.
I never believe the above type of statement, but Williams strikes me as a somewhat atypically honest and straight talking dude.
He doesn't fit everywhere so much as if in a custom tailored suit as he does in Graham's defense under Coach Spencer.
He had sacks in 8 games. He had pressures in every game but 1. He had TFL's (sacks aren't counted) in 9 games. He was on the field for at least 65% of the snaps in every game.
Quote:
I've read three pages on this thread and no one has questioned whether Williams is consistent enough to merit the outlay of re-signing him. Seems to me he would have two or three quiet, okay games and then put in a great performance. Tomlinson struck me as a more reliable performer.
I would point out that during the summer it was considered heretical on here to question whether Daniel Jones really is our franchise quarterback. So now, there is a certain herd mentality on here that it's insane to question whether re-signing Williams is the best way forward.
I don't think that's accurate at all. We shouldn't be signing him to any dollar amount, there's gotta be a threshold we don't cross and if that's what it takes tag or release. Many people feel this way.
That just isn't the case based on the number of posters in the threads that keep saying pay the man, keep him over everybody, #1 priority, pay the whatever the premium is, can't replace him, etc.
The prudent folks do have an inherent threshold they hope is not crossed, but that isn't very many people at all. The masses just can't see life on the D-line without him now.
Gruber's sentiments are correct.
However, I think there were a lot of times in-game that there was inconsistency on that DLine, especially in the first half of the season. That was prevalent across all the d-lineman, including Williams.
You can get into consistency with just about any player and with LW specifics weren’t even given. So what exactly are you in with agreement there? I posed some questions that would help frame that argument, or lack thereof, so if you’ve got that data I’d be happy to entertain that argument.
The eye test is the only other thing I have and he was a very disruptive player for us, 2nd best defender on the team.
The weekly LW threads portray a fan base that would break the bank with Williams, rest of the roster be damned. Akin to a drunken sailor on leave.
And that's where it's not prudent.
The two buckets I consistently read at length are those that know its a risk (as with any FA) and we shouldn't go over our max budgeted offer, and those that still really hate the trade and now having to pay him.
If this was a real world decision i'm going to wager that most of BBI aren't wild spenders and will assess the potential ramifications of large scale purchases, realizing they only have so much budget. Not all, but definitely most.
If this was a real world decision i'm going to wager that most of BBI aren't wild spenders and will assess the potential ramifications of large scale purchases, realizing they only have so much budget. Not all, but definitely most.
This is well put and much in agreement.
And maybe bonus points should be given...those are the realists!