Fair warning, this is a thread about the salary cap and includes assumptions, if you're a salary cap denier watch out.
My best guess at the Giants salary cap space for 2021 is $2,518,861.
Please beat up my assumptions!
Factors included:
- $185,000,000 cap
- $1,500,000 rollover
$186,500,000
Minus
- Top 48 salaires $178,397,139
- YoY comp for 3 picks counting/displacing $5,584,000
$183,981,139
Potential Cuts
- Solder (June 1st)
- Tate
- Core
- Toilolo
- Mayo
Gets you to $25,915,922
Now of course 2021 cap flow isn't the end all when it comes to acquisition. The Giants are nicely positioned in 2022 and 2023, and will be able to sign players to multi year contracts.
What I think this season comes down to is 2 decisions:
- If you tag Williams at 19.3M, you probably have to cur Zeitler to operate, and add anyone signifigant
- If the Giants intend to keep Tomlinson and Williams, you can't have Williams play on the tender and you have to cut Zeitler
Excuse my ignorance please.
They can pay forward several deals.
'22 and '23, the Giants are currently flush....granted...it will get filled up quickly....with Peppers, Barkley, extensions....
They should negotiate hard with Williams and any other outside FA. Zietler needs to take a restructure with a salary cut and maybe add another year or two or be cut outright. If kept, they need be able to save 6 - 8 million of his 12 million salary.
Also trade EE, I don't even care about the return, getting him off the books frees up over 6 million.
Also, it's cold move but cutting Carter frees up another 2 million (but there will likely be an injury settlement but I think that can be pushed to 2021)
These are the types of business decisions that the good teams make.
Also, they should be able to restructure Martinez and Bradbury and free up another 10 - 14 million.
If they make all those moves, they can free up as much as 30 million if necessary. That said, I really don't like pushing current mistakes off into the the future. My take is that the Giants are still not going to be a contender in 2021, so take as many of your lumps as possible this year and save the 2022 and 2023 caps space. Better to be conservative. Translation, even though I brought it up, I don't like the idea of restructuring Bradbury and Martinez. Cutting Zeitler might not be the best option since you will need to find a replacement anyway. The replacement should only cost about 6 million. Think about the contract that Jamon Brown got with Atlanta... That should be the top end of what the Giants pay for RG this year. If they can get Zeitler there, fine, if not, bye.
Zeitler has 12.5 salary and 2.5M in restructure bonus left on his deal. The Giants aren't going to be able to just bonus out some of his salary without new money.
On the open market Zeitler will get 12.5M guaranteed on a deal. He's got some leverage there, if the Giants try and give him an ultimatum.
If you want to move money off the 021 books, you're probably looking at a 2 year extension, with some new money. Something like:
2021: 2.5M legacy bonus, 3.3M bonus, 2.5M salary (all guaranteed)
2022: 3.3M bonus, 7.5M salary (all guaranteed)
2023: 3.3M bonus, 7.5M salary (bonus guaranteed)
Not sure I'd do that for a guy in his 11th, 12th, and 13th season.
And it’s also a portfolio of what is wrong with BBI. There just always has to be one extreme or the other. You’re either a cap “enthusiast” or a cap “denier”.
Right. Likes it’s not possible to realize that there’s a cap while at the same time not freaking out about every penny spent on players. Nope. No middle ground. If someone doesn’t agree with you, they are in denial that a cap exists.
You love the cap and dissecting it. Great. But why does it always have to turn into a slam on there’s don’t get so worked up about it? That’s not saying they aren’t aware of a cap. Perhaps they just believe it’s not as difficult to navigate around certain aspects of the cap as you do? Nah. They’re all in denial.
Thanks George. Seems us one name handles have much in common.
Cheers djm, you're a good man and have a good sense of humor.
I'm not sure Bradberry takes a new deal right now. The Giants have literally no leverage. The Giants would have to come through with some serious new money.
Presumably the reason he and his agent negotiated a 3-year deal is to maneuver him as a UFA when the new TV deal money has hit.
It’s not perfect, but my number is based on the equivalent 1, 2, 3 round picks at the Giants slot from last year. The later picks are unlikely to be in the top 51.
And agree
Zeitler will need about a 2 year extension....at a reduced salary hopefully....or cut. Should be a win/win.
Outside a couple of deals that need to be cut....Giants are in great shape....and getting much better
Bradberry’s 2021 salary is fully guaranteed — he’s going to get that 14M no matter what. The Giants would need to add guarantees that outweigh the reward of him hitting free agency again.
To get his salary down I think they’d have to add 2 years and at least 30M more in guaranteed money.
Quote:
I support this thread. May you all crunch and disect many a number in good health.
Cheers djm, you're a good man and have a good sense of humor.
Thanks back at you Christian. Enjoying the thread and looking forward to this offseason. Won’t be dull that’s for sure.
Link - ( New Window )
That's how cap issues begin.
I agree, and I don’t think it’s impossible to extend him and lower his cap number this year. I just think it will require sweetening the pot as well.
If I were him/his agent, I’d be looking to both expedite and increase the guaranteed money. It’ll certainly be interesting to see if Bradberry is willing to play ball. I assume he and his reps are pretty savvy and wanted that short deal to get a 2nd bite at the apple.
Thanks! Looks like I was about 1M off. Add that 1M directly to their cap space. Only their top three picks will be in the top 51, and will push 3 contracts off.
Re-sign Tomlinson at a lower but more reasonable take.
That way they extract value from LW, fix other parts of the team without taking other steps back.
Offense needs players folks...
Cap is skyrocketing
And Debbie Downer has entered the room.
Sometimes you’re a great poster. And sometimes you just can’t help yourself by polluting every fucking thread you can to hammer home a point. Cmon Terps. This is a cap thread.
That is shortsighted. Of course adding $ and talent into a talent-less Offense can solve for some problems. They have to take the gloves off Daniel Jones and see if he can play smart, aggressive football and NOT increase his turnover rate.
Nothing is guaranteed, but I can assure you it isn't going to fix itself by ignoring it...
The defense can be made into a good unit in 2021; the offense probably can't.
I wouldn't rest on our laurels assuming the defense will maintain. Strengthen a strength.
We have no choice because of Jones.
A case can be made that finding out exactly what we have in Jones is more important than winning in 2021.
The defense can be made into a good unit in 2021; the offense probably can't.
I wouldn't rest on our laurels assuming the defense will maintain. Strengthen a strength.
Again its all about choices.
I don't feel the Defense should rest any laurels either but they got the better of the free agent money in 2020 and they improved.
The money this year needs to flow to the Offense as we can't expect a winning season scoring less than 20 points a game NO MATTER how good the defense is.
Draft picks go to where the tiers/evals say they should...
Feel good about area A, spend on area B while area A degrades. Next year, spend on area A while B degrades...
The Giants have a good, not great, defense. If they leave it alone it will probably be a little worse in '21... You're either moving forward or backward - there is no standing still in the NFL. Spend on the defense and you might have a really strong unit.
Conversely, there is no FA or group of FAs that is making this offense good. You could sign both Allen Robinson and Joe Thuney - you haven't solved the fundamental problem. You're going to just be paying a lot of money to score 19-22 PPG.
In today's NFL I'd rather have a strong offense. That's what wins. But I just don't see that as a possibility in 2021. A strong defense is possible, though. So go for that. Sign Tomlinson and Williams. Sign a CB and draft another. It is possible for a great defense to carry a broken offense to the playoffs - the Rams just did that. It's not ideal, but that's the road that's been laid out for us.
Nothing will stay the same. Good luck guessing where dropoffs, injuries and weaknesses will arise. Invest smartly every year and you will minimize the unfavorable variables that can affect the team chances.
It’s not impossible. The Giants added 4 good players to the defense in 2020 — Bradberry, Martinez, Ryan, and Holmes.
If I’m Mara, Gettleman must accomplish similar improvements to the offensive or be fired.
Conversely, there is no FA or group of FAs that is making this offense good. You could sign both Allen Robinson and Joe Thuney - you haven't solved the fundamental problem. You're going to just be paying a lot of money to score 19-22 PPG.
They actually have to raise their scoring average from 17+ppg to at least 26ppg to be in the hunt.
So all of these honeymoons are over in 2021 - Jones has to finally deliver, the Hand of God has to run like's he's really one of the best RBs in the league, our Pro Bowl TE has to actually play like a Pro Bowl TE, Gettleman's offensive line investments need to actually pay dividends, and Gettleman has to kill it in the draft and free agency to add even more to the offense.
2021 is an enormous year. One of the most critical in Giants history, IMV.
Lawrence 5 years 105 mil
Cooper 5 years 100 mil
Martin 6 years 84 mil
Tyron Smith 8 years 98 million
Zeke 6 years 90 million
Colins 5 years 50 million
Jaylon Smith 5 years 64 mil
AND they will find a way to keep Dak. Unreal. Maybe we should hire Dallas' cap guy
Very reasonable position to take, but how much is Tomlinson worth keeping if you already have a replacement for him on the roster, but you don’t really have a replacement for Zeitler?
Quote:
But I'm not letting Tomlinson walk to pay Zeitler.
Very reasonable position to take, but how much is Tomlinson worth keeping if you already have a replacement for him on the roster, but you don’t really have a replacement for Zeitler?
Is Zeitler's presence making the line strong though? In two years there's no evidence of that. In fact the opposite is true: the line has been poor. So why can't it be poor with a player that costs a fraction of Zeitler?
Conversely, the interior defensive line was a strength in part due to its depth.
Part of where I'm coming from is that this team has no identity. Nothing to hang its hat on. I think this team needs that in the worst way.
They should negotiate hard with Williams and any other outside FA. Zietler needs to take a restructure with a salary cut and maybe add another year or two or be cut outright. If kept, they need be able to save 6 - 8 million of his 12 million salary.
Also trade EE, I don't even care about the return, getting him off the books frees up over 6 million.
Also, it's cold move but cutting Carter frees up another 2 million (but there will likely be an injury settlement but I think that can be pushed to 2021)
These are the types of business decisions that the good teams make.
Also, they should be able to restructure Martinez and Bradbury and free up another 10 - 14 million.
If they make all those moves, they can free up as much as 30 million if necessary. That said, I really don't like pushing current mistakes off into the the future. My take is that the Giants are still not going to be a contender in 2021, so take as many of your lumps as possible this year and save the 2022 and 2023 caps space. Better to be conservative. Translation, even though I brought it up, I don't like the idea of restructuring Bradbury and Martinez. Cutting Zeitler might not be the best option since you will need to find a replacement anyway. The replacement should only cost about 6 million. Think about the contract that Jamon Brown got with Atlanta... That should be the top end of what the Giants pay for RG this year. If they can get Zeitler there, fine, if not, bye.
Great post. I'm with you EXACTLY regarding EE. Trade him- do what you have to but get him out. Doesn't matter the return.
Also with Zeitler- - I'd lean heavily toward cutting him. Draft a starter in rd 2. You can draft an OT and convert him to guard or an Inside OL. Should be able to get a starter in rd 2.
That is reasonable thought. Tomlinson is the exact type of player you want to sign in FA, which is why I believe he is going to get paid! I predicting 14M/yr avg. Transition tag isn't out of question for me. One point...DT plays what 50 maybe 60% of snaps and Zeitler play 100%. But still i think DT is more important.
I would still take that over Zeitler, however we don't live in a vacuum. Unless they raise the CAP a lot, (which i think they will) there is no room for 14M DT and you need to get rid of Zeitler CAP hit (trade, cut, extend and lower hit this year). And you aren't signing a 20M WR's. This is all assuming LW is resigned.
There are so many teams, that can not meet the CAP as it stands today, the NFL is going to be forced to raise it, the way it is isn't good for the game, owners, or players. I have to believe they will fix this, though it probably won't happened until the 11th hour.
Feel good about area A, spend on area B while area A degrades. Next year, spend on area A while B degrades...
The Giants have a good, not great, defense. If they leave it alone it will probably be a little worse in '21... You're either moving forward or backward - there is no standing still in the NFL. Spend on the defense and you might have a really strong unit.
Conversely, there is no FA or group of FAs that is making this offense good. You could sign both Allen Robinson and Joe Thuney - you haven't solved the fundamental problem. You're going to just be paying a lot of money to score 19-22 PPG.
In today's NFL I'd rather have a strong offense. That's what wins. But I just don't see that as a possibility in 2021. A strong defense is possible, though. So go for that. Sign Tomlinson and Williams. Sign a CB and draft another. It is possible for a great defense to carry a broken offense to the playoffs - the Rams just did that. It's not ideal, but that's the road that's been laid out for us.
oh boy...are you implying that teams don't plug holes in FA? Really?
Tampa plugged a hole in FA by bringing in a VET QB. I'd say that worked no?
The Giants plugged two huge holes back in 2005 with the PLax and McKenzie signings. Again, a huge success.
Should I keep going? Want more recent moves other than Tampa and the QB, which is in and of itself a huge piece of proof that using FA to fix a weakness is in fact viable, but ok, fine, lets keep going:
The Pats added VET talent to the offense prior to 2007 when the gathered up disgruntled WR Randy Moss (and paid him) and traded for Wes Welker. Their offense went from good to great in seconds. Want more? How about when the Browns picked up RB Kareem Hunt and the TE last year. Both moves jolted their offense. Playoffs ensued, first time in decades.
FA can be your friend if you hit on the right players. And yes, you want to improve sore spots and yes, you can improve one side of the ball while fixing the other. It's not a myth. THe Giants have a ton of room and (hopefully) won't rob from the defense to fix the offense. I know in your world they aren't afforded any benefit of the doubt, but you're making shit up again. It sounds cool. It sounds compelling....but it isn't entirely fair. Now, if you told me that the Giants had a chance to add a great player to the D but instead chose to add 2 average players to the offense? I might side with you, but THAT HASN'T FUCKING HAPPENED YET and probably didn't even happen the last 2-3 years.
Maybe wait and see what happens. And maybe look at the history of FA and how teams operate.
The O will get better if not one player is added in my view. In 2021 the O will play more like it did over the last 5-6 weeks of 2020 than it did the first 5-6-7 weeks if you have any faith in continuity and progression from a bunch of 1st and 2nd year players. Not even counting Barkley.
The offense could in fact be 1-2 players away from reaching a respectable level of play. If you can add that player or two, and re-sign Williams and Tomlinson and draft BPA? I don't think that's a short sighted plan at all. The team is poised to maintain the talent it has and ADD to it. That's how you go from bad to good.
If you set expectations based on the idea that everyone who played well last year and every young player is only going to get better, you risk having a blind spot to improving the roster.
Oh well, I guess.
The O will get better if not one player is added in my view. In 2021 the O will play more like it did over the last 5-6 weeks of 2020 than it did the first 5-6-7 weeks if you have any faith in continuity and progression from a bunch of 1st and 2nd year players. Not even counting Barkley.
The offense could in fact be 1-2 players away from reaching a respectable level of play. If you can add that player or two, and re-sign Williams and Tomlinson and draft BPA? I don't think that's a short sighted plan at all. The team is poised to maintain the talent it has and ADD to it. That's how you go from bad to good.
Just so you know...
The Offense scored 19, 17, 7, 6, 13, and 23 points in the last 6 games. That was an average of just over 14 points/game which is awful.
If your hope that the 2021 Offense plays more like this then we are really sunk.
Please hope for something better...
Oh well, I guess.
Well, you could actually look at the tools at your disposal to figure out what we are projected to have in the next several years.
You're probably a poster who thinks it is better cap management to have $40M in cap space instead of having $10M, right?
We've traditionally not been in bad shape with teh cap, and the next few years look like we will have a lot of flexibility in what we can do.
Quote:
we hear that there's actually no money in 2022 and 2023 either? Seems like it goes this way every single year.
Oh well, I guess.
Well, you could actually look at the tools at your disposal to figure out what we are projected to have in the next several years.
You're probably a poster who thinks it is better cap management to have $40M in cap space instead of having $10M, right?
We've traditionally not been in bad shape with teh cap, and the next few years look like we will have a lot of flexibility in what we can do.
No. I was actually just kidding. Seems every year we have $$$ going forward to find out we don't. And no I don't think it's good to carry $40m in cap space versus spending it. Relax.
Quote:
spending money on offense isn't solving problems in 2021.
We have no choice because of Jones.
A case can be made that finding out exactly what we have in Jones is more important than winning in 2021.
I just don't think that's the right bet in this version of the NFL. Eventually you have to score at least 25 points a game to really be in it YoY. The rules of the game just dictate that. And getting Barkley back isn't going to close that gap.
If we had a Ravens type D, circa 2000, maybe you could try to be in the 20-23 PPG range and get by. But that was an historical D; and we aren't close to that talent level...
Quote:
In comment 15161151 Harvest Blend said:
Quote:
we hear that there's actually no money in 2022 and 2023 either? Seems like it goes this way every single year.
Oh well, I guess.
Well, you could actually look at the tools at your disposal to figure out what we are projected to have in the next several years.
You're probably a poster who thinks it is better cap management to have $40M in cap space instead of having $10M, right?
We've traditionally not been in bad shape with teh cap, and the next few years look like we will have a lot of flexibility in what we can do.
No. I was actually just kidding. Seems every year we have $$$ going forward to find out we don't. And no I don't think it's good to carry $40m in cap space versus spending it. Relax.
Yes, relax...
Quote:
There is no need to be "balanced". You have a top 12 Defense, why not try to make it a top 5 defense?. Puts less pressure on the offense and possibly gives them more opportunities to make big plays..
I just don't think that's the right bet in this version of the NFL. Eventually you have to score at least 25 points a game to really be in it YoY. The rules of the game just dictate that. And getting Barkley back isn't going to close that gap.
If we had a Ravens type D, circa 2000, maybe you could try to be in the 20-23 PPG range and get by. But that was an historical D; and we aren't close to that talent level...
Not sure it is so exact, but do agree with the general sentiment that you really need much more consistency of putting up 20+ per game. And making sure that a good % of it comes in the first half, otherwise game plans usually start veering towards unnecessary risks.
Lawrence 5 years 105 mil
Cooper 5 years 100 mil
Martin 6 years 84 mil
Tyron Smith 8 years 98 million
Zeke 6 years 90 million
Colins 5 years 50 million
Jaylon Smith 5 years 64 mil
AND they will find a way to keep Dak. Unreal. Maybe we should hire Dallas' cap guy
It's not just the headline numbers, it's the contract structure that matters. The guaranteed money, the yearly bonuses, rollover space from the year prior (and/or dead money that erodes rollover opportunity) - those things all matter.
And just showing the top seven contracts doesn't tell the whole story - there are 44 other cap numbers that factor into the top 51. If those 44 all average even $250k less per season, you're looking at an additional $11M in cap space each year. That's one of the reasons why it does matter when a lower tier FA is slightly overpaid or a fringe player gets unnecessary guaranteed money that can become dead money.
A contract like Solder's is easy to point to as a really bad signing that has an obvious impact on the cap. But more often than not, the teams that are middle-of-the-pack or worse in terms of cap management tend to suffer death by a million papercuts.
For example, let's look at the tight end position for Dallas compared to the Giants last season - I think there are a few elements here that illustrate how roster management impacts the cap and a collection of small variances can compound quickly:
In 2020, Dallas had the following players either on their roster or representing dead money (IR in bold, dead money in italics):
- Blake Jarwin ($3,250,000)
- Blake Bell ($1,684,375)
- Dalton Schultz ($863,089)
- Sean McKeon ($614,000)
- Cole Hikutini ($142,800)
- Charlie Taumoepeau ($51,666)
-------------------------------------
TOTAL CAP CHARGE: $6,605,930
-------------------------------------
In comparison, here's what the Giants' 2020 TE cap charges looked like:
- Evan Engram ($3,410,371)
- Levine Toilolo (3,250,000)
- Rhett Ellison ($2,188,384)
- Eric Tomlinson ($1,050,272)
- Kaden Smith ($675,000)
-------------------------------------
TOTAL CAP CHARGE: $10,574,027
-------------------------------------
That's a difference of nearly $4M between the two teams. In terms of production, the Cowboys' TEs finished with 11 fewer catches for 75 fewer yards and 3 more TDs than the Giants' TEs. There are a few different inefficiencies to look at here, IMO:
Toilolo was an expensive luxury for a team that didn't really use him (he played 25% of offensive snaps). A TE that is going to be used as a blocking specialist should probably be someone either on their rookie contract or a veteran playing at or near league minimum salary, or play for a team that uses a blocking TE more frequently in their offense.
Ellison stings here - $2.2M in dead money for a guy who was rarely worth that when he was still playing. And the reason why he even has that large of a dead money hit in 2020 is because he had to be restructured in 2019 to free up cap space that season (cap issues and dead money tend to beget cap issues and dead money).
Similar to Toilolo, Tomlinson was a luxury, though not quite as egregious. But even the best case scenario for Tomlinson would have projected him as a fringe roster player for 2020 no matter what. And what makes him notable here is that in 2020 Tomlinson had finally become a vested veteran, which meant that his salary was guaranteed for the entire year by making the roster for week 1. A better move would have been to leave him off the roster for week 1 and then re-sign him, or to avoid vested veterans in general when a player is at best going to be 3rd or 4th on the depth chart.
So when fans wonder how teams like Dallas always seem to have room to operate more freely under the cap, this is an example of how a handful of roster moves that each individually appear inconsequential can add up to have a material impact to a team's overall cap.
As much as a baseball pitcher should be.
You can lose games throwing for 330 yards, 3 TDs, and 60% completions with no turnovers. Defense stunk. QB's fault?
9 inning 10 K performance. 1B boots a ball for an error that lets a run score. Pitcher's fault?
Why does the
This isn't a discredit to Bradberry.
If the league trusted he was capable of playing like he did last season, he wouldn't have signed to the Giants for a modest 3 year deal in a league where cover corners are arguably the 3rd highest paid commodity.
Quote:
was actually very good in 2019 too. Look at what he did to Evans, Thomas and Julio that season.
This isn't a discredit to Bradberry.
If the league trusted he was capable of playing like he did last season, he wouldn't have signed to the Giants for a modest 3 year deal in a league where cover corners are arguably the 3rd highest paid commodity.
So you don't care to check his performance in 2019?? That's like saying there should be no modest FA's who perform well because the "league trust" was low, whatever teh hell that means.
Quote:
metrics used to gage DJ's progress this year as a QB be how many games he wins?
As much as a baseball pitcher should be.
You can lose games throwing for 330 yards, 3 TDs, and 60% completions with no turnovers. Defense stunk. QB's fault?
9 inning 10 K performance. 1B boots a ball for an error that lets a run score. Pitcher's fault?
Why does the
If a pitcher threw all nine innings every time out - I'd buy that argument...they don't...so I'm not.
Quote:
There is no need to be "balanced". You have a top 12 Defense, why not try to make it a top 5 defense?. Puts less pressure on the offense and possibly gives them more opportunities to make big plays..
I just don't think that's the right bet in this version of the NFL. Eventually you have to score at least 25 points a game to really be in it YoY. The rules of the game just dictate that. And getting Barkley back isn't going to close that gap.
If we had a Ravens type D, circa 2000, maybe you could try to be in the 20-23 PPG range and get by. But that was an historical D; and we aren't close to that talent level...
Didn't we just see the new version of the NFL get beat by the old version of the NFL. You can still add talent to the offense and still bolster the defense.
Last time i checked, the last two Giants SB wins, The defense held every team to under 21 points.
Quote:
gives out contracts like Candy and NEVER get's into cap hell yet many on here say we can't resign Tomlinson/LW and bring in a top tier WR FA. Lets look at Dallas' big contracts
Lawrence 5 years 105 mil
Cooper 5 years 100 mil
Martin 6 years 84 mil
Tyron Smith 8 years 98 million
Zeke 6 years 90 million
Colins 5 years 50 million
Jaylon Smith 5 years 64 mil
AND they will find a way to keep Dak. Unreal. Maybe we should hire Dallas' cap guy
It's not just the headline numbers, it's the contract structure that matters. The guaranteed money, the yearly bonuses, rollover space from the year prior (and/or dead money that erodes rollover opportunity) - those things all matter.
And just showing the top seven contracts doesn't tell the whole story - there are 44 other cap numbers that factor into the top 51. If those 44 all average even $250k less per season, you're looking at an additional $11M in cap space each year. That's one of the reasons why it does matter when a lower tier FA is slightly overpaid or a fringe player gets unnecessary guaranteed money that can become dead money.
A contract like Solder's is easy to point to as a really bad signing that has an obvious impact on the cap. But more often than not, the teams that are middle-of-the-pack or worse in terms of cap management tend to suffer death by a million papercuts.
For example, let's look at the tight end position for Dallas compared to the Giants last season - I think there are a few elements here that illustrate how roster management impacts the cap and a collection of small variances can compound quickly:
In 2020, Dallas had the following players either on their roster or representing dead money (IR in bold, dead money in italics):
- Blake Jarwin ($3,250,000)
- Blake Bell ($1,684,375)
- Dalton Schultz ($863,089)
- Sean McKeon ($614,000)
- Cole Hikutini ($142,800)
- Charlie Taumoepeau ($51,666)
-------------------------------------
TOTAL CAP CHARGE: $6,605,930
-------------------------------------
In comparison, here's what the Giants' 2020 TE cap charges looked like:
- Evan Engram ($3,410,371)
- Levine Toilolo (3,250,000)
- Rhett Ellison ($2,188,384)
- Eric Tomlinson ($1,050,272)
- Kaden Smith ($675,000)
-------------------------------------
TOTAL CAP CHARGE: $10,574,027
-------------------------------------
That's a difference of nearly $4M between the two teams. In terms of production, the Cowboys' TEs finished with 11 fewer catches for 75 fewer yards and 3 more TDs than the Giants' TEs. There are a few different inefficiencies to look at here, IMO:
Toilolo was an expensive luxury for a team that didn't really use him (he played 25% of offensive snaps). A TE that is going to be used as a blocking specialist should probably be someone either on their rookie contract or a veteran playing at or near league minimum salary, or play for a team that uses a blocking TE more frequently in their offense.
Ellison stings here - $2.2M in dead money for a guy who was rarely worth that when he was still playing. And the reason why he even has that large of a dead money hit in 2020 is because he had to be restructured in 2019 to free up cap space that season (cap issues and dead money tend to beget cap issues and dead money).
Similar to Toilolo, Tomlinson was a luxury, though not quite as egregious. But even the best case scenario for Tomlinson would have projected him as a fringe roster player for 2020 no matter what. And what makes him notable here is that in 2020 Tomlinson had finally become a vested veteran, which meant that his salary was guaranteed for the entire year by making the roster for week 1. A better move would have been to leave him off the roster for week 1 and then re-sign him, or to avoid vested veterans in general when a player is at best going to be 3rd or 4th on the depth chart.
So when fans wonder how teams like Dallas always seem to have room to operate more freely under the cap, this is an example of how a handful of roster moves that each individually appear inconsequential can add up to have a material impact to a team's overall cap.
There is been this discussion about Dallas before. The way they have done it is by drafting well and extending those players before they hit FA. They get a bargain and structure the deal team friendly. They have gone away from that approach recently, and I don't no why that is. If you need an example look at LT, Tyron Smith has been a bargain and because of the original deal being team friendly they have been able to rework the deal multiple times as they see fit. Meanwhile the Giants sign Solder to a terrible contract, not just in total money but also the structure (even if he had played well).
Another way to look at it is the Giants coveted Bradberry enough to give him a 3 year deal packed with guaranteed money. He now holds the cards on an extension and the Giants don't have team control for the traditional 4th and 5th year you see in most deals.
Quote:
In comment 15161166 GManinDC said:
Quote:
There is no need to be "balanced". You have a top 12 Defense, why not try to make it a top 5 defense?. Puts less pressure on the offense and possibly gives them more opportunities to make big plays..
I just don't think that's the right bet in this version of the NFL. Eventually you have to score at least 25 points a game to really be in it YoY. The rules of the game just dictate that. And getting Barkley back isn't going to close that gap.
If we had a Ravens type D, circa 2000, maybe you could try to be in the 20-23 PPG range and get by. But that was an historical D; and we aren't close to that talent level...
Didn't we just see the new version of the NFL get beat by the old version of the NFL. You can still add talent to the offense and still bolster the defense.
Last time i checked, the last two Giants SB wins, The defense held every team to under 21 points.
That's a little bit misleading. If you look at the whole season instead of a single game sample, the Bucs scored more points than the Chiefs in 2020.
The better offense did win that game. Just because in a particular game, a very specifically effective gameplan happened to work does not change the fact that the correlation between offense and winning in the NFL is higher than it's ever been.
Giants offense in 04 was bad and it had Tiki Barber. 2005 it was good and it added two players in the offseason and JAcobs via the draft.
But this offense can't go from bad to good by adding one WR, adding some more RB talent via the draft and Barkley (admittedly this is an IF) and adding one more OL piece via either FA or the draft.
This isn't blind optimism. This is analyzing how the QB looked over his last 6 starts or so and the overall state of things on offense.
2013 the O was terrible. 2014 the offense added Beckham and McAdoo (LOL) and the offense went from bad to pretty good. 2015 the offense was very good (427 PPG)
This offense has a ton of room for growth without adding a single player to it. Why? BEcause young players get better and young units get better with another year of coaching cohesion. It happens every year.
I do agree that the D is right there on the cusp of being great and you don't to rest on any laurels. You want to make sure the D stays good and hopefully gets even better. If I have a chance to add a stud to the D of course i'd do it, but what if you have a 88 rated WR there in FA and a 88 rated edge player and salaries are equal? You're signing the WR. And that's not stupid at all. That's logic.
The Giants have some dead money to be sure, but they have virtually 3-4 long term contracts and some intriguing younger players that could command big money in 1-2-3 years. IN other words, it's time to build a fucking roster that has some sizzle. Time to pay people.
Quote:
In comment 15161222 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 15161166 GManinDC said:
Quote:
There is no need to be "balanced". You have a top 12 Defense, why not try to make it a top 5 defense?. Puts less pressure on the offense and possibly gives them more opportunities to make big plays..
I just don't think that's the right bet in this version of the NFL. Eventually you have to score at least 25 points a game to really be in it YoY. The rules of the game just dictate that. And getting Barkley back isn't going to close that gap.
If we had a Ravens type D, circa 2000, maybe you could try to be in the 20-23 PPG range and get by. But that was an historical D; and we aren't close to that talent level...
Didn't we just see the new version of the NFL get beat by the old version of the NFL. You can still add talent to the offense and still bolster the defense.
Last time i checked, the last two Giants SB wins, The defense held every team to under 21 points.
That's a little bit misleading. If you look at the whole season instead of a single game sample, the Bucs scored more points than the Chiefs in 2020.
The better offense did win that game. Just because in a particular game, a very specifically effective gameplan happened to work does not change the fact that the correlation between offense and winning in the NFL is higher than it's ever been.
I concede that but i was talking specifically at playoff runs. I should have made that point. I think fans in general put too much emphasis on the offense where the defense is actually the catalyst of winning games, especially come playoff time.
Quote:
In comment 15161292 GManinDC said:
Quote:
In comment 15161222 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 15161166 GManinDC said:
Quote:
There is no need to be "balanced". You have a top 12 Defense, why not try to make it a top 5 defense?. Puts less pressure on the offense and possibly gives them more opportunities to make big plays..
I just don't think that's the right bet in this version of the NFL. Eventually you have to score at least 25 points a game to really be in it YoY. The rules of the game just dictate that. And getting Barkley back isn't going to close that gap.
If we had a Ravens type D, circa 2000, maybe you could try to be in the 20-23 PPG range and get by. But that was an historical D; and we aren't close to that talent level...
Didn't we just see the new version of the NFL get beat by the old version of the NFL. You can still add talent to the offense and still bolster the defense.
Last time i checked, the last two Giants SB wins, The defense held every team to under 21 points.
That's a little bit misleading. If you look at the whole season instead of a single game sample, the Bucs scored more points than the Chiefs in 2020.
The better offense did win that game. Just because in a particular game, a very specifically effective gameplan happened to work does not change the fact that the correlation between offense and winning in the NFL is higher than it's ever been.
I concede that but i was talking specifically at playoff runs. I should have made that point. I think fans in general put too much emphasis on the offense where the defense is actually the catalyst of winning games, especially come playoff time.
Except that unless we repair this offense, we won't even qualify for the playoffs, so it's moot.
The Giants have some dead money to be sure, but they have virtually 3-4 long term contracts and some intriguing younger players that could command big money in 1-2-3 years. IN other words, it's time to build a fucking roster that has some sizzle. Time to pay people.
Djm - did you read the OP? What of those numbers portrayed is materially incorrect and why in your view?
The Giants have some dead money to be sure, but they have virtually 3-4 long term contracts and some intriguing younger players that could command big money in 1-2-3 years. IN other words, it's time to build a fucking roster that has some sizzle. Time to pay people.
I liked this thread better when you basically conceded that you know jack shit about the cap.
Quote:
In comment 15161308 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15161292 GManinDC said:
Quote:
In comment 15161222 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 15161166 GManinDC said:
Quote:
There is no need to be "balanced". You have a top 12 Defense, why not try to make it a top 5 defense?. Puts less pressure on the offense and possibly gives them more opportunities to make big plays..
I just don't think that's the right bet in this version of the NFL. Eventually you have to score at least 25 points a game to really be in it YoY. The rules of the game just dictate that. And getting Barkley back isn't going to close that gap.
If we had a Ravens type D, circa 2000, maybe you could try to be in the 20-23 PPG range and get by. But that was an historical D; and we aren't close to that talent level...
Didn't we just see the new version of the NFL get beat by the old version of the NFL. You can still add talent to the offense and still bolster the defense.
Last time i checked, the last two Giants SB wins, The defense held every team to under 21 points.
That's a little bit misleading. If you look at the whole season instead of a single game sample, the Bucs scored more points than the Chiefs in 2020.
The better offense did win that game. Just because in a particular game, a very specifically effective gameplan happened to work does not change the fact that the correlation between offense and winning in the NFL is higher than it's ever been.
I concede that but i was talking specifically at playoff runs. I should have made that point. I think fans in general put too much emphasis on the offense where the defense is actually the catalyst of winning games, especially come playoff time.
Except that unless we repair this offense, we won't even qualify for the playoffs, so it's moot.
True, but i think it can be balanced out. The only difference i see in the offense from 2 years ago to now is Barkley and the OC. The team didn't seem to have a problem scoring 2 years ago.
You get a consistent WR, doesn't have to be a Pro Ball type, one that can get separation. Either draft or FA. You strengthen the OL but you can still bolster the defense.
Quote:
In comment 15161393 GManinDC said:
Quote:
In comment 15161308 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15161292 GManinDC said:
Quote:
In comment 15161222 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 15161166 GManinDC said:
Quote:
There is no need to be "balanced". You have a top 12 Defense, why not try to make it a top 5 defense?. Puts less pressure on the offense and possibly gives them more opportunities to make big plays..
I just don't think that's the right bet in this version of the NFL. Eventually you have to score at least 25 points a game to really be in it YoY. The rules of the game just dictate that. And getting Barkley back isn't going to close that gap.
If we had a Ravens type D, circa 2000, maybe you could try to be in the 20-23 PPG range and get by. But that was an historical D; and we aren't close to that talent level...
Didn't we just see the new version of the NFL get beat by the old version of the NFL. You can still add talent to the offense and still bolster the defense.
Last time i checked, the last two Giants SB wins, The defense held every team to under 21 points.
That's a little bit misleading. If you look at the whole season instead of a single game sample, the Bucs scored more points than the Chiefs in 2020.
The better offense did win that game. Just because in a particular game, a very specifically effective gameplan happened to work does not change the fact that the correlation between offense and winning in the NFL is higher than it's ever been.
I concede that but i was talking specifically at playoff runs. I should have made that point. I think fans in general put too much emphasis on the offense where the defense is actually the catalyst of winning games, especially come playoff time.
Except that unless we repair this offense, we won't even qualify for the playoffs, so it's moot.
True, but i think it can be balanced out. The only difference i see in the offense from 2 years ago to now is Barkley and the OC. The team didn't seem to have a problem scoring 2 years ago.
You get a consistent WR, doesn't have to be a Pro Ball type, one that can get separation. Either draft or FA. You strengthen the OL but you can still bolster the defense.
Two years ago? Are you talking about 2019, when we finished tied for 18th in scoring? Or 2018, when we finished 16th?
Didn't seem to have a problem scoring? Watch other teams.
True, but i think it can be balanced out. The only difference i see in the offense from 2 years ago to now is Barkley and the OC. The team didn't seem to have a problem scoring 2 years ago.
You get a consistent WR, doesn't have to be a Pro Ball type, one that can get separation. Either draft or FA. You strengthen the OL but you can still bolster the defense.
Two years ago? Are you talking about 2019, when we finished tied for 18th in scoring? Or 2018, when we finished 16th?
Didn't seem to have a problem scoring? Watch other teams.
Yes, the Giants have been a relative Juggernaut on offense as of late...
Quote:
In comment 15161398 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15161393 GManinDC said:
Quote:
In comment 15161308 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15161292 GManinDC said:
Quote:
In comment 15161222 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 15161166 GManinDC said:
Quote:
There is no need to be "balanced". You have a top 12 Defense, why not try to make it a top 5 defense?. Puts less pressure on the offense and possibly gives them more opportunities to make big plays..
I just don't think that's the right bet in this version of the NFL. Eventually you have to score at least 25 points a game to really be in it YoY. The rules of the game just dictate that. And getting Barkley back isn't going to close that gap.
If we had a Ravens type D, circa 2000, maybe you could try to be in the 20-23 PPG range and get by. But that was an historical D; and we aren't close to that talent level...
Didn't we just see the new version of the NFL get beat by the old version of the NFL. You can still add talent to the offense and still bolster the defense.
Last time i checked, the last two Giants SB wins, The defense held every team to under 21 points.
That's a little bit misleading. If you look at the whole season instead of a single game sample, the Bucs scored more points than the Chiefs in 2020.
The better offense did win that game. Just because in a particular game, a very specifically effective gameplan happened to work does not change the fact that the correlation between offense and winning in the NFL is higher than it's ever been.
I concede that but i was talking specifically at playoff runs. I should have made that point. I think fans in general put too much emphasis on the offense where the defense is actually the catalyst of winning games, especially come playoff time.
Except that unless we repair this offense, we won't even qualify for the playoffs, so it's moot.
True, but i think it can be balanced out. The only difference i see in the offense from 2 years ago to now is Barkley and the OC. The team didn't seem to have a problem scoring 2 years ago.
You get a consistent WR, doesn't have to be a Pro Ball type, one that can get separation. Either draft or FA. You strengthen the OL but you can still bolster the defense.
Two years ago? Are you talking about 2019, when we finished tied for 18th in scoring? Or 2018, when we finished 16th?
Didn't seem to have a problem scoring? Watch other teams.
2019, and i'm not saying the team was a juggernaut either. Incremental improvement into a team that can get into 23 ppg range. If NFL.com is right, that's only a FG more a game.
How the NY Giant offense gets there without turning the ball over at an alarming rate is the question for this offseason.
Quote:
Problem solved
Zeitler has 12.5 salary and 2.5M in restructure bonus left on his deal. The Giants aren't going to be able to just bonus out some of his salary without new money.
On the open market Zeitler will get 12.5M guaranteed on a deal. He's got some leverage there, if the Giants try and give him an ultimatum.
If you want to move money off the 021 books, you're probably looking at a 2 year extension, with some new money. Something like:
2021: 2.5M legacy bonus, 3.3M bonus, 2.5M salary (all guaranteed)
2022: 3.3M bonus, 7.5M salary (all guaranteed)
2023: 3.3M bonus, 7.5M salary (bonus guaranteed)
Not sure I'd do that for a guy in his 11th, 12th, and 13th season.
I tend to disagree with you on Zeitler, I think he has almost no leverage right now.
If he were to go out on the open market in now in this COVID reduce salary cap year and after the way he has played the last 2 years, there is no way he is sniffing anything close to 12M. He would be very lucky to get 8M, I think 6M would be the limit. You could give him 6M guaranteed this year, and 8M with another 6M guaranteed for next. He won't get an offer better than that.
It's not going to be players out there with their hats in their hands.
Quote:
the Giants are hardly paying anyone long term. This year's cap figure is very very misleading. If the Giants cannot re-sign one of the best two way 3-4 DEs in the game AND add a long term piece or two and re-sign other players, they have huge financial issues.
The Giants have some dead money to be sure, but they have virtually 3-4 long term contracts and some intriguing younger players that could command big money in 1-2-3 years. IN other words, it's time to build a fucking roster that has some sizzle. Time to pay people.
Djm - did you read the OP? What of those numbers portrayed is materially incorrect and why in your view?
The numbers aren't incorrect at all. Just that a huge portion of the cap space is being eaten up by contracts that won't be here much longer. That's my point. This team has a virtual clean slate with maybe 2-3 contracts that are being phased out.
Quote:
In comment 15161381 djm said:
Quote:
the Giants are hardly paying anyone long term. This year's cap figure is very very misleading. If the Giants cannot re-sign one of the best two way 3-4 DEs in the game AND add a long term piece or two and re-sign other players, they have huge financial issues.
The Giants have some dead money to be sure, but they have virtually 3-4 long term contracts and some intriguing younger players that could command big money in 1-2-3 years. IN other words, it's time to build a fucking roster that has some sizzle. Time to pay people.
Djm - did you read the OP? What of those numbers portrayed is materially incorrect and why in your view?
The numbers aren't incorrect at all. Just that a huge portion of the cap space is being eaten up by contracts that won't be here much longer. That's my point. This team has a virtual clean slate with maybe 2-3 contracts that are being phased out.
But what's misleading about anything? The Giants have little flexibility to add new free agents this year, particularly if Leonard Williams (and possibly Tomlinson) eat up that remaining flexibility.
Next year there will be more flexibility. But they don't get to enjoy that now so they have to deal with it.
What's "very, very misleading" that you have your arms around better than the rest of us?