Via Twitter;
Per @DDuggan21: #Giants and Leonard Williams “aren’t close” to reaching an agreement on a contract extension. The deadline for team’s to use franchise tag is March 9.
Just to add context to this, not being close to an agreement now isn't a big deal. If they're not close in two weeks, then it becomes a big deal. Deadlines drive action in the NFL, so the picture will be much clearer by March 9
Bevause the level of production changed dramatically
I don't think that's the case. Once he decided to forego our offer and play 2020 as is, I don't really think there was much negotiating. He wanted to maximize his value and the Giants didn't want to pay top dollar yet.
We can still tag him which is perfectly fine with me - we'd likely pay less in 2021 unless it was a backloaded deal.
No.
Team LW has played this very smartly. They KNOW they can get $20-21M in the market. So why settle for less?
I wasn't familiar so i looked it up and found this. Seems like a really unique deal, can basically be cut after 2 years with 0 penalty. I'd be open to a higher AAV with this type of structure.
Chris Jones Contract - ( New Window )
LW bet on himself and it looks like he'll win big.
Gettleman is really warming up to me...
We'll see what happens,I wonder if they would tag him again
We'll see what happens,I wonder if they would tag him again
Isn't it set that the other pick stayed a 5th?
I'm OK using the FT, or even letting him go, as painful as the latter would be.
Pretty standard for a rep to negotiate based on counting stats. That is what he should do, and the Giants, if smart, will counter that luck can be a factor in turning pressure into sacks, especially when it's the first time he's has a year like this.
LW bet on himself and it looks like he'll win big.
Spot on. Give his team credit, they obviously under the comps and, my guess, the YoY inflation adjustments that will also impact the deal.
Let's be honest here - a deal like is going to make it very challenging to bring in the added infrastructure Jones needs to demonstrate if he has the goods in this crucial 3rd year. And right now finding out what Jones can do is more critical than keeping LW...
LW: I resurrected your defense.
And they both probably think their version is closest to the truth, so both sides are apart.
I'm OK using the FT, or even letting him go, as painful as the latter would be.
Huge no for me. We cant tie up about $19 mil or whatever the tag is for 1 year. The correct thing was to either TT him last year or let him hit FA. By using the FT you cut your legs out from under yourself from a negotiation standpoint.
Yeah,but I was thinking it could say something about what he expects in his next deal.
Quote:
A 10+ sack 3-4 defensive end, with no legitimate edge rusher over his shoulder.
LW bet on himself and it looks like he'll win big.
Spot on. Give his team credit, they obviously under the comps and, my guess, the YoY inflation adjustments that will also impact the deal.
Let's be honest here - a deal like is going to make it very challenging to bring in the added infrastructure Jones needs to demonstrate if he has the goods in this crucial 3rd year. And right now finding out what Jones can do is more critical than keeping LW...
It illustrates why the draft (and alot of wheel spinning here under DG is frustrating) is vital to turning this around. I warned resigning Logan could mean saying goodbye to others, the same goes here.
I doubt if Williams can have another season with a better “career” year so his contract would reflect this year’s performance - not to reflect some future improvement even though he is only 26.
Quote:
A 10+ sack 3-4 defensive end, with no legitimate edge rusher over his shoulder.
LW bet on himself and it looks like he'll win big.
Spot on. Give his team credit, they obviously under the comps and, my guess, the YoY inflation adjustments that will also impact the deal.
Let's be honest here - a deal like is going to make it very challenging to bring in the added infrastructure Jones needs to demonstrate if he has the goods in this crucial 3rd year. And right now finding out what Jones can do is more critical than keeping LW...
This is the theme of the Cap thread from last evening.
Giants have to make some hard choices. Let's see if they are smart about it...
Quote:
becoming the Giants' version of the Dak Prescott situation in Dallas.
I'm OK using the FT, or even letting him go, as painful as the latter would be.
Huge no for me. We cant tie up about $19 mil or whatever the tag is for 1 year. The correct thing was to either TT him last year or let him hit FA. By using the FT you cut your legs out from under yourself from a negotiation standpoint.
I'm OK using the FT on Williams because it buys us time to work out a long term deal. (I think we have until July 15th.) I am also against signing any of the big name FA WRs or OL. The biggest negative to using the FT is that it might make it difficult to resign Tomlinson.
It illustrates why the draft (and alot of wheel spinning here under DG is frustrating) is vital to turning this around. I warned resigning Logan could mean saying goodbye to others, the same goes here.
That's a good point about Logan. In hindsight, we rushed into that like Logan was Ronnie Lott.
He had a very nice year. Showed great flexibility, but he is/was definitely replaceable.
Good for the Giants here. Stick to your value. They could re-sign Dalvin Tomlinson instead, replace Williams with B.J. Hill and rely on Spencer's coaching - who seemed to have everyone playing up to their abilities.
They could also replace Williams with Kawann Short (for example) at a fraction of the cost and still get some pass rush pop.
There are lots of pros/cons to making this deal but it has to make sense for the Giants.
Good for the Giants here. Stick to your value. They could re-sign Dalvin Tomlinson instead, replace Williams with B.J. Hill and rely on Spencer's coaching - who seemed to have everyone playing up to their abilities.
They could also replace Williams with Kawann Short (for example) at a fraction of the cost and still get some pass rush pop.
There are lots of pros/cons to making this deal but it has to make sense for the Giants.
I agree with this post. If the numbers get too unreal you have to move on for the sake of the franchise.
The tag is the only power the Giants have here. As a Giants fan, I just have to hope that LW sees what the Giants have to offer beyond contract and want to stay here and work with them to come up with something that gets him paid but also works for the Giants structure wise. The TAG isn't ideal for either camp, but that might be what it comes down too and I'd be okay with it if I were the Giants...Is LW okay with it?
The tag is the only power the Giants have here. As a Giants fan, I just have to hope that LW sees what the Giants have to offer beyond contract and want to stay here and work with them to come up with something that gets him paid but also works for the Giants structure wise. The TAG isn't ideal for either camp, but that might be what it comes down too and I'd be okay with it if I were the Giants...Is LW okay with it?
As mentioned before, what is the purpose of the second tag? The Giants aren't competing seriously for a Super Bowl this season and they would be right back at the table with LW again next spring. Do you think his demands go materially down if plays worse. I don't think so.
What is the point of tagging (other than as mentioned to tag and trade)?
Good for the Giants here. Stick to your value. They could re-sign Dalvin Tomlinson instead, replace Williams with B.J. Hill and rely on Spencer's coaching - who seemed to have everyone playing up to their abilities.
They could also replace Williams with Kawann Short (for example) at a fraction of the cost and still get some pass rush pop.
There are lots of pros/cons to making this deal but it has to make sense for the Giants.
If the Giants decide that they can't afford LW for the sake of the franchise...let's not pretend like they can replace him. They won't.
LW is a commodity not often found - an IDL that can rush the passer. Those guys don't grow on trees.
Exactly.
No, probably not, but also not seeing an interior defensive lineman worth it either.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out and whether desperation rules over the NY Giants front office once again.
Quote:
that's the dilemma.
No, probably not, but also not seeing an interior defensive lineman worth it either.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out and whether desperation rules over the NY Giants front office once again.
If they're going to build and spend $20M on a defensive player accordingly, LW is a good target. They don't appear to be valuing Edge the same as before going multiple with a 3-4 base.
they can restructure other contracts to free up the necessary space
it's not like they need the tag for someone else
my preference is to sign him long-term but i'm just saying tagging him again is not the end of the world
But at least we will have some movement on the contract front that way.
They did decently last year manufacturing pressures/sacks although that always exposes other areas, and takes a bit longer coming from the front or via a bit of a chase. Maybe they can do it again.
Quote:
is accurate, can a compromise at 19 mill be far behind?
No.
Team LW has played this very smartly. They KNOW they can get $20-21M in the market. So why settle for less?
?
In this down cap year market?
I doubt anyone has any certainty about what Williams can get on the open market.
Yes his sacks took a dramatic turn upwards.
His total pressure rate and/or QB hit rate remained +/- the same.
Not sure what his open market value is, and frankly I'd be a little surprised if he performed just as well elsewhere without Tomlinson, Lawrence and Hill as his line mates or in a system largely different from PG's.
If the Giants decide that they can't afford LW for the sake of the franchise...let's not pretend like they can replace him. They won't.
LW is a commodity not often found - an IDL that can rush the passer. Those guys don't grow on trees.
He had one All-Pro level year. And this is the first year LW has shown he can finish. So this level of play has not been a trend.
Could it be the start of a trend? Well, that's really the $20M+ AAV question here. Isn't it? A hue question...
The safer play is to assume it's more of a one time pop and let someone else spend the cap money on this bet.
Quote:
there are teams out there sitting on a lot of CAP space and i'm sure they would be willing to back the truck up.
The tag is the only power the Giants have here. As a Giants fan, I just have to hope that LW sees what the Giants have to offer beyond contract and want to stay here and work with them to come up with something that gets him paid but also works for the Giants structure wise. The TAG isn't ideal for either camp, but that might be what it comes down too and I'd be okay with it if I were the Giants...Is LW okay with it?
As mentioned before, what is the purpose of the second tag? The Giants aren't competing seriously for a Super Bowl this season and they would be right back at the table with LW again next spring. Do you think his demands go materially down if plays worse. I don't think so.
What is the point of tagging (other than as mentioned to tag and trade)?
The point is to win. I'm not willing to Punt on next year. There will be improvements made, if they can stay healthy I do believe they can compete. LW helps them do that.
They did decently last year manufacturing pressures/sacks although that always exposes other areas, and takes a bit longer coming from the front or via a bit of a chase. Maybe they can do it again.
It could be, but I'd be surprised if they spent the dollars on the Edge talent that figures to be available. A lot of warts out there for the projected price range, and the A talent worth the coin is becoming harder to find.
NE typically builds inside out and tries to keep the cost in check. It has worked largely for the Rams as well as the Titans. Giants could be following suit building inside out, up the middle, and strong on the backend. Thus, the allocation of resources on the DL, ILB, CB, and Ryan's versatility to be glue.
Quote:
In comment 15161267 rasbutant said:
Quote:
there are teams out there sitting on a lot of CAP space and i'm sure they would be willing to back the truck up.
The tag is the only power the Giants have here. As a Giants fan, I just have to hope that LW sees what the Giants have to offer beyond contract and want to stay here and work with them to come up with something that gets him paid but also works for the Giants structure wise. The TAG isn't ideal for either camp, but that might be what it comes down too and I'd be okay with it if I were the Giants...Is LW okay with it?
As mentioned before, what is the purpose of the second tag? The Giants aren't competing seriously for a Super Bowl this season and they would be right back at the table with LW again next spring. Do you think his demands go materially down if plays worse. I don't think so.
What is the point of tagging (other than as mentioned to tag and trade)?
The point is to win. I'm not willing to Punt on next year. There will be improvements made, if they can stay healthy I do believe they can compete. LW helps them do that.
Wasn't suggesting they don't try and win. Only saying the tag gets the team one-years worth of value at a predetermined high cap hit. If a contract is structured favorably then the NYG can use more cap space elsewhere.
And the franchise tag solves nothing as to control over LW's future. So I ask again, what does tagging him really solve for?
Quote:
that's the dilemma.
Exactly.
+2. That's why I'm OK using the FT, although it obviously isn't preferable. But there is also a limit to what the Giants should spend to resign LW.
It's why the Pats let Welker walk, Belichick was pissed they couldn't agree on a LT deal, and then Belichick wanted the $8M (or whatever it was back then) considered part of the LT deal they tried to negotiate in the off-season the year after the tag.
And that's how I'd think of it too.
The FT year could/should have been one year of a multi-year deal and wiped out $16.1M of guarantees. So, LW absorbs the risk of the FT year, comes out better for it and now the contract looks way worse (for the team).
Just bad business for a team to let a young player play on the FT if they want to sign the player LT.
Quote:
but the team cannot seem to find the parts it wants and/or has trouble pulling the trigger.
They did decently last year manufacturing pressures/sacks although that always exposes other areas, and takes a bit longer coming from the front or via a bit of a chase. Maybe they can do it again.
It could be, but I'd be surprised if they spent the dollars on the Edge talent that figures to be available. A lot of warts out there for the projected price range, and the A talent worth the coin is becoming harder to find.
NE typically builds inside out and tries to keep the cost in check. It has worked largely for the Rams as well as the Titans. Giants could be following suit building inside out, up the middle, and strong on the backend. Thus, the allocation of resources on the DL, ILB, CB, and Ryan's versatility to be glue.
Yes, don't disagree. Only suggested the Giants probably do still value Edge but with the poor supply/warts around they have defaulted to dealing without it over the near term. But not because they don't want it.
It's actually kind of admirable they haven't wasted a big free agent dollar deal on some of the recent Edge guys around. Really needs to be found in the draft as noted.
?
In this down cap year market?
I doubt anyone has any certainty about what Williams can get on the open market.
Yes his sacks took a dramatic turn upwards.
His total pressure rate and/or QB hit rate remained +/- the same.
Not sure what his open market value is, and frankly I'd be a little surprised if he performed just as well elsewhere without Tomlinson, Lawrence and Hill as his line mates or in a system largely different from PG's.
I agree with all of your points about production and surrounding cast this year.
But there is money out there. I could see the Colts, who are close to having all of the right parts, thinking LW makes them a great D. The Chargers, who struggled with leads last year, might think LW helps hold those leads.
Crazier bets have been made...
Quote:
Could easily see NYG offering $18M AAV over 4-5 years while LW's camp pushing for more than $20M AAV using Chris Jones' deal as a benchmark to surpass.
I wasn't familiar so i looked it up and found this. Seems like a really unique deal, can basically be cut after 2 years with 0 penalty. I'd be open to a higher AAV with this type of structure. Chris Jones Contract - ( New Window )
Jones's deal is what I've thought this whole time would be the benchmark.
One minor note, much of the third year gets guaranteed after the first year. At the time of signing it was 2 years with no penalty to cut. But start of the league year, it's basically a 3 year deal.
That's a good approach for Williams too.
Quote:
Isn't it set that the other pick stayed a 5th?
Yeah,but I was thinking it could say something about what he expects in his next deal.
If you really think about it, the fact that the Jets had an escalator for the draft pick built in suggests that even they were not projecting him to be impossible to re-sign. Otherwise, they would have known that the pick was extremely unlikely to improve in the first place.
This is 100% about what happened after the trade - the way LW stepped up his production so dramatically is the issue here, not some inherent refusal to bargain in good faith on the part of LW or his team.
Quote:
In comment 15161305 chick310 said:
Quote:
but the team cannot seem to find the parts it wants and/or has trouble pulling the trigger.
They did decently last year manufacturing pressures/sacks although that always exposes other areas, and takes a bit longer coming from the front or via a bit of a chase. Maybe they can do it again.
It could be, but I'd be surprised if they spent the dollars on the Edge talent that figures to be available. A lot of warts out there for the projected price range, and the A talent worth the coin is becoming harder to find.
NE typically builds inside out and tries to keep the cost in check. It has worked largely for the Rams as well as the Titans. Giants could be following suit building inside out, up the middle, and strong on the backend. Thus, the allocation of resources on the DL, ILB, CB, and Ryan's versatility to be glue.
Yes, don't disagree. Only suggested the Giants probably do still value Edge but with the poor supply/warts around they have defaulted to dealing without it over the near term. But not because they don't want it.
It's actually kind of admirable they haven't wasted a big free agent dollar deal on some of the recent Edge guys around. Really needs to be found in the draft as noted.
Big, powerful, long, explosive condors are less frequent than ever. Players tend to play a lighter and faster game now, it's all about speed and covering distance and being multiple so your gameplan is flexible week to week. Now you sacrifice size and power versus the run on the edges, play less snaps, come of the field if you're not multiple, etc. Specialization is ok with me but I don't wanna pay A dollars to not A talent, at any position.
So they invest in the big powerful wall up front, and try to build for speed and cover ability behind it. Offenses getting the ball out quicker and running shorter QB drops does tend to limit effectiveness off the edge, etc. The game now is about containment and tackling, bend but don't break.
Yes, of course.
Maybe someday they will find one again.
But what's the benefit to doing that? Tagging LW again, assuming it does not lead to a multi-year deal, basically ensures that the team comes back in 2021 with almost the exact same roster that they trotted out in 2020, plus a few rookies that - we hope - might make a meaningful contribution. We'll also still need to make other moves to keep someone like Tomlinson, including pushing some cap inefficiency into the future with someone like Zeitler.
And what does that get us? We get to keep LW for another year on a roster that isn't otherwise prepared to really contend? And then be in the same spot a year from now when we'd really be over a barrel because we can't realistically tag him a third time.
There are ways to make the contract structure work so that giving him 5/$100 is effectively almost identical to giving him 4/$72. If the hangup is over a couple million dollars worth of AAV, that can be bridged pretty easily. But if it's a significant gap that may (pure speculation here) include resetting the market during a down cap year, you have to be willing to walk away, recoup your 3rd rounder via comp pick, and focus on building the rest of the roster into a contender.
they can restructure other contracts to free up the necessary space
it's not like they need the tag for someone else
my preference is to sign him long-term but i'm just saying tagging him again is not the end of the world
$20M a year will not equate to a $20M cap hit in 2021. That's the issue here - the cap is not calculated on AAV.
As mentioned, there is no credible short-term play here with the NYG seriously competing for a title in 2021. If that is your rational then I understand it. I would vehemently disagree, but would understand it.
I am all ears as to why the tag, absent a long term deal, is the prudent play at all?
This is just negotiating but it's getting weird.
In the end, that could be the case anyway, unless young players start taking significant steps forward. Right now it's a 4-6 win roster until further notice, imo.
Quote:
In comment 15161188 CoughlinHandsonHips said:
Quote:
A 10+ sack 3-4 defensive end, with no legitimate edge rusher over his shoulder.
LW bet on himself and it looks like he'll win big.
Spot on. Give his team credit, they obviously under the comps and, my guess, the YoY inflation adjustments that will also impact the deal.
Let's be honest here - a deal like is going to make it very challenging to bring in the added infrastructure Jones needs to demonstrate if he has the goods in this crucial 3rd year. And right now finding out what Jones can do is more critical than keeping LW...
It illustrates why the draft (and alot of wheel spinning here under DG is frustrating) is vital to turning this around. I warned resigning Logan could mean saying goodbye to others, the same goes here.
I am sorry this is ridiculous if true. We can't have a decently paid safety and well paid DE?
Look at the 2011 Giants! You had 2-3 highly paid DLinemen. At least 1 highly paid LB. And 2-3 highly paid DBs. Rolle was making a mint. You had Eli making a mint. Jacobs was getting paid. Snee, Diehl, McKenzie, Seubert and Baas all getting paid top end vet money.
We aren't paying a 3rd of the guys now that we were paying at any given time during the Eli / Coughlin run. WTF ? Jon this isn't arguing your point, more WTF with the financials here.
This is just negotiating but it's getting weird.
Most have been rather derogatory for 3 years, so why wait.
You do know it takes two to tango, right? Why is it weird? Player wants big money. Team wishes to minimize. Both want a deal.
It is incumbent on the Giants to ascertain how much of their expectations are wishful thinking and how much is a reasonable expectation and base their offer accordingly.
Let LW test the market and see what offers he gets.
Quote:
if they don't get a long term deal done. I am not going there just yet, but this is getting weird. WTF was the point....I have no issues trading for him but cmon already. If you loved him enough to trade for him and he shines in the time he's been here, what's the problem...
This is just negotiating but it's getting weird.
Most have been rather derogatory for 3 years, so why wait.
You do know it takes two to tango, right? Why is it weird? Player wants big money. Team wishes to minimize. Both want a deal.
I pretty much defend DG.
We trade for a player. player plays well. We tag player. Player plays even better. PLayer isn't signed and whispers are growing that there's a gulf? That's a little concerning, but I said I would wait. And I will wait. I just don't wanna here shit other than long term deal reached. No FT bullshit either. Sign the guy.
This is 100% about what happened after the trade - the way LW stepped up his production so dramatically is the issue here, not some inherent refusal to bargain in good faith on the part of LW or his team.
Even if they thought the pick was a long shot to improve,that doesn't mean they shouldn't add conditions to the deal,or that Leonard Williams price tag wasn't too much for them.I get the feeling that in these negotiations,things aren't black and white.
One more thing,and I really thought about this,how do I remove my name from the stalker list
But at some point the Giants are going to need to conclude they will never reach an agreement with Williams on his value.
Free agency is in a few weeks.
This team/overall roster won 6 games last year.
Quote:
If you really think about it, the fact that the Jets had an escalator for the draft pick built in suggests that even they were not projecting him to be impossible to re-sign. Otherwise, they would have known that the pick was extremely unlikely to improve in the first place.
This is 100% about what happened after the trade - the way LW stepped up his production so dramatically is the issue here, not some inherent refusal to bargain in good faith on the part of LW or his team.
Even if they thought the pick was a long shot to improve,that doesn't mean they shouldn't add conditions to the deal,or that Leonard Williams price tag wasn't too much for them.I get the feeling that in these negotiations,things aren't black and white.
One more thing,and I really thought about this,how do I remove my name from the stalker list
WTF are you talking about? You made a reasonable point and I made what I think is a reasonable response.
The heart of the issue is likely the immediacy and distribution of the guaranteed money, and if Williams is holding out for a 3 year deal.
Chris Jones / DeForest Buckner is the benchmark. Giants offering anything less is just trying to get a little bit of a hometown discount... I wouldn't tell the man I want you long term for 18 but absolutely not 20... that would be ridiculous. I except it gets done and if it doesn't he will be tagged.
I'm interested in keeping LW over guys from the outside where there's way more variables at play.
It was more about keeping Ryan might mean letting Tomlinson go, which I'd posted a few months ago before they extended him. As much as you're able to move cap charges into future years, it does become finite in terms of actual 2021 cap dollars available.
LW is arguing that he is young and coming off an 11.5 sack season. He likely wants to reset the DT market. I wouldn't be surprised if he's asking for $24m per year.
I don't think the gap right now is $1m or $2m per year, that wouldn't be "not close" on a contract this size.
Quote:
In comment 15161345 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
If you really think about it, the fact that the Jets had an escalator for the draft pick built in suggests that even they were not projecting him to be impossible to re-sign. Otherwise, they would have known that the pick was extremely unlikely to improve in the first place.
This is 100% about what happened after the trade - the way LW stepped up his production so dramatically is the issue here, not some inherent refusal to bargain in good faith on the part of LW or his team.
Even if they thought the pick was a long shot to improve,that doesn't mean they shouldn't add conditions to the deal,or that Leonard Williams price tag wasn't too much for them.I get the feeling that in these negotiations,things aren't black and white.
One more thing,and I really thought about this,how do I remove my name from the stalker list
WTF are you talking about? You made a reasonable point and I made what I think is a reasonable response.
Then there are the New York Giants , who, make sure , are about to lose their best player . The 4-6 win Giants . What does this clown have to do to get let go ? I say it’s not getting Leonard done on a long -term deal . Forget tagging him . Get it done , or be gone , maybe Abrams , too . Geezus look like a professional organization for a change , will you ?
Just cave if the tag is at all being considered. It's what they should have done last year.
He is practically going to be 59M guaranteed in his first 3 years. Williams will get that or play on the tender.
Then there are the New York Giants , who, make sure , are about to lose their best player . The 4-6 win Giants . What does this clown have to do to get let go ? I say it’s not getting Leonard done on a long -term deal . Forget tagging him . Get it done , or be gone , maybe Abrams , too . Geezus look like a professional organization for a change , will you ?
They have Mahomes in a good position?? His contract is massive, and the impact will soon have significant ramifications. It already may have. They had zero depth on the OL, which just possibly cost them a title. They will be constricted on who they can sign going forward and who they can keep. Mahomes basically signed a contract that has $400M in guarantees!
They were decimated with injuries and opt-outs, shuffling players in and around that starting lineup, and still managed to make it to the Super Bowl supporting a high powered offense.
The Eric Fisher injury may have just been the final straw that broke the camel's back. Especially against a team built to take advantage of it from both edges.
I think a frontline of DT. Lawrence, Johnson, and draft picks would be okay.
LW had a helluva year - but he's not Chris jones, IMO
I think a frontline of DT. Lawrence, Johnson, and draft picks would be okay.
LW had a helluva year - but he's not Chris jones, IMO
I'm not against overpaying mediocre players, but he's 26 and coming off a 11.5 sack season. He's the best, and it isn't even close, pass rusher on the team.
So true. That was the missed window - from the day the trade was executed right up until the season ended in 2019.
Quote:
they have alot of needs. If he wants too much, see if they can keep DT for a reasonable amount and move on from LW.
I think a frontline of DT. Lawrence, Johnson, and draft picks would be okay.
LW had a helluva year - but he's not Chris jones, IMO
I'm not against overpaying mediocre players, but he's 26 and coming off a 11.5 sack season. He's the best, and it isn't even close, pass rusher on the team.
Uh, what?
Quote:
They have Mahomes in good position . Same as Hill , et al. They’ve been to the last 2 Super Bowls . I was listening to Moving the Chains , yesterday . Jim & Pat were talking about how astute and creative Chiefs’ management is negotiating their contracts.
Then there are the New York Giants , who, make sure , are about to lose their best player . The 4-6 win Giants . What does this clown have to do to get let go ? I say it’s not getting Leonard done on a long -term deal . Forget tagging him . Get it done , or be gone , maybe Abrams , too . Geezus look like a professional organization for a change , will you ?
They have Mahomes in a good position?? His contract is massive, and the impact will soon have significant ramifications. It already may have. They had zero depth on the OL, which just possibly cost them a title. They will be constricted on who they can sign going forward and who they can keep. Mahomes basically signed a contract that has $400M in guarantees!
Our resident contrarian has entered the fray.
Quote:
In comment 15161396 ghost718 said:
Quote:
In comment 15161345 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
If you really think about it, the fact that the Jets had an escalator for the draft pick built in suggests that even they were not projecting him to be impossible to re-sign. Otherwise, they would have known that the pick was extremely unlikely to improve in the first place.
This is 100% about what happened after the trade - the way LW stepped up his production so dramatically is the issue here, not some inherent refusal to bargain in good faith on the part of LW or his team.
Even if they thought the pick was a long shot to improve,that doesn't mean they shouldn't add conditions to the deal,or that Leonard Williams price tag wasn't too much for them.I get the feeling that in these negotiations,things aren't black and white.
One more thing,and I really thought about this,how do I remove my name from the stalker list
WTF are you talking about? You made a reasonable point and I made what I think is a reasonable response.
As I said on other threads, this is not a typical FA situation, where guys really end up getting paid for being underpaid on past production or a perceived huge upside. In this case, LW did not live up to his rookie deal/draft position. He got paid over $17M last year and he produced in line with that. So, he got paid big guaranteed money for the ONE year he ever produced at a high level. Moving forward, it should be solely about whether you think confidently that he can replicate 2020 and do so for at least 3 years. I wouldn't take that risk personally.
That wasn't even close to what I took personally.
It was a dipshit poster getting his tampon stuck over me responding to his post and asking to be removed from a "stalker list" as though he's even on my radar to begin with. I should have been clearer toward him to not flatter himself. There are some posters who I do keep an eye out for - he's not one of them, but maybe he can be dumb enough to reach that level - he's certainly aiming for it.
You know that's a lot of anger for someone not on your radar.
Just wanted to point that out
Those saying give the money to Tomlinson. To my eye his performance improved when LW came aboard as did the overall defense. Adding a impact corner or LB/edge and this is a very good defense. The can win the East with that.
Quote:
It was a dipshit poster getting his tampon stuck over me responding to his post and asking to be removed from a "stalker list" as though he's even on my radar to begin with. I should have been clearer toward him to not flatter himself. There are some posters who I do keep an eye out for - he's not one of them, but maybe he can be dumb enough to reach that level - he's certainly aiming for it.
You know that's a lot of anger for someone not on your radar.
Just wanted to point that out
Ok thanks.
You WEREN'T on the radar. Doesn't mean you're not now.
Ok thanks.
You WEREN'T on the radar. Doesn't mean you're not now.
I guess I'm in trouble than,all tough guys talk like that
Quote:
Otherwise, what was the purpose of trading for him from another team. Can understand to some degree that both parties have to be on the same page to get a deal done, therefore last year's tag was understandable since the Giants probably had to save face on the picks used.
So true. That was the missed window - from the day the trade was executed right up until the season ended in 2019.
Recall a popular sentiment was "You don't think Gettleman has an understanding what it is going to take to sign him after trading for him?".
Something along the lines of a handshake and $10-12M/year seemed to be the strike price back then...
:-)
Quote:
In comment 15161397 chick310 said:
Quote:
Otherwise, what was the purpose of trading for him from another team. Can understand to some degree that both parties have to be on the same page to get a deal done, therefore last year's tag was understandable since the Giants probably had to save face on the picks used.
So true. That was the missed window - from the day the trade was executed right up until the season ended in 2019.
Recall a popular sentiment was "You don't think Gettleman has an understanding what it is going to take to sign him after trading for him?".
Something along the lines of a handshake and $10-12M/year seemed to be the strike price back then...
:-)
lol
Was providing the BBI market value...
Quote:
In comment 15161445 RetroJint said:
Quote:
They have Mahomes in good position . Same as Hill , et al. They’ve been to the last 2 Super Bowls . I was listening to Moving the Chains , yesterday . Jim & Pat were talking about how astute and creative Chiefs’ management is negotiating their contracts.
Then there are the New York Giants , who, make sure , are about to lose their best player . The 4-6 win Giants . What does this clown have to do to get let go ? I say it’s not getting Leonard done on a long -term deal . Forget tagging him . Get it done , or be gone , maybe Abrams , too . Geezus look like a professional organization for a change , will you ?
They have Mahomes in a good position?? His contract is massive, and the impact will soon have significant ramifications. It already may have. They had zero depth on the OL, which just possibly cost them a title. They will be constricted on who they can sign going forward and who they can keep. Mahomes basically signed a contract that has $400M in guarantees!
Our resident contrarian has entered the fray.
LOL. And therein lies a problem. If you consider yourself one of the voices of the majority, you might want to relook at things.
Just because a few people are screaming from the rooftops that everything sucks doesn't make the opposing viewpoint contrarian.
Odd that you don't know the fucking meaning of the word for such a learned man....
Quote:
Ok thanks.
You WEREN'T on the radar. Doesn't mean you're not now.
I guess I'm in trouble than,all tough guys talk like that
It's not like I'm going to kick your ass through the keyboard and screen, and I'm not threatening to.
But when you can actually write something of value to this message board, then you can try to dog me. Until then, you're an ignorable tool. Step up your game, I'm sure the board will appreciate it.
Quote:
In comment 15161459 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
In comment 15161445 RetroJint said:
Quote:
They have Mahomes in good position . Same as Hill , et al. They’ve been to the last 2 Super Bowls . I was listening to Moving the Chains , yesterday . Jim & Pat were talking about how astute and creative Chiefs’ management is negotiating their contracts.
Then there are the New York Giants , who, make sure , are about to lose their best player . The 4-6 win Giants . What does this clown have to do to get let go ? I say it’s not getting Leonard done on a long -term deal . Forget tagging him . Get it done , or be gone , maybe Abrams , too . Geezus look like a professional organization for a change , will you ?
They have Mahomes in a good position?? His contract is massive, and the impact will soon have significant ramifications. It already may have. They had zero depth on the OL, which just possibly cost them a title. They will be constricted on who they can sign going forward and who they can keep. Mahomes basically signed a contract that has $400M in guarantees!
Our resident contrarian has entered the fray.
LOL. And therein lies a problem. If you consider yourself one of the voices of the majority, you might want to relook at things.
Just because a few people are screaming from the rooftops that everything sucks doesn't make the opposing viewpoint contrarian.
Odd that you don't know the fucking meaning of the word for such a learned man....
Wait, do you think you have extra strength behind your posts because some sort of never-been-counted majority agrees with you?
You don't even know what analytics are, as evidenced by your post last week about the Wentz trade. Am I supposed to be shuddering at the thought of being on the short end of a BBI headcount?
Mahomes had a cap hit of 5.3M in 2020. His deal doesn't exceed 15% of the total project cap until 2023. His deal was/is not cap prohibitive in 20/21/22.
And his deal isn't basically 400M in guarantees. It has a leading 2 year guarantee structure. Starting this league year the following 2 years are guaranteed on a rolling basis. That turns into a rolling one year starting in 2026.
They can cut him before the league year starts in 2026 and spread his guaranteed roster bonus across 26/27 with a dead cap hit of 19.4M dollars each year.
About 260M of his deal is basically not guaranteed.
Quote:
but if the Giants signed Ryan with the notion that of hoping Williams doesn't ask too much because this deal precludes us from paying top end money, we have some really big problems here.
It was more about keeping Ryan might mean letting Tomlinson go, which I'd posted a few months ago before they extended him. As much as you're able to move cap charges into future years, it does become finite in terms of actual 2021 cap dollars available.
that's fair. I could probably live with a trade of DT for Ryan, although I don't love it.
I still say this team has no business letting good or better homegrown talent get away unless that player is out of his mind with money demands. This isn't the end of a run where the team needs to reset things.
Quote:
In comment 15161498 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15161459 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
In comment 15161445 RetroJint said:
Quote:
They have Mahomes in good position . Same as Hill , et al. They’ve been to the last 2 Super Bowls . I was listening to Moving the Chains , yesterday . Jim & Pat were talking about how astute and creative Chiefs’ management is negotiating their contracts.
Then there are the New York Giants , who, make sure , are about to lose their best player . The 4-6 win Giants . What does this clown have to do to get let go ? I say it’s not getting Leonard done on a long -term deal . Forget tagging him . Get it done , or be gone , maybe Abrams , too . Geezus look like a professional organization for a change , will you ?
They have Mahomes in a good position?? His contract is massive, and the impact will soon have significant ramifications. It already may have. They had zero depth on the OL, which just possibly cost them a title. They will be constricted on who they can sign going forward and who they can keep. Mahomes basically signed a contract that has $400M in guarantees!
Our resident contrarian has entered the fray.
LOL. And therein lies a problem. If you consider yourself one of the voices of the majority, you might want to relook at things.
Just because a few people are screaming from the rooftops that everything sucks doesn't make the opposing viewpoint contrarian.
Odd that you don't know the fucking meaning of the word for such a learned man....
Wait, do you think you have extra strength behind your posts because some sort of never-been-counted majority agrees with you?
You don't even know what analytics are, as evidenced by your post last week about the Wentz trade. Am I supposed to be shuddering at the thought of being on the short end of a BBI headcount?
tough day for the resident contrarian...
Quote:
They have Mahomes in a good position?? His contract is massive, and the impact will soon have significant ramifications. It already may have. They had zero depth on the OL, which just possibly cost them a title. They will be constricted on who they can sign going forward and who they can keep. Mahomes basically signed a contract that has $400M in guarantees!
Mahomes had a cap hit of 5.3M in 2020. His deal doesn't exceed 15% of the total project cap until 2023. His deal was/is not cap prohibitive in 20/21/22.
And his deal isn't basically 400M in guarantees. It has a leading 2 year guarantee structure. Starting this league year the following 2 years are guaranteed on a rolling basis. That turns into a rolling one year starting in 2026.
They can cut him before the league year starts in 2026 and spread his guaranteed roster bonus across 26/27 with a dead cap hit of 19.4M dollars each year.
About 260M of his deal is basically not guaranteed.
Someone please check the facts and get this sorted out!
Quote:
In comment 15161397 chick310 said:
Quote:
Otherwise, what was the purpose of trading for him from another team. Can understand to some degree that both parties have to be on the same page to get a deal done, therefore last year's tag was understandable since the Giants probably had to save face on the picks used.
So true. That was the missed window - from the day the trade was executed right up until the season ended in 2019.
Recall a popular sentiment was "You don't think Gettleman has an understanding what it is going to take to sign him after trading for him?".
Something along the lines of a handshake and $10-12M/year seemed to be the strike price back then...
:-)
That was a very interesting time.
Indeed, the DG Club was oozing with confidence that DG had Team LW locked down for a very team friendly deal...
So we traded for a guy despite the fact we were going nowhere in 2019 at the time of acquisition. And we really went nowhere in 2020, except that we played in one of the worst divisions ever. Making 2020 a complete mirage...
BTW, with LW in the line-up after the trade on Oct 28, 2019, we are 8-16. A robust 33% winning %.
Yeah, "great trade"...
Assuming proof will flow in now from posters stating that he wouldn't ever have gotten to free agency or we would never have been successful in signing him in 2020 free agency versus other teams.
Ponderous I tell you...
Agreed JonC. Would like to really be able to add to the offense here in free agency and maybe grab another decent Cornerback, otherwise it makes the Draft so pressing with so few picks.
Hopefully something fair comes out from L. Williams and Dalvin Tomlinson to make it all work reasonably well.
On the face of it, this deal looks somewhat light in guaranteed money. Only $63.1 million is fully guaranteed at signing, with $10 million of that a signing bonus. The other guaranteed money is Mahomes’ base salary in 2020, 2021, and 2022.
As part of the contract extension, Patrick Mahomes has $141 million in injury guarantees. While these guarantee numbers may seem on the light side, the contract is structured to ensure Mahomes is protected for the majority of the deal.
The contract contains a clever structure of guarantees
There were many who were shocked that Mahomes only got around a third of the deal in guarantees, and less than 15 percent fully guaranteed at signing. However, the structure of the deal means that the Chiefs will struggle to release Mahomes without incurring big dead money charges.
Patrick Mahomes’ contract extension has a set of rolling guarantees
In order to protect Patrick Mahomes in the future, he and his agent, Leigh Steinberg, put together a clever system of rolling guarantees in the contract extension.
Through 2024, money in the contract guarantees two years in advance. In 2025, the roster bonus becomes guaranteed in 2023, with the remainder becoming guaranteed in 2024. In the final seven years of the deal, at least a portion of the following year’s salary becomes guaranteed a year in advance.
Here are the details of when each part of his contract becomes guaranteed and how much (per Spotrac; all third day of the league year unless stated).
2021: 2023 salary & roster bonus + workout bonus fully guarantees
2022: 2024 salary & roster bonus + workout bonus fully guarantees
2023: 2025 roster bonus + workout bonus fully guarantees
2024: 2025 salary + workout bonus fully guarantees
2025: 2026 roster bonus fully guarantees
2026: 2026 salary + workout bonus, 2027 roster bonus fully guarantees
2027: 2027 salary + workout bonus + 2028 salary + 2028 roster bonus fully guarantees
2028: 2029 salary + workout bonus & 2029 roster bonus fully guarantees
2029: 2030 salary & 2030 roster bonus fully guarantees
2030: 2031 roster bonus fully guarantees
2031: 2031 base salary fully guarantees
It can be described as the latest innovation in the evolution of pro football contracts. The first five years—and roughly $140 million—of Mahomes’s deal are guaranteed against injury. But for each year that he remains on the Chiefs’ roster, significant, eight-figure chunks—at least $21.7 million (’21) and as much as $49.4 million (’27)—become guaranteed. There are buyout opportunities, but those very guarantees make releasing Mahomes in any one season prohibitively expensive, which to his reps means that Mahomes basically signed a guaranteed contract, without the Chiefs needing to lay out over $400 million up front.
In the improbable event he is let go, he would then hit the open market.
Quote:
Team Mahomes sought to find a permissible route around the cash-up-front rule. They settled on a clunky term: guarantee mechanisms.
It can be described as the latest innovation in the evolution of pro football contracts. The first five years—and roughly $140 million—of Mahomes’s deal are guaranteed against injury. But for each year that he remains on the Chiefs’ roster, significant, eight-figure chunks—at least $21.7 million (’21) and as much as $49.4 million (’27)—become guaranteed. There are buyout opportunities, but those very guarantees make releasing Mahomes in any one season prohibitively expensive, which to his reps means that Mahomes basically signed a guaranteed contract, without the Chiefs needing to lay out over $400 million up front.
In the improbable event he is let go, he would then hit the open market.
Do you know what benefit, if any, there was to the Chiefs structuring it this way?
The fact that this 6 win team has cap issues is a huge indictment of the GM and the "cap guru".
Quote:
How much did Mahomes get in guaranteed money?
On the face of it, this deal looks somewhat light in guaranteed money. Only $63.1 million is fully guaranteed at signing, with $10 million of that a signing bonus. The other guaranteed money is Mahomes’ base salary in 2020, 2021, and 2022.
As part of the contract extension, Patrick Mahomes has $141 million in injury guarantees. While these guarantee numbers may seem on the light side, the contract is structured to ensure Mahomes is protected for the majority of the deal.
The contract contains a clever structure of guarantees
There were many who were shocked that Mahomes only got around a third of the deal in guarantees, and less than 15 percent fully guaranteed at signing. However, the structure of the deal means that the Chiefs will struggle to release Mahomes without incurring big dead money charges.
Patrick Mahomes’ contract extension has a set of rolling guarantees
In order to protect Patrick Mahomes in the future, he and his agent, Leigh Steinberg, put together a clever system of rolling guarantees in the contract extension.
Through 2024, money in the contract guarantees two years in advance. In 2025, the roster bonus becomes guaranteed in 2023, with the remainder becoming guaranteed in 2024. In the final seven years of the deal, at least a portion of the following year’s salary becomes guaranteed a year in advance.
Here are the details of when each part of his contract becomes guaranteed and how much (per Spotrac; all third day of the league year unless stated).
2021: 2023 salary & roster bonus + workout bonus fully guarantees
2022: 2024 salary & roster bonus + workout bonus fully guarantees
2023: 2025 roster bonus + workout bonus fully guarantees
2024: 2025 salary + workout bonus fully guarantees
2025: 2026 roster bonus fully guarantees
2026: 2026 salary + workout bonus, 2027 roster bonus fully guarantees
2027: 2027 salary + workout bonus + 2028 salary + 2028 roster bonus fully guarantees
2028: 2029 salary + workout bonus & 2029 roster bonus fully guarantees
2029: 2030 salary & 2030 roster bonus fully guarantees
2030: 2031 roster bonus fully guarantees
2031: 2031 base salary fully guarantees
It's still not a fully guaranteed $400M. In fact, you'll note that the advance timing of the guarantees decreases over time - some of those roster bonuses might theoretically never get paid.
To put it in actionable terms, if the Chiefs were to cut Mahomes on March 1st, 2023 - after all the initially guaranteed salary has been paid, how much dead money would they assume? How much will they have paid in accrued salary plus dead money as of that date?
We both know it's not $400M (by my math, it's more like $135M total paid + dead at that point). Rolling guarantees for bonuses and salaries may seem innovative, but this is really just an earlier trigger on the same sort of roster bonus structure that the Giants used in Eli's contract, which can significantly reduce the team's benefit in cutting the player, but aren't guaranteed until they're actually triggered.
So that begs the question - were you misinformed in your previous post, or were you intentionally misleading others to keep your BBI majority satisfied? Given that you clearly went line by line through the Spotrac yearly contract details and deleted the rolling dead money tracker that they included for each year rather than just copying and pasting that block of text from PM's contract page, I know how it looks to me.
Interestingly, OTC reflects that KC would be cap positive if they released Mahomes at any point after the 2022 season. I will say that that doesn't seem accurate to me given the rolling guarantees (the way I'm reading his K, I would interpret that as always having a looming dead money hit of $35-$40M in any given year, and $50M in the 2026 league year), but I'm just sharing (link below) it for illustration.
It's certainly not a given that Mahomes will receive all $400M of those purported guarantees unless his play on the field continues to justify it. It would be painful to release him at any point, but it's not like there's a $400M dead money hit waiting for KC if they did need to get out of the contract.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
this roster needs tons of help everywhere, and the cap is rather snug for 2021. No one wants to hear it, but it's going to be a challenge to improve the team from outside right now, and I'm interested to see their plan of attack.
The fact that this 6 win team has cap issues is a huge indictment of the GM and the "cap guru".
Check my post on the relative cap charges for the Giants and Cowboys just in one position group in Christian's cap thread. It's the little missteps like restructuring Ellison last year (because we had tried to absorb too much dead money last season) and carrying a vested veteran like Tomlinson in week 1 (even though he was way down on the depth chart) that are just as damaging, if not more so, as the steady stream of wasted low level FA signings like Toilolo.
Link - ( New Window )
If the Chiefs cut Mahomes before the 3rd day of the league year in 2026 they will owe him and incur the cap hit of only the $38.9M of his roster bonus. If the operating CBA at that time allows for post-June 1 cuts, that can be spread across two years.
The salary cap projects to be well over 250M by then, that is absorbable.
The Chiefs are not locked into that deal, and the 400M dollars is not guaranteed.
Mahomes would basically get a 38.9M buyout, and both sides walk away.
That's the main reason why I don't expect the Giants to be big players in FA, at least not for the most well known names.
Quote:
On the 3rd day of the 2025 league year Mahomes $38.9 million 2026 roster bonus will be fully guaranteed. On the 3rd day of the 2026 league year the rest of Mahomes 2026 salary and his $49.4 million 2027 roster bonus become guaranteed.
If the Chiefs cut Mahomes before the 3rd day of the league year in 2026 they will owe him and incur the cap hit of only the $38.9M of his roster bonus. If the operating CBA at that time allows for post-June 1 cuts, that can be spread across two years.
The salary cap projects to be well over 250M by then, that is absorbable.
The Chiefs are not locked into that deal, and the 400M dollars is not guaranteed.
Mahomes would basically get a 38.9M buyout, and both sides walk away.
The bold is a key piece to this. If the cap gets back on pace after Covid, and the NFL strikes a new TV deal, then as a % of the projected cap Mahomes's salary does indeed become more tolerable.
Exactly. Pre-Covid, the 2023 cap was projected at 240M. Heck by 2026, you might be getting closer to 300M.
I think it's pretty silly to think the Chiefs would feel handcuffed and pay Mahomes an additional 250M+ dollars, because they didn't want to eat 38M dollars split between 2026/2027.
The contract has a natural fork in the road, by design.
p.s.--Of course the Giants and Williams aren't close on a new deal. Until the Giants apply the franchise tag, he has no incentive to commit to them before seeing what other teams are willing to offer.
Fmic - you really are a chucklehead. And this is a perfect example...you trying to exaggerate for effect to put down another poster above and throw KC under the bus for their QB deal in some silly vein attempt to defend all-things Giants. Then you want to go head-to-head with christian, Dunk and me because we know you are full of crap and let you know it when you get out of hand? Good luck with that.
The fact is the Kansas City and Mahomes both got what they wanted from this highly profiled deal. Mahomes gets plenty of cash, some decent security and also gave the Chiefs a good amount of cap flexibility over the next few years to keep a lot of the talent the team has in place and try to win some more titles. They both want that last piece and made sure it happened.
Rolling guarantees are common in NFL contracts, but typically not over the entire life of a 10-year extension like the Mahomes deal. Mahomes got $63 million fully guaranteed at signing and $103 million by March 2021. Most of the future salaries and bonuses though vest a year or two before they’re due.
As mentioned above, by some of the other posters that clearly enjoy making fun of you as much as I do, the Chiefs are not locked into that deal. Sometime in 2026 before the league year starts, they can release Mahomes and incur only a portion of that vesting schedule.
400M+ dollars is not guaranteed as you tried to infer in your silly exaggerating post that started all this.
Quote:
The bold is a key piece to this. If the cap gets back on pace after Covid, and the NFL strikes a new TV deal, then as a % of the projected cap Mahomes's salary does indeed become more tolerable.
Exactly. Pre-Covid, the 2023 cap was projected at 240M. Heck by 2026, you might be getting closer to 300M.
I think it's pretty silly to think the Chiefs would feel handcuffed and pay Mahomes an additional 250M+ dollars, because they didn't want to eat 38M dollars split between 2026/2027.
The contract has a natural fork in the road, by design.
If I'm reading Mahomes's contract correctly, the Chiefs have no dead money by 2025. In fact, the biggest dead cap hits are in '21 and '22, $60M and $35M, respectively. Then peanuts until 2025 when it hits zero.
And those aren't guaranteed until the "3rd day of the league year" trip wire. So there are some built in escape hatches/adjustment opportunities along the way.
But lets ask Fmic to weigh in as he knows when the $400M+ of guaranteed payments comes due...
That’s the inflection point. They can get out right there because no future years are guaranteed. They can pay him 38M and walk.
It’s a lot of money in his pocket. He’ll have earned about 225M in 6 years. But it’s not a 400M tragedy.
Assuming proof will flow in now from posters stating that he wouldn't ever have gotten to free agency or we would never have been successful in signing him in 2020 free agency versus other teams.
Ponderous I tell you...
That trade made no sense to me when it was made and still doesn't today. It wasn't as if the Giants needed Williams to make the playoffs the year of the trade.
Quote:
free agency and bid for his services there. Particularly knowing they didn't have a signed deal in hand with LW as part of the trade with the Jets.
Assuming proof will flow in now from posters stating that he wouldn't ever have gotten to free agency or we would never have been successful in signing him in 2020 free agency versus other teams.
Ponderous I tell you...
That trade made no sense to me when it was made and still doesn't today. It wasn't as if the Giants needed Williams to make the playoffs the year of the trade.
They were decimated with injuries and opt-outs, shuffling players in and around that starting lineup, and still managed to make it to the Super Bowl supporting a high powered offense.
The Eric Fisher injury may have just been the final straw that broke the camel's back. Especially against a team built to take advantage of it from both edges.
They had Fisher until late in the game in the AFC Championship game. Losing him was a disaster.
How do you get to.. "on the cusp of something"?. Seems to me, you sign talent and improve. I believe we are (finally) on the cusp of competing at a high level NOW, and one reason is the acquisition of Williams.
Last year, that's in the same time frame that we "stole" Williams, Indy acquired DeForest Buckner - same position, same age, both superb impact players. Indy gave up a top 15 pick in the first round and paid the man 21 million - thereby setting the market.
If the Giants indeed, are "on the cusp' it's because of the signing and bottom line is we stole the guy.
He is much better than a nice solid player. Somebody posted Aaron Donald's key stats vs Leonard Williams. They were very close, I think Donald had two more sacks.
He is not Aaron Donald, nobody is. But Williams is in that upper tier DT/DE level. I think with a solid OLB/ER he will get more than 11 1/2 sacks...
Who else is there? Do you remember how bad it was from 2017 til 2019?
Is he? He's only done it for one season.
If next season he finishes with 5.5 sacks, you good with that?
Not sure why anyone is ready to believe after a year that's wildly outside of anything he's done in his career before, we're ready to say "Oh yes, Leonard Williams is a top 10 pass rusher in the NFL.
You can cite all the "he creates pressures, it's not about just sacks" metrics you want, if you are paying 19-20m for a defensive linemen, he has to get to the QB and bring him down consistently.
The reason nobody could stand the sight of Olivier Vernon is they were paying him 15m+ a year and he never really got to the QB. He just collected a lot of pressures.
A lot of BBI will point at any given one of those missteps and argue that it didn't sink the team.
Add them all up, though, and they make a difference.
Quote:
In comment 15161490 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 15161397 chick310 said:
Quote:
Otherwise, what was the purpose of trading for him from another team. Can understand to some degree that both parties have to be on the same page to get a deal done, therefore last year's tag was understandable since the Giants probably had to save face on the picks used.
So true. That was the missed window - from the day the trade was executed right up until the season ended in 2019.
Recall a popular sentiment was "You don't think Gettleman has an understanding what it is going to take to sign him after trading for him?".
Something along the lines of a handshake and $10-12M/year seemed to be the strike price back then...
:-)
That was a very interesting time.
Indeed, the DG Club was oozing with confidence that DG had Team LW locked down for a very team friendly deal...
So we traded for a guy despite the fact we were going nowhere in 2019 at the time of acquisition. And we really went nowhere in 2020, except that we played in one of the worst divisions ever. Making 2020 a complete mirage...
BTW, with LW in the line-up after the trade on Oct 28, 2019, we are 8-16. A robust 33% winning %.
Yeah, "great trade"...
You really are one of the more ridiculous anti NYG posters ever. Give yourself a cookie.
Williams has basically been the same player since he was drafted. HE always gets pressures. He always stuffs the run. He never gets hurt.
Did Keith Hamilton get 10 sacks every year? Did Leonard MArshall? ? What about Chris Canty?
I hate to go there, but can we stop treating sacks as the end all be all stat here? Sacks are great, game turning plays but they are residual from other aspects of defensive team play.
Williams is a 4-5-6 sack a year player who can get you double digit sacks. He also consistently finds himself near the top end in terms of TFL and pressure.
Can we stop with this nonsense that 2020 was LW's first good year and he's going to turn into a pumpkin the second he signs this long term deal?
We are so afraid of the big bad contract--get over it already. We should be afraid of losing.
Oliver Vernon isn't why we sucked all these years. Remember that.
Lets sign the safe Tomlinson because he's a team leader? Wtf does that even mean? Who is the better player? Why can't we sign both?
Some have lost their mind with this unfounded fear of signing great players to long term big deals. Live a little. Trust me, It's better to have high paid players.
The Jets blew it. The Giants pounced before another team did, and now we have a shot to keep this guy long term. Get it the fuck done. He's Keith Hamilton part 2. We need that.
Williams was available because the Jets are fucking morons. HE didn't underachieve. He wasn't a bust.
Ice cream is my thing. turkey hill praline pecan ice cream. Shit should be illegal.
Quote:
ate all the cookies...
Ice cream is my thing. turkey hill praline pecan ice cream. Shit should be illegal.
Dude, treat yourself a little better. There's far better ice cream in the world than Turkey Hill.
GMs and scouts are in this business to keep guys like LW long term. If you don't sign LW, who are you going to sign long term? I just don't get the point. LW is as safe a long term bet as any front 4 player going right now save for maybe 1-2-3 other players.
I am sick of losing with average talent up front. You win games with star power up front. We know what we have in Williams. Why on earth would someone want to throw that back for an unknown is beyond me.
Quote:
In comment 15162147 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
ate all the cookies...
Ice cream is my thing. turkey hill praline pecan ice cream. Shit should be illegal.
Dude, treat yourself a little better. There's far better ice cream in the world than Turkey Hill.
If that flavor is your thing (I'm also a praline fiend), look for Jeni's Middle West Whiskey & Pecans.
You're welcome.
Quote:
In comment 15162147 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
ate all the cookies...
Ice cream is my thing. turkey hill praline pecan ice cream. Shit should be illegal.
Dude, treat yourself a little better. There's far better ice cream in the world than Turkey Hill.
I agree. I only bought it one time because it was staring me in the face and was 2 for 1. I usually go with the higher prices pint sized shit or even Breyers. I went the bargain route and it paid off.
Giants need to re-sign the over priced pint of ice cream.
Quote:
In comment 15162153 djm said:
Quote:
In comment 15162147 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
ate all the cookies...
Ice cream is my thing. turkey hill praline pecan ice cream. Shit should be illegal.
Dude, treat yourself a little better. There's far better ice cream in the world than Turkey Hill.
If that flavor is your thing (I'm also a praline fiend), look for Jeni's Middle West Whiskey & Pecans.
You're welcome.
I will! thanks GD. I never knew I liked Praline cream until just recently.
GMs and scouts are in this business to keep guys like LW long term. If you don't sign LW, who are you going to sign long term? I just don't get the point. LW is as safe a long term bet as any front 4 player going right now save for maybe 1-2-3 other players.
I am sick of losing with average talent up front. You win games with star power up front. We know what we have in Williams. Why on earth would someone want to throw that back for an unknown is beyond me.
djm - This is a much better post with fair points.
But what many don't seem to understand is that the Giants don't want LW to walk.
He won't sign.
Quote:
Is the better long term move for this franchise. Tomlinson brings leadership and run defense to this team. Plus he’ll command 11 to 12 million a year instead of the 20 Williams wants. Williams is great, but how sure are we that he’ll be dominant again next season. He wasn’t in 2019.
Williams has basically been the same player since he was drafted. HE always gets pressures. He always stuffs the run. He never gets hurt.
Did Keith Hamilton get 10 sacks every year? Did Leonard MArshall? ? What about Chris Canty?
I hate to go there, but can we stop treating sacks as the end all be all stat here? Sacks are great, game turning plays but they are residual from other aspects of defensive team play.
Williams is a 4-5-6 sack a year player who can get you double digit sacks. He also consistently finds himself near the top end in terms of TFL and pressure.
Can we stop with this nonsense that 2020 was LW's first good year and he's going to turn into a pumpkin the second he signs this long term deal?
We are so afraid of the big bad contract--get over it already. We should be afraid of losing.
Oliver Vernon isn't why we sucked all these years. Remember that.
The reality is, when you have to built a team within a pie of 180-190 million dollars and no more than that, where and why you spend your money matters a lot. In an uncapped sport, sure, pay him whatever. You bring up leonard marshall and that's true. Very important key wheel in the machine. He wasn't and would never be paid like LT.
When you make critical mistakes by paying 'good' like they're special, that's how you derail your roster.
This defenses didn't get enough pass rush with williams having a career-best season.
Pay him like that and it reduces your ability to get better and keep your own players.
GMs and scouts are in this business to keep guys like LW long term. If you don't sign LW, who are you going to sign long term? I just don't get the point. LW is as safe a long term bet as any front 4 player going right now save for maybe 1-2-3 other players.
I am sick of losing with average talent up front. You win games with star power up front. We know what we have in Williams. Why on earth would someone want to throw that back for an unknown is beyond me.
You do realize that if the Giants were a little better at managing the cap, it wouldn't necessitate this game of whack-a-mole every offseason, right? Part of the issue that we have, where we are constantly wondering if we can sacrifice just a little bit on this side of the ball to help that side of the ball, is because we have a ton of small cap inefficiencies every year.
If we tightened that up, we'd have $4-5M (or more, sometimes) of add'l cap space in any given year and could roll some of it over occasionally in anticipation of years where FA is particularly strong, or when a higher number of contracts on the roster are expiring.
Yes, the cap can always be managed on the fly as needed, but that does waste future space by often kicking the can down the road. Being more efficient initially avoids some of those challenges (acknowledging that there will always be a risk of a well-conceived contract going sideways), and also provides a significant amount of additional flexibility along the way, which allows for contracts that can be restructured as needed (so that you're never in a position where the only two contracts you can restructure when you need space are two guys who aren't actually foundational building blocks, like in 2019 when Abrams had to restructure Solder and Ellison to give DG in-season cap space).
That was a very interesting time.
Indeed, the DG Club was oozing with confidence that DG had Team LW locked down for a very team friendly deal...
So we traded for a guy despite the fact we were going nowhere in 2019 at the time of acquisition. And we really went nowhere in 2020, except that we played in one of the worst divisions ever. Making 2020 a complete mirage...
BTW, with LW in the line-up after the trade on Oct 28, 2019, we are 8-16. A robust 33% winning %.
Yeah, "great trade"...
You really are one of the more ridiculous anti NYG posters ever. Give yourself a cookie.
I would characterize it more that I am anti-bad football. And unfortunately there is a lot of that going around lately.
Now, I understand you view the cap as nothing more than a mirage, and building a good team is simply buying great players, add water, and stir. But it's a bit more complicated than that, and it would make for better discourse if you understood the nuances of building a team based on positional value within a hard cap.
Quote:
if the Giants are convinced they can replace LW by re-signing DT, and they want to allocate that money to other areas of the DEFENSE, not the offense, but the defense, ok fine, have at it, but I don't think it's wise to let the bird in the hand walk just so you can take a chance on another player, lets say it's an edge player, while letting LW walk. You are creating a hole just to fill another one and you're letting the known commodity get away. Why.
GMs and scouts are in this business to keep guys like LW long term. If you don't sign LW, who are you going to sign long term? I just don't get the point. LW is as safe a long term bet as any front 4 player going right now save for maybe 1-2-3 other players.
I am sick of losing with average talent up front. You win games with star power up front. We know what we have in Williams. Why on earth would someone want to throw that back for an unknown is beyond me.
djm - This is a much better post with fair points.
But what many don't seem to understand is that the Giants don't want LW to walk.
He won't sign.
Thx and understood. I am just venting. I don't want to overpay the guy either. I just want a good defense more than anything.
We're kindred spirits!
https://theathletic.com/2412637/2021/02/26/staying-or-leaving-leonard-williams-dalvin-tomlinson-and-giants-free-agents/ - ( New Window )
2.) The Giants can't replace LW - let's stop pretending that's possible. If he's too expensive, fans need to expect this defense to take a tremendous step backwards.
3.) I love ice cream.
I think a frontline of DT. Lawrence, Johnson, and draft picks would be okay.
LW had a helluva year - but he's not Chris jones, IMO
+1000000000000000000000000000000000000
Quote:
if the Giants are convinced they can replace LW by re-signing DT, and they want to allocate that money to other areas of the DEFENSE, not the offense, but the defense, ok fine, have at it, but I don't think it's wise to let the bird in the hand walk just so you can take a chance on another player, lets say it's an edge player, while letting LW walk. You are creating a hole just to fill another one and you're letting the known commodity get away. Why.
GMs and scouts are in this business to keep guys like LW long term. If you don't sign LW, who are you going to sign long term? I just don't get the point. LW is as safe a long term bet as any front 4 player going right now save for maybe 1-2-3 other players.
I am sick of losing with average talent up front. You win games with star power up front. We know what we have in Williams. Why on earth would someone want to throw that back for an unknown is beyond me.
You do realize that if the Giants were a little better at managing the cap, it wouldn't necessitate this game of whack-a-mole every offseason, right? Part of the issue that we have, where we are constantly wondering if we can sacrifice just a little bit on this side of the ball to help that side of the ball, is because we have a ton of small cap inefficiencies every year.
If we tightened that up, we'd have $4-5M (or more, sometimes) of add'l cap space in any given year and could roll some of it over occasionally in anticipation of years where FA is particularly strong, or when a higher number of contracts on the roster are expiring.
Yes, the cap can always be managed on the fly as needed, but that does waste future space by often kicking the can down the road. Being more efficient initially avoids some of those challenges (acknowledging that there will always be a risk of a well-conceived contract going sideways), and also provides a significant amount of additional flexibility along the way, which allows for contracts that can be restructured as needed (so that you're never in a position where the only two contracts you can restructure when you need space are two guys who aren't actually foundational building blocks, like in 2019 when Abrams had to restructure Solder and Ellison to give DG in-season cap space).
Appreciate the post and your efforts I just don't see the Giants as poorly managing their cap here lately. I am sure there are some contracts or restructures that don't look so good, the ones you mentioned, but we don't know everything that goes on behind the scenes or how much space was truly lost by those deals. Those players sucked..DG didn't even sign some or most, I forgot the whole list. POint is, as i have been saying all along, I think the Giants have more cap space than what these numbers show. I could be wrong. All i know is the facts. The facts are they have barely any long term whoppers.
2.) The Giants can't replace LW - let's stop pretending that's possible. If he's too expensive, fans need to expect this defense to take a tremendous step backwards.
You're over-exaggerating his worth. The GMEN played against a lot of bad offensive teams. He's a good player - I'm all for paying him - but there has to be a limit - and there is a limit to how good he is.
He's not the end-all-be-all.
1) Jones is in the 3rd year of his rookie deal
2) The Giants only have 10 veterans on significant deals, and 5 of them are likely getting cut in the next 2 weeks
This also reason the Giants suck. They don't have that many good players.
The Giants need to add several more good players, and retain the handful of good young players they do have.
This is a volume game if anything, and the outcome of the offseason can't be Leonard Willims + scraps.
If you don't believe the numbers aggregated by an outlet like Over The Cap, what are the facts you are using to support "not having any long term whoppers."
If a team's cap obligations is a black box secret, who's to say they don't have secret whoppers you don't know about?
Regarding Williams, not really. What is disturbing is he expects McCoy back as the backup. That would be tough to take.
1) Jones is in the 3rd year of his rookie deal
2) The Giants only have 10 veterans on significant deals, and 5 of them are likely getting cut in the next 2 weeks
This also reason the Giants suck. They don't have that many good players.
The Giants need to add several more good players, and retain the handful of good young players they do have.
This is a volume game if anything, and the outcome of the offseason can't be Leonard Willims + scraps.
Good write-up.
I know we say it until we are blue in the face, but sooooo much is hinging on Jones being good to validate the third year of his rookie contract.
If he doesn't deliver this year - and I know he still might get the 4th year to prove it once and for all...but I really hope we are not that stupid as a franchise - we will be entering another stage of darkness with this organization. And that should be compelling enough not to sign LW and use that money to give Jones tools to prove his is or isn't the right guy for the job.
The more I think about it, btw, the more I think it would be wise to keep Lance/Fields in play at #11.
Because...
A) It would be insurance if Jones is a dud.
B) If Jones works out, Lance still should have asset value.
C) It puts pressure on Jones to up his game.
D) Lance could be the real deal and it's a huge win.
Quote:
The Giants medium term cap landscape is in good shape because:
1) Jones is in the 3rd year of his rookie deal
2) The Giants only have 10 veterans on significant deals, and 5 of them are likely getting cut in the next 2 weeks
This also reason the Giants suck. They don't have that many good players.
The Giants need to add several more good players, and retain the handful of good young players they do have.
This is a volume game if anything, and the outcome of the offseason can't be Leonard Willims + scraps.
Good write-up.
I know we say it until we are blue in the face, but sooooo much is hinging on Jones being good to validate the third year of his rookie contract.
If he doesn't deliver this year - and I know he still might get the 4th year to prove it once and for all...but I really hope we are not that stupid as a franchise - we will be entering another stage of darkness with this organization. And that should be compelling enough not to sign LW and use that money to give Jones tools to prove his is or isn't the right guy for the job.
The more I think about it, btw, the more I think it would be wise to keep Lance/Fields in play at #11.
Because...
A) It would be insurance if Jones is a dud.
B) If Jones works out, Lance still should have asset value.
C) It puts pressure on Jones to up his game.
D) Lance could be the real deal and it's a huge win.
If you were the GM of this team, you would run it right into the ground with this plan. They need to load up this team with high quality players at the key positions of Edge, OT, CB, and WR. Your plan is akin to trying to steal 2nd with your foot on 1st. Go all in on Jones for the coming year and give the kid a chance to show you what he can do. Giving away the 11th pick on a project like Lance would accelerate this teams' demise.
Quote:
The Giants medium term cap landscape is in good shape because:
1) Jones is in the 3rd year of his rookie deal
2) The Giants only have 10 veterans on significant deals, and 5 of them are likely getting cut in the next 2 weeks
This also reason the Giants suck. They don't have that many good players.
The Giants need to add several more good players, and retain the handful of good young players they do have.
This is a volume game if anything, and the outcome of the offseason can't be Leonard Willims + scraps.
Good write-up.
I know we say it until we are blue in the face, but sooooo much is hinging on Jones being good to validate the third year of his rookie contract.
If he doesn't deliver this year - and I know he still might get the 4th year to prove it once and for all...but I really hope we are not that stupid as a franchise - we will be entering another stage of darkness with this organization. And that should be compelling enough not to sign LW and use that money to give Jones tools to prove his is or isn't the right guy for the job.
The more I think about it, btw, the more I think it would be wise to keep Lance/Fields in play at #11.
Because...
A) It would be insurance if Jones is a dud.
B) If Jones works out, Lance still should have asset value.
C) It puts pressure on Jones to up his game.
D) Lance could be the real deal and it's a huge win.
Quote:
In comment 15162512 christian said:
Quote:
The Giants medium term cap landscape is in good shape because:
1) Jones is in the 3rd year of his rookie deal
2) The Giants only have 10 veterans on significant deals, and 5 of them are likely getting cut in the next 2 weeks
This also reason the Giants suck. They don't have that many good players.
The Giants need to add several more good players, and retain the handful of good young players they do have.
This is a volume game if anything, and the outcome of the offseason can't be Leonard Willims + scraps.
Good write-up.
I know we say it until we are blue in the face, but sooooo much is hinging on Jones being good to validate the third year of his rookie contract.
If he doesn't deliver this year - and I know he still might get the 4th year to prove it once and for all...but I really hope we are not that stupid as a franchise - we will be entering another stage of darkness with this organization. And that should be compelling enough not to sign LW and use that money to give Jones tools to prove his is or isn't the right guy for the job.
The more I think about it, btw, the more I think it would be wise to keep Lance/Fields in play at #11.
Because...
A) It would be insurance if Jones is a dud.
B) If Jones works out, Lance still should have asset value.
C) It puts pressure on Jones to up his game.
D) Lance could be the real deal and it's a huge win.
If you were the GM of this team, you would run it right into the ground with this plan. They need to load up this team with high quality players at the key positions of Edge, OT, CB, and WR. Your plan is akin to trying to steal 2nd with your foot on 1st. Go all in on Jones for the coming year and give the kid a chance to show you what he can do. Giving away the 11th pick on a project like Lance would accelerate this teams' demise.
This team has 6, 4, 5 and 3 wins over the past 4 successive seasons.
Exactly how far do you think the fall really is to "run it into the ground"?
If you were the GM of this team, you would run it right into the ground with this plan. They need to load up this team with high quality players at the key positions of Edge, OT, CB, and WR. Your plan is akin to trying to steal 2nd with your foot on 1st. Go all in on Jones for the coming year and give the kid a chance to show you what he can do. Giving away the 11th pick on a project like Lance would accelerate this teams' demise.
Look, I know the Giants won't do it. So my thoughts are purely academic. But there would be benefits for a move to add a QB for the reasons cited. Especially if they can address the offensive issues in free agency - WRs and OLs. Then if Jones still can't produce with more help, we could turn to a Fields/Lance.
QB Insurance is always a good investment...
Quote:
If you were the GM of this team, you would run it right into the ground with this plan. They need to load up this team with high quality players at the key positions of Edge, OT, CB, and WR. Your plan is akin to trying to steal 2nd with your foot on 1st. Go all in on Jones for the coming year and give the kid a chance to show you what he can do. Giving away the 11th pick on a project like Lance would accelerate this teams' demise.
Look, I know the Giants won't do it. So my thoughts are purely academic. But there would be benefits for a move to add a QB for the reasons cited. Especially if they can address the offensive issues in free agency - WRs and OLs. Then if Jones still can't produce with more help, we could turn to a Fields/Lance.
QB Insurance is always a good investment...
IMO the only way GMEN should take a QB is if they have him rated quite a bit better than Jones as of right now.
Too much of a gamble to get the QB and then you end up trading him or Jones for anything worse than 11 is no good.
Quote:
If you were the GM of this team, you would run it right into the ground with this plan. They need to load up this team with high quality players at the key positions of Edge, OT, CB, and WR. Your plan is akin to trying to steal 2nd with your foot on 1st. Go all in on Jones for the coming year and give the kid a chance to show you what he can do. Giving away the 11th pick on a project like Lance would accelerate this teams' demise.
Look, I know the Giants won't do it. So my thoughts are purely academic. But there would be benefits for a move to add a QB for the reasons cited. Especially if they can address the offensive issues in free agency - WRs and OLs. Then if Jones still can't produce with more help, we could turn to a Fields/Lance.
QB Insurance is always a good investment...
Build the team. Build the infrastructure. Build the defense. Build the offensive weapons. IF Jones fails, then you move on to a new QB with a fully functional team that's ready to win.