I'm getting tired of people claiming how bad he was last season, he wasn't. Its like once someone says something others claim it as fact. The "fact" is our best DB just went to a division rival.
I feel this way as well. It is like an echo chamber (so long as what is being said is in some way positive or reinforces a benefit to the Giants).
His QBRating when targeted was over a 100. Not sure, how this is even a point of debate and I think the Giants could have done better with this as I have said in this thread and others. That is performance did not drop is a radically uninformed take.
21.7 miss tackle rate and allowed almost 900 yards. Nearly 300 on yards after contact. Gave up 8 scores.
I see the achilles as an excuse but how is that relatable to the piss poor tackling which caused almost that much yardage given up?
missed tackles all significantly higher, and you can bet the stats vs better teams were ugly.
there was an extra game (and more targets) so the per target numbers are more relevant. his best tape was probably against waller/kelce.
1/3 of the league called him when he hit FA so it's not a question of whether or not he's still a useful player. the only question this offseason was cost.
The cost and the handwringing when we're a bad football team doesn't add up for me. Rip the bandaid off and let's move fwd. I would've moved KG if the cap situation allowed it.
you've got to find the right players, build it up, and then go beat the teams above you. Nothing will be handed to you. Rip off the band aid and get to work building. Don't sweat 2022 very much, look for small and any signs of progress on the football field.
2022 was always going to be a year to take a step back in order to prepare for steps forward in 2023, 2024 ...
Agreed Jon c. So many half measures last few yrs. 2023 May be finding young cost controlled qb in draft. Plus clean8ng up the rest of the deadwood. So I am thinking 2024 first real contending yr on paper. Nail a qb, even if it costs u half your draft plus a 2024 #1. Keep building LOS. FA, dabble in 2023, go harder in 2024. We need a LT plan to be sustainable. That only happens cutting guys like JB. Can’t be shortsighted
missed tackles all significantly higher, and you can bet the stats vs better teams were ugly.
there was an extra game (and more targets) so the per target numbers are more relevant. his best tape was probably against waller/kelce.
1/3 of the league called him when he hit FA so it's not a question of whether or not he's still a useful player. the only question this offseason was cost.
The cost and the handwringing when we're a bad football team doesn't add up for me. Rip the bandaid off and let's move fwd. I would've moved KG if the cap situation allowed it.
Yup. Williams too. Good player, but too expensive and not likely to be as good when this team is ready to play representative football.
You could say it for basically everyone on the roster before Thibodeaux. This project starts with him. Maybe one or two players from before stick, but that's it.
The Eagles were a logical spot for him. Hopefully they get the 2021 version or more decline. Schoen probably learned something from this experience but I'd rather Bradberry on Eagles than him getting a new multi year contract from the Giants or them touching the Williams or Golladay contracts so he could play out this year.
.
That's how I felt as soon as they cut him, the Eagles were short at CB. I just wish Schoen would have read the market better, and cut him before giving him a 2 mill. bonus.
He then realized teams were not giving him what he wanted, and then he cuts him. Rookie GM's make some mistakes too,
not foolproof with their new jobs.
The rest of the NFL didn't know what Schoen's cap intentions were until he announced them publicly.
Do you think Gettleman would have handled the situation the same?
Of course not.
They were going to dump Bradberry at any cost. They didn't have to tell the NFL that.
You're severely underestimating the rest of the NFL if you think that all the other cuts and FA departures didn't already tell the NFL what Schoen was going to do with Bradberry and that contract. They'd all have to be Gettleman level obtuse.
The rest of the NFL didn't know what Schoen's cap intentions were until he announced them publicly.
Do you think Gettleman would have handled the situation the same?
Of course not.
They were going to dump Bradberry at any cost. They didn't have to tell the NFL that.
he also said he didn't want to punt money to next year but then did with Adoree Jackson's contract.
he also told the nfl he had contingency plans and conversations with bradberry's agents (which could have included an extension).
either one of those could have been a solution to the 40m that kept him here. automatic conversion language and the existing void year made it an easy unilateral decision if schoen chose to do exactly what he did with adoree jackson.
they decided he wasn't worth it - as the rest of the NFL did at his prior salary (13.4m). that's what happened here and the comment about cutting 40m wasn't relevant. team's evaluations of what bradberry is on the field was (nyg included). they could be right or wrong but there was no missed opportunity or missed strategic step that would have changed the outcome.
missed tackles all significantly higher, and you can bet the stats vs better teams were ugly.
there was an extra game (and more targets) so the per target numbers are more relevant. his best tape was probably against waller/kelce.
1/3 of the league called him when he hit FA so it's not a question of whether or not he's still a useful player. the only question this offseason was cost.
The cost and the handwringing when we're a bad football team doesn't add up for me. Rip the bandaid off and let's move fwd. I would've moved KG if the cap situation allowed it.
who is handwringing the decision? the only thing i'm handwringing is the notion that a public comment in february somehow impacted how much other teams felt bradberry could contribute to theirs.
the nyg moved on because the existing contract didn't align with their value of the player, and it turns out the rest of the NFL concurred. that doesn't make bradberry a trash player. as schoen said it was just an unfortunate situation.
He was unhappy here: a losing franchise, again, for him, and upset about restructures.
I’m thinking he at least partially tanked as the year went on.
If I’m wrong, then he’s on the downside.
In any case, that is NOT the kind of guy you want while building a team.
If he has a rejuvenation there, OK. But they’re gonna have a young team that will have bumps in the road too. And if they have problems,…….
The NFL is filled with GM who kick the can down the road. Schoen had no track record.
There is nothing to gain in revealing plans publicly.
This reminds me of the argument I've had with Giants fans on this site who have argued "everyone knew who the Giants were going to draft, why are you so concerned they are indicating their intentions?"
The NFL is filled with GM who kick the can down the road. Schoen had no track record.
There is nothing to gain in revealing plans publicly.
This reminds me of the argument I've had with Giants fans on this site who have argued "everyone knew who the Giants were going to draft, why are you so concerned they are indicating their intentions?"
salary cap information is publicly updated daily.
draft boards are not.
since they signed taylor/glowinski on the first day of FA in march their fiscal needs were 100% transparent to the entire world. and they had numerous paths to get there.
if anything the public comment in february may have been a tool to spur trade conversations for all the players on the roster ahead of FA the same way reports of players like amari cooper getting release sometimes spur other teams to facilitate a trade.
if teams want players that are available they go get them.
And networking that goes on around the league. There is no way that something like this could have stayed private. It's not a state secret that the Giants cap was a mess and they were going to have to shed contracts. It's not a state secret that Bradberry's contract was an easy, obvious candidate to get cut, and there is no logic in a clearly rebuilding franchise tacking on big new money to a 29 year old player.
missed tackles all significantly higher, and you can bet the stats vs better teams were ugly.
there was an extra game (and more targets) so the per target numbers are more relevant. his best tape was probably against waller/kelce.
1/3 of the league called him when he hit FA so it's not a question of whether or not he's still a useful player. the only question this offseason was cost.
The cost and the handwringing when we're a bad football team doesn't add up for me. Rip the bandaid off and let's move fwd. I would've moved KG if the cap situation allowed it.
who is handwringing the decision? the only thing i'm handwringing is the notion that a public comment in february somehow impacted how much other teams felt bradberry could contribute to theirs.
the nyg moved on because the existing contract didn't align with their value of the player, and it turns out the rest of the NFL concurred. that doesn't make bradberry a trash player. as schoen said it was just an unfortunate situation.
There's a few in here worried about this decision, not referring to you, and I get it. But, the Giants need to move on and part of that will dictate things possibly being worse before it's better. I welcome it, let's GO.
He can certainly do wrong. But the likely scenario here is that he says nothing and here we are on May 18th, with Bradberry signing with the Eagles anyway.
This is as benign as it gets. But hey, its something to talk about.
We're simply going to have to agree to disagree on this.
You seem to be arguing that the Giants had no other choice but to dump Bradberry.
That's simply not true.
? im arguing the exact opposite. they had a bunch of choices.
the NYG could have kept him but ultimately decided he wasn't a player worth keeping.
the NFL ultimately decided he was worth 1/2 the amount of money his previous contract had left on it.
both of those are facts without any conjecture necessary and it's silly to think either was in any way impacted by a public comment schoen made in february.
There were a lot of indicators that Bradberry and the Eagles were a good fit and interested. It happens more times than not that a player goes to a division rival. Its a 1 year deal so they will probably get a comp pick too.
You cant worry about a guy we cut. i liked Bradberry and wanted to keep him but he clearly wasnt part of the long term plan so better to see what we have and improve next year when we have more money.
The rest of the NFL didn't know what Schoen's cap intentions were until he announced them publicly.
Do you think Gettleman would have handled the situation the same?
Of course not.
They were going to dump Bradberry at any cost. They didn't have to tell the NFL that.
I suspect the rest of the league was fully aware of what the Giants needed to do with their cap even before Schoen was hired. Schoen saying that didn't really change much, and he never had any leverage with Bradberry, and everyone knew that.
I'd have rather dumped Barkley for a mid round pick
because Bradberry isn't part of the solution for NYG. They need to determine whether or not Barkley will be. When you expect a difficult season unwinding past mistakes, you need to be smart about how you do it.
I am not arguing the Giants should or should not have kept Bradberry.
That's moot.
But Bradberry potentially had VALUE for teams looking for a veteran CB.
As a fan, it was great to hear in January that the Giants wanted to cut $40 million from their salary cap. But Schoen revealed his intentions at that point. He was not going to kick the can down the road, which MANY teams do. Once he revealed those plans, it was clear they were not going to keep Bradberry unless he accepted a paycut (unlikely).
The $40 million reduction was NOT inevitable. There were other ways to handle the cap. It would have been better for Schoen to not say anything about the team's cap plans.
The results are what we saw... before the draft, teams low-balled the Giants (Mara also didn't help matters when he said at the owners' meeting the team may have to cut Bradberry).
Would the results ultimately have been the same? Possible. But there was nothing to gain by revealing intentions. On the other hand, it might have hurt the team's ability to shop him before the draft.
It's water under the bridge at this point, but it was a rookie mistake.
RE: RE: RE: Part of him going to the Eagles is on Joe Schoen
as much as we are in the honeymoon period, he did not have to tell the world how much money he wanted to cut from cap. That was an unforced error that he did not need to make public. But, he did and all the actors in the Bradberry saga knew this and they acted accordingly.
An intern could figure out how much cap we needed to save. Bradberry's agent wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't know the cap situations for each of his clients.
Schoen tried trading him, had offers, and I guess Bradberry didn't like the extension offers. So he chose to wait it out and sign a 1 year deal. Its fairly cut and dry. Schoen saying we needed to save money was a "no shit" statement.
He gave a dollar amount.
dude stop.
Schoen made it public so that people understood why he was about to cut Logan Ryan and not sign back Giants FA's also to validate why he could only get 1yr deal players at the start of FA.
But Bradberry potentially had VALUE for teams looking for a veteran CB.
bradberry didn't have value at the contract he was on. to the nyg or other teams. period.
teams were willing to give up draft picks for him but he refused the extensions.
there were 11 teams who called him after he got because as you said they valued what he can do on the field - and with all that interest he got $7.5m cash - which proves the point that his prior contract the nyg were handcuffed to was pretty underwater since he would have cost an acquiring team 10m+ even if the nyg ate some $.
no amount of public posturing was going to change how the league valued him. the 40m comment by schoen had 0 impact on bradberry's trade market. his cap # did.
Contract negotiation 101 for anyone who’s negotiated an agreement professionally: absolutely never eliminate an outcome.
I’d imagine preferred outcome #1 was trade Bradberry for a mid round pick,
#2 agree to a substantially decreased 2022 cost, #3 cut him, #4 extend him, #5 do nothing.
Schoen should have come out publicly early and said we think James is a really good corner and we have all the tools to keep him. I’m always open to listen, but right now we’re planning on James playing really well for us this year.
And when Bradberry wouldn’t agree to terms with a new team, and the trade partners started drying up — he should have said the exact same thing again.
Even if Schoen was completely quiet about wanting to shed payroll, I don't think any team would trade for Bradberry if it meant $12 million for 2022.
And once Schoen talked trade with one team, word would spread throughout the league like it always does with every potential veteran that a team wants to trade.
How often do we here about a team that wants to trade a veteran and then they end up having to cut him? It's commonplace.
The only time it seem successful at all its a position like QB or pass rusher. Or Jaylen Ramsey... and Bradberry ain't Jalen Ramsey. Not even close.
I am not arguing the Giants should or should not have kept Bradberry.
That's moot.
But Bradberry potentially had VALUE for teams looking for a veteran CB.
As a fan, it was great to hear in January that the Giants wanted to cut $40 million from their salary cap. But Schoen revealed his intentions at that point. He was not going to kick the can down the road, which MANY teams do. Once he revealed those plans, it was clear they were not going to keep Bradberry unless he accepted a paycut (unlikely).
The $40 million reduction was NOT inevitable. There were other ways to handle the cap. It would have been better for Schoen to not say anything about the team's cap plans.
The results are what we saw... before the draft, teams low-balled the Giants (Mara also didn't help matters when he said at the owners' meeting the team may have to cut Bradberry).
Would the results ultimately have been the same? Possible. But there was nothing to gain by revealing intentions. On the other hand, it might have hurt the team's ability to shop him before the draft.
It's water under the bridge at this point, but it was a rookie mistake.
x 100
The other mistake was being so transparent about the Bradberry situation. Once that was telegraphed, I have to imagine most potential suitors concluded: "...unless we can get Bradberry for a very low draft pick and re-work his salary favorably, let's just wait to see if he's released. And then deal with Team Bradberry directly..."
Again, it's not a huge mistake by Schoen. But it smelled like a rookie misstep and one that I hope he learns from...
Prior to signing Bradberry the Eagles had $10,180,000 in available CAP space. Bradberry's contract is one year at $10,000,000 leaving the Eagles with no CAP space.
The Eagles have not signed all their draft picks so they need money for their contracts.
They will also need money for inseason contracts.
So expect some CAP maneuvering to keep them afloat.
What compounds the Eagles CAP problem is that they have $3,980,422 in CAP space next year and $24,487,575 in 2024.
They will not be able to extend contracts as they have no space available.
The Eagles must win this year or next to justify their CAP purgatory
Contract negotiation 101 for anyone who’s negotiated an agreement professionally: absolutely never eliminate an outcome.
I’d imagine preferred outcome #1 was trade Bradberry for a mid round pick,
#2 agree to a substantially decreased 2022 cost, #3 cut him, #4 extend him, #5 do nothing.
Schoen should have come out publicly early and said we think James is a really good corner and we have all the tools to keep him. I’m always open to listen, but right now we’re planning on James playing really well for us this year.
And when Bradberry wouldn’t agree to terms with a new team, and the trade partners started drying up — he should have said the exact same thing again.
he said this - he said he had contingency plans and when pressed on it he said he's been in contact with James' agents and they'd like to keep him.
the comment that's being made into a mountain was just as nebulous and non-specific as saying he had contingency plans.
the main people who kept saying bradberry's release were imminent were the beat writers who lacked an understanding of the market. they were writing those articles literally while schoen had accepted offers in hand from other teams that only fell apart because bradberry chose to play for less money this year to reach UFA next march. they lacked an understanding of the situation and created a false narrative that the whole world knew bradberry was going to get released. the houston texans didn't know that, they were willing to trade draft picks for him but immediately moved on to signing Steven Nelson for just 2.5m less guaranteed than Bradberry got when their negotiation was allegedly $5m apart.
The NFL is filled with GM who kick the can down the road. Schoen had no track record.
There is nothing to gain in revealing plans publicly.
This reminds me of the argument I've had with Giants fans on this site who have argued "everyone knew who the Giants were going to draft, why are you so concerned they are indicating their intentions?"
Again, I kinda see your point but anyone can look at the cuts that left dead cap space, the FA departures and the 1 year deals and draw the obvious conclusion. The Giants were gutting the roster and getting rid of as many bad contracts as possible. I honestly don't see how his public stance is connected to his ability to trade Bradberry. His contract was untradeable as it was. There was no market for that contract. Bradberry wouldn't come to terms with a new team so he got cut. There was never an option for him to stay on that contract. I don't see how subterfuge would have changed the market conditions around JB and his contract. No one wanted it, which is again an indication that cutting him and getting out from the contract was probably necessary, if painful.
Bradberry did not want to be a Giant.
He could have resigned with the Giants by extending his contract with a voidable year.
He would have made more money and reduced his CAP hit to a palatable number. But he chose not to.
I do not think that Bradberry wanted to be on a rebuilding team and knew he had no future here.
In addition to his wanting to leave the team, he also did not ingratiate himself by not agreeing to signing a long term contract with Giants trade partners.
The Giants had to release him or they would have to deal with a disgruntled player who could destroy the team chemistry.
But again, there was no advantage to revealing plans.
was there an advantage saying neal and icky were 'side by side'? or that they had 6 they liked with an emergency #7? or that they had 160 players with draftable grades?
was there an advantage saying they were open to trading down or would it have been better posturing to say they would only do so if blown away?
was there an advantage to saying they were open for business and willing to talk about any player on their roster, including in answer to questions about specific players?
they get asked questions, they give answers, none of it actually impacts decisions they or any other team makes. if they liked bradberry more they'd have kept him. if other teams liked bradberry more they'd have given him the contract he wanted.
i personally appreciate that schoen seems to be pretty forthright and smart in the answers he gives.
because Bradberry isn't part of the solution for NYG. They need to determine whether or not Barkley will be. When you expect a difficult season unwinding past mistakes, you need to be smart about how you do it.
I don't think there's a realistic scenario where paying Barkley makes sense. Even if he has a massive statistical year, a look around the league tells us that paying running backs is folly.
And that's the high end of the range of possible outcomes. More likely his low current value will only depreciate further, and in December 2022 we'll be wishing we had traded him in April 2022 for whatever we could get.
I wish Schoen had been more aggressive in ripping this down. It's going to happen anyway.
with the cost of WR's exploding a RB who does well in receiving game
could be an interesting value play - especially on a 1 year tag.
Is Barkley's rookie year worth the same thing Marquez Valdez Scantling cost the Chiefs or Evan Engram cost the Jags? that question answers itself.
the question is how degraded physically is he from the player he was his rookie year? which i think is what jonc is saying is worth finding out (i agree).
Was borderline elite in 2020, but slightly above average last year. I think it’s more likely we see an even lesser version of what we saw last year than it is he returns to 2020 form.
29 years old is right around the age that most corners begin trending downwards. JB already showed signs of regression last year.
Daboll didn't feature RBs in the pass game in Buffalo
I don't think he will here either. If they make Barkley a slot receiver that's a different story. I'd be fine with that.
Still not a reason to pay him though. Slot receivers grow on trees in college.
grow on trees yes but also getting picked in the first or second round in abundance. is a first or second round pick worth a 10m cap hit?
as a rookie barkley had 9 plays go 40+ yards which was among the most in the NFL - even compared to WRs (that's tied with the most tyreek hill had in his best season for example).
he tied Randy Moss as the only other rookie to have 5 tds 50+ yards.
he broke the rookie record for receptions by a RB and hit the fastest ball carrier GPS speeds other than Tyreek Hill.
if they didn't have a role in mind for him they wouldn't have kept him and my guess is that it's going to be hybrid. again just a guess but i think he will get 10 or so carries per game and 5+ receptions from all different alignments - wide, slot, backfield, jet motion - obviously health withstanding.
the notion that daboll didn't use his running backs is also a bit off - he didn't use 1 specific running back a lot but he did use his committee a good amount. last year's bills offense had about 100 targets to RBs, with only Beasley (112) and Diggs (164) the only targets getting more than that. the RB number doesn't count McKenzie so it may actually be a bit higher.
RE: with the cost of WR's exploding a RB who does well in receiving game
could be an interesting value play - especially on a 1 year tag.
Is Barkley's rookie year worth the same thing Marquez Valdez Scantling cost the Chiefs or Evan Engram cost the Jags? that question answers itself.
the question is how degraded physically is he from the player he was his rookie year? which i think is what jonc is saying is worth finding out (i agree).
Interesting point, although as an aside, i think the WR market is looney and will be unsustainable. Wouldn't touch those contracts unless i was about to win the SB and had decent cap space. But good point about using him as a faux WR (we might need to given our underwhelming crop).
I am not arguing the Giants should or should not have kept Bradberry.
That's moot.
But Bradberry potentially had VALUE for teams looking for a veteran CB.
As a fan, it was great to hear in January that the Giants wanted to cut $40 million from their salary cap. But Schoen revealed his intentions at that point. He was not going to kick the can down the road, which MANY teams do. Once he revealed those plans, it was clear they were not going to keep Bradberry unless he accepted a paycut (unlikely).
The $40 million reduction was NOT inevitable. There were other ways to handle the cap. It would have been better for Schoen to not say anything about the team's cap plans.
The results are what we saw... before the draft, teams low-balled the Giants (Mara also didn't help matters when he said at the owners' meeting the team may have to cut Bradberry).
Would the results ultimately have been the same? Possible. But there was nothing to gain by revealing intentions. On the other hand, it might have hurt the team's ability to shop him before the draft.
It's water under the bridge at this point, but it was a rookie mistake.
Eric has a point here despite it being likely that other teams/agents already knowing what the NYG were likely to do. No reason to cement it.
And that was also likely before everyone realized Barkley had no appetite for blocking. Throwing with him in the backfield is, IMO, inviting a lot of trouble.
I'm all for getting him out of the backfield and getting the ball in his hands 5-8 yards past the LOS. All for it.
Remember also what Schoen has said about paying premium positions.
Quote:
In comment 15712295 PatersonPlank said:
Quote:
I'm getting tired of people claiming how bad he was last season, he wasn't. Its like once someone says something others claim it as fact. The "fact" is our best DB just went to a division rival.
I feel this way as well. It is like an echo chamber (so long as what is being said is in some way positive or reinforces a benefit to the Giants).
His QBRating when targeted was over a 100. Not sure, how this is even a point of debate and I think the Giants could have done better with this as I have said in this thread and others. That is performance did not drop is a radically uninformed take.
21.7 miss tackle rate and allowed almost 900 yards. Nearly 300 on yards after contact. Gave up 8 scores.
I see the achilles as an excuse but how is that relatable to the piss poor tackling which caused almost that much yardage given up?
Quote:
missed tackles all significantly higher, and you can bet the stats vs better teams were ugly.
there was an extra game (and more targets) so the per target numbers are more relevant. his best tape was probably against waller/kelce.
1/3 of the league called him when he hit FA so it's not a question of whether or not he's still a useful player. the only question this offseason was cost.
The cost and the handwringing when we're a bad football team doesn't add up for me. Rip the bandaid off and let's move fwd. I would've moved KG if the cap situation allowed it.
2022 was always going to be a year to take a step back in order to prepare for steps forward in 2023, 2024 ...
Agreed Jon c. So many half measures last few yrs. 2023 May be finding young cost controlled qb in draft. Plus clean8ng up the rest of the deadwood. So I am thinking 2024 first real contending yr on paper. Nail a qb, even if it costs u half your draft plus a 2024 #1. Keep building LOS. FA, dabble in 2023, go harder in 2024. We need a LT plan to be sustainable. That only happens cutting guys like JB. Can’t be shortsighted
Do you think Gettleman would have handled the situation the same?
Of course not.
They were going to dump Bradberry at any cost. They didn't have to tell the NFL that.
Quote:
In comment 15712416 JonC said:
Quote:
missed tackles all significantly higher, and you can bet the stats vs better teams were ugly.
there was an extra game (and more targets) so the per target numbers are more relevant. his best tape was probably against waller/kelce.
1/3 of the league called him when he hit FA so it's not a question of whether or not he's still a useful player. the only question this offseason was cost.
The cost and the handwringing when we're a bad football team doesn't add up for me. Rip the bandaid off and let's move fwd. I would've moved KG if the cap situation allowed it.
Yup. Williams too. Good player, but too expensive and not likely to be as good when this team is ready to play representative football.
You could say it for basically everyone on the roster before Thibodeaux. This project starts with him. Maybe one or two players from before stick, but that's it.
That's how I felt as soon as they cut him, the Eagles were short at CB. I just wish Schoen would have read the market better, and cut him before giving him a 2 mill. bonus.
He then realized teams were not giving him what he wanted, and then he cuts him. Rookie GM's make some mistakes too,
not foolproof with their new jobs.
Do you think Gettleman would have handled the situation the same?
Of course not.
They were going to dump Bradberry at any cost. They didn't have to tell the NFL that.
You're severely underestimating the rest of the NFL if you think that all the other cuts and FA departures didn't already tell the NFL what Schoen was going to do with Bradberry and that contract. They'd all have to be Gettleman level obtuse.
Do you think Gettleman would have handled the situation the same?
Of course not.
They were going to dump Bradberry at any cost. They didn't have to tell the NFL that.
he also said he didn't want to punt money to next year but then did with Adoree Jackson's contract.
he also told the nfl he had contingency plans and conversations with bradberry's agents (which could have included an extension).
either one of those could have been a solution to the 40m that kept him here. automatic conversion language and the existing void year made it an easy unilateral decision if schoen chose to do exactly what he did with adoree jackson.
they decided he wasn't worth it - as the rest of the NFL did at his prior salary (13.4m). that's what happened here and the comment about cutting 40m wasn't relevant. team's evaluations of what bradberry is on the field was (nyg included). they could be right or wrong but there was no missed opportunity or missed strategic step that would have changed the outcome.
Quote:
In comment 15712416 JonC said:
Quote:
missed tackles all significantly higher, and you can bet the stats vs better teams were ugly.
there was an extra game (and more targets) so the per target numbers are more relevant. his best tape was probably against waller/kelce.
1/3 of the league called him when he hit FA so it's not a question of whether or not he's still a useful player. the only question this offseason was cost.
The cost and the handwringing when we're a bad football team doesn't add up for me. Rip the bandaid off and let's move fwd. I would've moved KG if the cap situation allowed it.
who is handwringing the decision? the only thing i'm handwringing is the notion that a public comment in february somehow impacted how much other teams felt bradberry could contribute to theirs.
the nyg moved on because the existing contract didn't align with their value of the player, and it turns out the rest of the NFL concurred. that doesn't make bradberry a trash player. as schoen said it was just an unfortunate situation.
I’m thinking he at least partially tanked as the year went on.
If I’m wrong, then he’s on the downside.
In any case, that is NOT the kind of guy you want while building a team.
If he has a rejuvenation there, OK. But they’re gonna have a young team that will have bumps in the road too. And if they have problems,…….
This issue is he is not part of the long term plan, which also is fine
Would I like him here, yes, but I also understand the side of if he is not going to be here in 2023, let’s clear what can be cleared
He becomes a very good no 2 on the Eagles
There is nothing to gain in revealing plans publicly.
This reminds me of the argument I've had with Giants fans on this site who have argued "everyone knew who the Giants were going to draft, why are you so concerned they are indicating their intentions?"
"Schoen can do no wrong!"
Better?
There is nothing to gain in revealing plans publicly.
This reminds me of the argument I've had with Giants fans on this site who have argued "everyone knew who the Giants were going to draft, why are you so concerned they are indicating their intentions?"
salary cap information is publicly updated daily.
draft boards are not.
since they signed taylor/glowinski on the first day of FA in march their fiscal needs were 100% transparent to the entire world. and they had numerous paths to get there.
if anything the public comment in february may have been a tool to spur trade conversations for all the players on the roster ahead of FA the same way reports of players like amari cooper getting release sometimes spur other teams to facilitate a trade.
if teams want players that are available they go get them.
You seem to be arguing that the Giants had no other choice but to dump Bradberry.
That's simply not true.
Quote:
In comment 15712422 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
In comment 15712416 JonC said:
Quote:
missed tackles all significantly higher, and you can bet the stats vs better teams were ugly.
there was an extra game (and more targets) so the per target numbers are more relevant. his best tape was probably against waller/kelce.
1/3 of the league called him when he hit FA so it's not a question of whether or not he's still a useful player. the only question this offseason was cost.
The cost and the handwringing when we're a bad football team doesn't add up for me. Rip the bandaid off and let's move fwd. I would've moved KG if the cap situation allowed it.
who is handwringing the decision? the only thing i'm handwringing is the notion that a public comment in february somehow impacted how much other teams felt bradberry could contribute to theirs.
the nyg moved on because the existing contract didn't align with their value of the player, and it turns out the rest of the NFL concurred. that doesn't make bradberry a trash player. as schoen said it was just an unfortunate situation.
There's a few in here worried about this decision, not referring to you, and I get it. But, the Giants need to move on and part of that will dictate things possibly being worse before it's better. I welcome it, let's GO.
Quote:
In comment 15712234 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
Get a comp for him in 2024.
He won't count toward the comp pick formula because he was a cut and it was past the deadline.
The Eagles cut him already? Interesting.
I was obviously referring to the fact that the Giants just released him. Players who are released do not count towards comp picks.
"Schoen can do no wrong!"
Better?
He can certainly do wrong. But the likely scenario here is that he says nothing and here we are on May 18th, with Bradberry signing with the Eagles anyway.
This is as benign as it gets. But hey, its something to talk about.
You seem to be arguing that the Giants had no other choice but to dump Bradberry.
That's simply not true.
? im arguing the exact opposite. they had a bunch of choices.
the NYG could have kept him but ultimately decided he wasn't a player worth keeping.
the NFL ultimately decided he was worth 1/2 the amount of money his previous contract had left on it.
both of those are facts without any conjecture necessary and it's silly to think either was in any way impacted by a public comment schoen made in february.
Definitely a yawn over an ugh…1 year rental of a 29 year old who got roasted by NFC east WRs.
You cant worry about a guy we cut. i liked Bradberry and wanted to keep him but he clearly wasnt part of the long term plan so better to see what we have and improve next year when we have more money.
You seem to be arguing that the Giants had no other choice but to dump Bradberry.
That's simply not true.
They had other options, but they chose the right one. Bradberry isn't part of the future here.
If I have a complaint about Schoen it's that more players should have gone Bradberry's route.
Do you think Gettleman would have handled the situation the same?
Of course not.
They were going to dump Bradberry at any cost. They didn't have to tell the NFL that.
I suspect the rest of the league was fully aware of what the Giants needed to do with their cap even before Schoen was hired. Schoen saying that didn't really change much, and he never had any leverage with Bradberry, and everyone knew that.
Bradberry was far more important to this team than Barkley, and RBs could have been found via the draft or in FA.
I am not arguing the Giants should or should not have kept Bradberry.
That's moot.
But Bradberry potentially had VALUE for teams looking for a veteran CB.
As a fan, it was great to hear in January that the Giants wanted to cut $40 million from their salary cap. But Schoen revealed his intentions at that point. He was not going to kick the can down the road, which MANY teams do. Once he revealed those plans, it was clear they were not going to keep Bradberry unless he accepted a paycut (unlikely).
The $40 million reduction was NOT inevitable. There were other ways to handle the cap. It would have been better for Schoen to not say anything about the team's cap plans.
The results are what we saw... before the draft, teams low-balled the Giants (Mara also didn't help matters when he said at the owners' meeting the team may have to cut Bradberry).
Would the results ultimately have been the same? Possible. But there was nothing to gain by revealing intentions. On the other hand, it might have hurt the team's ability to shop him before the draft.
It's water under the bridge at this point, but it was a rookie mistake.
Quote:
In comment 15712247 Essex said:
Quote:
as much as we are in the honeymoon period, he did not have to tell the world how much money he wanted to cut from cap. That was an unforced error that he did not need to make public. But, he did and all the actors in the Bradberry saga knew this and they acted accordingly.
An intern could figure out how much cap we needed to save. Bradberry's agent wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't know the cap situations for each of his clients.
Schoen tried trading him, had offers, and I guess Bradberry didn't like the extension offers. So he chose to wait it out and sign a 1 year deal. Its fairly cut and dry. Schoen saying we needed to save money was a "no shit" statement.
He gave a dollar amount.
dude stop.
Schoen made it public so that people understood why he was about to cut Logan Ryan and not sign back Giants FA's also to validate why he could only get 1yr deal players at the start of FA.
Also it was already public knowledge.
Again stop
But Bradberry potentially had VALUE for teams looking for a veteran CB.
bradberry didn't have value at the contract he was on. to the nyg or other teams. period.
teams were willing to give up draft picks for him but he refused the extensions.
there were 11 teams who called him after he got because as you said they valued what he can do on the field - and with all that interest he got $7.5m cash - which proves the point that his prior contract the nyg were handcuffed to was pretty underwater since he would have cost an acquiring team 10m+ even if the nyg ate some $.
no amount of public posturing was going to change how the league valued him. the 40m comment by schoen had 0 impact on bradberry's trade market. his cap # did.
I’d imagine preferred outcome #1 was trade Bradberry for a mid round pick,
#2 agree to a substantially decreased 2022 cost, #3 cut him, #4 extend him, #5 do nothing.
Schoen should have come out publicly early and said we think James is a really good corner and we have all the tools to keep him. I’m always open to listen, but right now we’re planning on James playing really well for us this year.
And when Bradberry wouldn’t agree to terms with a new team, and the trade partners started drying up — he should have said the exact same thing again.
But again, there was no advantage to revealing plans.
And once Schoen talked trade with one team, word would spread throughout the league like it always does with every potential veteran that a team wants to trade.
How often do we here about a team that wants to trade a veteran and then they end up having to cut him? It's commonplace.
The only time it seem successful at all its a position like QB or pass rusher. Or Jaylen Ramsey... and Bradberry ain't Jalen Ramsey. Not even close.
I am not arguing the Giants should or should not have kept Bradberry.
That's moot.
But Bradberry potentially had VALUE for teams looking for a veteran CB.
As a fan, it was great to hear in January that the Giants wanted to cut $40 million from their salary cap. But Schoen revealed his intentions at that point. He was not going to kick the can down the road, which MANY teams do. Once he revealed those plans, it was clear they were not going to keep Bradberry unless he accepted a paycut (unlikely).
The $40 million reduction was NOT inevitable. There were other ways to handle the cap. It would have been better for Schoen to not say anything about the team's cap plans.
The results are what we saw... before the draft, teams low-balled the Giants (Mara also didn't help matters when he said at the owners' meeting the team may have to cut Bradberry).
Would the results ultimately have been the same? Possible. But there was nothing to gain by revealing intentions. On the other hand, it might have hurt the team's ability to shop him before the draft.
It's water under the bridge at this point, but it was a rookie mistake.
x 100
The other mistake was being so transparent about the Bradberry situation. Once that was telegraphed, I have to imagine most potential suitors concluded: "...unless we can get Bradberry for a very low draft pick and re-work his salary favorably, let's just wait to see if he's released. And then deal with Team Bradberry directly..."
Again, it's not a huge mistake by Schoen. But it smelled like a rookie misstep and one that I hope he learns from...
The Eagles have not signed all their draft picks so they need money for their contracts.
They will also need money for inseason contracts.
So expect some CAP maneuvering to keep them afloat.
What compounds the Eagles CAP problem is that they have $3,980,422 in CAP space next year and $24,487,575 in 2024.
They will not be able to extend contracts as they have no space available.
The Eagles must win this year or next to justify their CAP purgatory
Silver lining is that maybe it held the Texans off for trading for him, helping us get both KT and Neal.
I’d imagine preferred outcome #1 was trade Bradberry for a mid round pick,
#2 agree to a substantially decreased 2022 cost, #3 cut him, #4 extend him, #5 do nothing.
Schoen should have come out publicly early and said we think James is a really good corner and we have all the tools to keep him. I’m always open to listen, but right now we’re planning on James playing really well for us this year.
And when Bradberry wouldn’t agree to terms with a new team, and the trade partners started drying up — he should have said the exact same thing again.
he said this - he said he had contingency plans and when pressed on it he said he's been in contact with James' agents and they'd like to keep him.
the comment that's being made into a mountain was just as nebulous and non-specific as saying he had contingency plans.
the main people who kept saying bradberry's release were imminent were the beat writers who lacked an understanding of the market. they were writing those articles literally while schoen had accepted offers in hand from other teams that only fell apart because bradberry chose to play for less money this year to reach UFA next march. they lacked an understanding of the situation and created a false narrative that the whole world knew bradberry was going to get released. the houston texans didn't know that, they were willing to trade draft picks for him but immediately moved on to signing Steven Nelson for just 2.5m less guaranteed than Bradberry got when their negotiation was allegedly $5m apart.
There is nothing to gain in revealing plans publicly.
This reminds me of the argument I've had with Giants fans on this site who have argued "everyone knew who the Giants were going to draft, why are you so concerned they are indicating their intentions?"
Again, I kinda see your point but anyone can look at the cuts that left dead cap space, the FA departures and the 1 year deals and draw the obvious conclusion. The Giants were gutting the roster and getting rid of as many bad contracts as possible. I honestly don't see how his public stance is connected to his ability to trade Bradberry. His contract was untradeable as it was. There was no market for that contract. Bradberry wouldn't come to terms with a new team so he got cut. There was never an option for him to stay on that contract. I don't see how subterfuge would have changed the market conditions around JB and his contract. No one wanted it, which is again an indication that cutting him and getting out from the contract was probably necessary, if painful.
And as far as Schoen not having a track record, read this article and tell me if it sounds familiar. He was brought in to do a similar teardown and rebuild.
Schoen had no track record? Well, he was in buffalo - - ( New Window )
Bradberry did not want to be a Giant.
He could have resigned with the Giants by extending his contract with a voidable year.
He would have made more money and reduced his CAP hit to a palatable number. But he chose not to.
I do not think that Bradberry wanted to be on a rebuilding team and knew he had no future here.
In addition to his wanting to leave the team, he also did not ingratiate himself by not agreeing to signing a long term contract with Giants trade partners.
The Giants had to release him or they would have to deal with a disgruntled player who could destroy the team chemistry.
But again, there was no advantage to revealing plans.
was there an advantage saying neal and icky were 'side by side'? or that they had 6 they liked with an emergency #7? or that they had 160 players with draftable grades?
was there an advantage saying they were open to trading down or would it have been better posturing to say they would only do so if blown away?
was there an advantage to saying they were open for business and willing to talk about any player on their roster, including in answer to questions about specific players?
they get asked questions, they give answers, none of it actually impacts decisions they or any other team makes. if they liked bradberry more they'd have kept him. if other teams liked bradberry more they'd have given him the contract he wanted.
i personally appreciate that schoen seems to be pretty forthright and smart in the answers he gives.
I don't think there's a realistic scenario where paying Barkley makes sense. Even if he has a massive statistical year, a look around the league tells us that paying running backs is folly.
And that's the high end of the range of possible outcomes. More likely his low current value will only depreciate further, and in December 2022 we'll be wishing we had traded him in April 2022 for whatever we could get.
I wish Schoen had been more aggressive in ripping this down. It's going to happen anyway.
Is Barkley's rookie year worth the same thing Marquez Valdez Scantling cost the Chiefs or Evan Engram cost the Jags? that question answers itself.
the question is how degraded physically is he from the player he was his rookie year? which i think is what jonc is saying is worth finding out (i agree).
29 years old is right around the age that most corners begin trending downwards. JB already showed signs of regression last year.
Still not a reason to pay him though. Slot receivers grow on trees in college.
Still not a reason to pay him though. Slot receivers grow on trees in college.
grow on trees yes but also getting picked in the first or second round in abundance. is a first or second round pick worth a 10m cap hit?
as a rookie barkley had 9 plays go 40+ yards which was among the most in the NFL - even compared to WRs (that's tied with the most tyreek hill had in his best season for example).
he tied Randy Moss as the only other rookie to have 5 tds 50+ yards.
he broke the rookie record for receptions by a RB and hit the fastest ball carrier GPS speeds other than Tyreek Hill.
if they didn't have a role in mind for him they wouldn't have kept him and my guess is that it's going to be hybrid. again just a guess but i think he will get 10 or so carries per game and 5+ receptions from all different alignments - wide, slot, backfield, jet motion - obviously health withstanding.
the notion that daboll didn't use his running backs is also a bit off - he didn't use 1 specific running back a lot but he did use his committee a good amount. last year's bills offense had about 100 targets to RBs, with only Beasley (112) and Diggs (164) the only targets getting more than that. the RB number doesn't count McKenzie so it may actually be a bit higher.
Is Barkley's rookie year worth the same thing Marquez Valdez Scantling cost the Chiefs or Evan Engram cost the Jags? that question answers itself.
the question is how degraded physically is he from the player he was his rookie year? which i think is what jonc is saying is worth finding out (i agree).
Interesting point, although as an aside, i think the WR market is looney and will be unsustainable. Wouldn't touch those contracts unless i was about to win the SB and had decent cap space. But good point about using him as a faux WR (we might need to given our underwhelming crop).
I am not arguing the Giants should or should not have kept Bradberry.
That's moot.
But Bradberry potentially had VALUE for teams looking for a veteran CB.
As a fan, it was great to hear in January that the Giants wanted to cut $40 million from their salary cap. But Schoen revealed his intentions at that point. He was not going to kick the can down the road, which MANY teams do. Once he revealed those plans, it was clear they were not going to keep Bradberry unless he accepted a paycut (unlikely).
The $40 million reduction was NOT inevitable. There were other ways to handle the cap. It would have been better for Schoen to not say anything about the team's cap plans.
The results are what we saw... before the draft, teams low-balled the Giants (Mara also didn't help matters when he said at the owners' meeting the team may have to cut Bradberry).
Would the results ultimately have been the same? Possible. But there was nothing to gain by revealing intentions. On the other hand, it might have hurt the team's ability to shop him before the draft.
It's water under the bridge at this point, but it was a rookie mistake.
Eric has a point here despite it being likely that other teams/agents already knowing what the NYG were likely to do. No reason to cement it.
I'm all for getting him out of the backfield and getting the ball in his hands 5-8 yards past the LOS. All for it.
Remember also what Schoen has said about paying premium positions.