Maybe skewed more to the passing stats.
Tiki Barber had 2095 all purpose yds, 15 TDs 1518 rushing and 578 in the air
Let's say Saquon has 1,200 passing tds and 800 rushing yds with 12 Tds.
And that he stays on the field for the whole season(for arguments sake).
Does he become worthy of a big contract if he's more of a passing threat than a running threat and has pro bowl numbers like Tiki in 2004 and 2005 (which by the way exceed Golladays pro-bowl numbers in 2019... 1190yds/11Tds)?
You are one of the most active posters on this thread, and all others that have to do with Barkley or Jones. If you didn’t care, why waste your time on them?
Quote:
In comment 15733876 90.Cal said:
Quote:
After all the fumbles and mediocrity in his first 4-5 season... and then you would have missed the greatness that followed. Stop rooting for Saquon to fail... thats what it feels like is going on at least.
A "huge" 2nd contract? No. Nobody would have.
But you can't run your franchise based on outliers. "Pay a bad RB because one day he may be good! Remember Tiki?" or "Pay Jones because Simms was bad for years and then won a SB so that means Jones will win a SB!"
I honestly don’t remember too many here who wanted to pick up Jones’ 5 th year option, even fans like me who are in favor of him getting this season didn’t support that idea
My post had nothing to do with the 5th year option. It was related to all of the people who kept posting "you would have cut Phil Simms in 1983" like there is some basis for that analogy.
Quote:
In comment 15734042 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
In comment 15733876 90.Cal said:
Quote:
After all the fumbles and mediocrity in his first 4-5 season... and then you would have missed the greatness that followed. Stop rooting for Saquon to fail... thats what it feels like is going on at least.
A "huge" 2nd contract? No. Nobody would have.
But you can't run your franchise based on outliers. "Pay a bad RB because one day he may be good! Remember Tiki?" or "Pay Jones because Simms was bad for years and then won a SB so that means Jones will win a SB!"
I honestly don’t remember too many here who wanted to pick up Jones’ 5 th year option, even fans like me who are in favor of him getting this season didn’t support that idea
My post had nothing to do with the 5th year option. It was related to all of the people who kept posting "you would have cut Phil Simms in 1983" like there is some basis for that analogy.
I m definitely a guy who made analogies between Simms and Jones. My point was it took Phil 5 years to become the quarterback he was, and that the same could happen for Daniel. Is that not a legit take?
But I get the point about rookie contracts
Quote:
In comment 15734071 joeinpa said:
Quote:
In comment 15734042 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
In comment 15733876 90.Cal said:
Quote:
After all the fumbles and mediocrity in his first 4-5 season... and then you would have missed the greatness that followed. Stop rooting for Saquon to fail... thats what it feels like is going on at least.
A "huge" 2nd contract? No. Nobody would have.
But you can't run your franchise based on outliers. "Pay a bad RB because one day he may be good! Remember Tiki?" or "Pay Jones because Simms was bad for years and then won a SB so that means Jones will win a SB!"
I honestly don’t remember too many here who wanted to pick up Jones’ 5 th year option, even fans like me who are in favor of him getting this season didn’t support that idea
My post had nothing to do with the 5th year option. It was related to all of the people who kept posting "you would have cut Phil Simms in 1983" like there is some basis for that analogy.
I m definitely a guy who made analogies between Simms and Jones. My point was it took Phil 5 years to become the quarterback he was, and that the same could happen for Daniel. Is that not a legit take?
But I get the point about rookie contracts
Joe: I think you’re probably my age, old enough to having seen Simms’ from the beginning. Simms had a bad OL (although not as bad as last years OL) but early on, never had even decent WRs or RBs. The difference for me is that Simms never looked as lost as Jones has looked. I think most people in the know looked at Simms as a good QB. Same cant be said about Jones.
Way off the Barkley Tiki discussion
A 6th round pick by the Patriots in 2000 turned into a 7 time Super Bowl winner and maybe the best player in league history. How do we know that can't happen for Gary Brightwell or Rodarius Williams?
Why do you apply the outlier from forty years ago to Jones? Why not apply Drew Lock? Paxton Lynch? Jake Locker? Blaine Gabbert? And on and on...
For every Phil Simms who finally got going in year five there are hundreds of players who just stayed bad. In today's NFL it doesn't make sense to wait that long. Milton wants to run the Giants like a mom and pop where performance is secondary to loyalty.
Some of us are tired of losing.
It was 40 years ago. I dont get it.
If he then made it back, and hardly played, would you want him back in 2024?
If we're making the Phil Simms comparison, let's at least go apples to apples.
Some of you consistently dismiss any suggestion that maybe Jones will work out as if you think it really matters what guys who hold out hope for him think
You understand our opinion on Jones has no impact on what the Giants decide in regard to his future…. Right?
As for Barkley (and Jones as well), whether and how much he should be paid will depend on how he and the team performs in 2022. Injuries are a consideration. Was he robbed of the explosiveness we saw in 2018 (the guy Bill Belichick called the best RB in the NFL)? I don't think any of us are qualified to answer that question so we'll just have to wait until the season is played. Only then will any of us be able to offer up an informed argument on what should or shouldn't be done with Barkley.
Yes it is. My bad.
His explosiveness will decrease with age. And we've seen what Barkley is without it, a very ordinary running back.
You can't pay a guy based who he was or on long odds that he'll do something improbable.
I can think of two every down backs who were consistently explosive deep into their career. Sanders and Payton.
Quote:
Joe -- isn't the whole point of posting on a fan forum to debate with other fans what has/will happen and why?
Yes it is. My bad.
But pointing out that a former #1 pick quarterback really struggled for four seasons before becoming a Giants great, is not a ridiculous point no matter how it s spun.
Quote:
In comment 15734290 christian said:
Quote:
Joe -- isn't the whole point of posting on a fan forum to debate with other fans what has/will happen and why?
Yes it is. My bad.
But pointing out that a former #1 pick quarterback really struggled for four seasons before becoming a Giants great, is not a ridiculous point no matter how it s spun.
I think your view is it's not impossible because Simms did it.
But the point many of us are making is the circumstances in which that occured doesn't exist.
After his 3rd year struggling, Simms tore his knee and missed his 4th year. Then he barely played as he worked his way back in his 5th.
It wasn't until his 6th year that he was a winning QB.
If this is the case then what the hell are any of these players still doing in the building? They lost their right to loyalty long ago.
We need to let go of the idea that DJones and Barkley will be anything but the gettleman busts that they are.
Comparison to prior giants players is just dumb and not productive.
Simms was a player who showed up on a losing team and had immediate impact . Tiki was a second end pick playing on a good team. Neither applies to d jones and Barkley. Those high picks are expected to be impact players and years have gone by that proves they simply are not. In fact their both respective bottom 1/3 players in nfl
Quote:
In comment 15734071 joeinpa said:
Quote:
In comment 15734042 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
In comment 15733876 90.Cal said:
Quote:
After all the fumbles and mediocrity in his first 4-5 season... and then you would have missed the greatness that followed. Stop rooting for Saquon to fail... thats what it feels like is going on at least.
A "huge" 2nd contract? No. Nobody would have.
But you can't run your franchise based on outliers. "Pay a bad RB because one day he may be good! Remember Tiki?" or "Pay Jones because Simms was bad for years and then won a SB so that means Jones will win a SB!"
I honestly don’t remember too many here who wanted to pick up Jones’ 5 th year option, even fans like me who are in favor of him getting this season didn’t support that idea
My post had nothing to do with the 5th year option. It was related to all of the people who kept posting "you would have cut Phil Simms in 1983" like there is some basis for that analogy.
I m definitely a guy who made analogies between Simms and Jones. My point was it took Phil 5 years to become the quarterback he was, and that the same could happen for Daniel. Is that not a legit take?
But I get the point about rookie contracts
BB'56 has made this comparison many times - and Many fans thought Simms should have been canned long before that 5th year. I don't know why it's not a relevant possibility other than that fans have no patience what-so-ever, and the loudest, most repetitive ones who keep insisting and try to get the last say in, think that if they can they are the final word : )
Truth is that the ones who are comparing this situation to Simms have as much chance of being right as those insisting Jones is DOA (me being a DOAer, right now, not withstanding).
Trying to compare the NYG and the QB position in 2022 to any NFL franchise's handling of the QB position from over 40 years ago doesn't seem like a good practice.
The truth For DJ at this point is that if he were to turn it around with this franchise, at this point, in today's NFL would be the outlier of all outliers.
No one comes back from the kind of losing he's suffered, stays with the same franchise, and then suddenly turns it around.
The fallacy is the Simms situation is very different than Jones.
There's very little logical rigor in the comparison. And when you peel it back, you're left with 40 years ago an unlikely occurrence happened.
That's not a strong argument. And there are plenty of strong arguments the odds are against Jones.
It's a bad, bad comparison.
Terps - GFY - You wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the face - and that was a deliberate smack
Eli Manning and Phil Simms were excellent players and had shown that at some level before struggles as a pro. They were more talented.
Most people believe if the Giants had put more on Phil's ability instead of building on the run game and defense he would have been a more productive, dynamic passer.
Jones isn't that caliber of talent. Placing hope on one player to pull out of a nosedive because two other, better players did it is just faith, supported by nothing.
Look at what Jones did in college or anywhere else. Didn't win, wasn't particularly good. Not more complicated than that.
Hes got some athletic ability that the Giants fans here haven't seen in a QB in their lifetime, so it inflates their opinion of the guy.
Quote:
" Truth is that the ones who are comparing this situation to Simms have as much chance of being right as those insisting Jones is DOA (me being a DOAer, right now, not withstanding)."
Terps - GFY - You wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the face - and that was a deliberate smack
You of all people should know better.
Quote:
In comment 15734616 Go Terps said:
Quote:
" Truth is that the ones who are comparing this situation to Simms have as much chance of being right as those insisting Jones is DOA (me being a DOAer, right now, not withstanding)."
Terps - GFY - You wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the face - and that was a deliberate smack
You of all people should know better.
Yes, I do know better. Truth: You may believe something, but it's not necessarily the truth because you believe it, even if you've been proven right in statements of opinion you've asserted in the past. Past performance is not proof of future performance in any court that attempts to discern the truth.
Truth and opinion are different animals, something you should be mindful of. So having been right after you express an opinion does not mean that any opinion you assert is therefore the truth.
You are certainly an example of someone who appears to believe that having the final word in any argument, and constant repetition and assertion of your beliefs, is somehow more meaningful than the argument itself.
Whether you express something sixty billion times, or once or twice, does it make you more correct the more times you say it? It does not follow that this is so. Nor does it follow that it becomes the truth because you said it so many times as opposed to only once or twice? I submit that the truth is the truth when it becomes true, or is proven to be true, and the shear volume of statements made or asserted does not in itself belie the truth.
So we may be right that Daniel Jones is DOA, but it still remains a possibility that we are wrong no matter how strong our belief may be, or how infinitely small the possibility we are wrong remains. I know that you have this unshaken belief that you have expressed 60 billion times, and rather firmly, but it still remains an opinion and a belief based on what has and is taking place. That is a relevant distinction whether you assert so or not.
The other side of the debate is a barely applicable circumstance from forty years ago.
A circumstance mind you no one actually has the intellectual curiosity to even really debate or discuss.
Because honestly, I don't believe a single poster on this site would want to keep Jones if his 5 year path mirrors Simms.
So please stop this silly equivalency argument, because these are not evenly supported observations. And this is the recipe for another apology in the Fall.
The other side of the debate is a barely applicable circumstance from forty years ago.
A circumstance mind you no one actually has the intellectual curiosity to even really debate or discuss.
Because honestly, I don't believe a single poster on this site would want to keep Jones if his 5 year path mirrors Simms.
So please stop this silly equivalency argument, because these are not evenly supported observations. And this is the recipe for another apology in the Fall.
I understand what you are saying but it still does not vitiate the possibility that there is a valid comparison to be made with Simms.
Why stop at Simms for Jones? Maybe he can be Tom Brady!
Quote:
After all the fumbles and mediocrity in his first 4-5 season... and then you would have missed the greatness that followed. Stop rooting for Saquon to fail... thats what it feels like is going on at least.
This is dishonest.
Tiki Barber was a second round pick. When a second round pick gives you this
in four years, he won't get a second contract most likely. And no one would have a problem with it.
Eli Manning and Phil Simms were excellent players and had shown that at some level before struggles as a pro. They were more talented. D
Most people believe if the Giants had put more on Phil's ability instead of building on the run game and defense he would have been a more productive, dynamic passer.
Jones isn't that caliber of talent. Placing hope on one player to pull out of a nosedive because two other, better players did it is just faith, supported by nothing.
Look at what Jones did in college or anywhere else. Didn't win, wasn't particularly good. Not more complicated than that.
Hes got some athletic ability that the Giants fans here haven't seen in a QB in their lifetime, so it inflates their opinion of the guy.
David Cutcliffe had 5 winning seasons in 14 years at Duke. The first 3 were consecutive seasons with a collection of players that included as many as 7 future professionals like Jamison Crowder and Matt Skura. The other 2 winning seasons were the final 2 seasons Daniel Jones started. Jones also started 2 of Cutcliffe’s 3 bowl victories. (Keep in mind Jones played with a grand total of ONE future professional over the course of those 2 seasons.) Duke hasn’t had a winning season since Jones left and consequently, Cutcliffe lost his job.
One can easily criticize Jones performance the past 2 seasons without resorting to regurgitating other posters’ nonsense about Jones’ collegiate career.
Why stop at Simms for Jones? Maybe he can be Tom Brady!
There's also a possibility that you have a behavioral disorder and are a troll -- but we still let you post here.
First, Cutcliffe is a quality coach who had sent multiple QBs to the NFL, and did his share of winning before he ever worked for Duke. Second, comparing anything Daniel Jones did at Duke to Eli Manning at Ole Miss, even loosely, is comical.
Touting "bowl games" with 4th place finishes in the ACC is not the flex you think it is. His winning amounts to two seasons while losing to any big program he played and winning the Quicklane Oil Change Bowl and the Independence bowl.
I will stand on "didn't win, wasn't particularly good". Few would disagree. You want to argue that the team around him wasn't good either, and that's just a deflection. I'm talking about his talent level relative to gifted players who did overcome pro struggles. Daniel Jones isn't as talented as those players. He is less talented. He requires sufficient talent around him to be helped along. There isn't another gear to wait and see for. Therefore the comparison to players who came before, who had high expectations and great talent, is null. Twisting what little resume he does have is just quibbling over barely relevant footnotes.
Quote:
After all they're both football players and both human beings.
Why stop at Simms for Jones? Maybe he can be Tom Brady!
There's also a possibility that you have a behavioral disorder and are a troll -- but we still let you post here.
You don't have to worry about that anymore. I think I'm done trying to lead a horse to water and hope it drinks. Enjoy your board.
So if Barkley is touching the rock 20-30 times per game and racking up 2000+ yards from scrimmage and isn't offered a market-rate contract it will resonate in the locker room and impact future contracts and the product we see on Sundays. The locker room will not react well to any argument about a RB's shelf life and expiration date. Barkley is not a gallon of milk and treating him as such may look fine on the team's income statement, but it won't look good on the team's won-loss record.
p.s.--Christian McCaffrey was the NFL's best RB in 2019 and was rewarded with a record-breaking contract for a RB. He then played a total of ten games combined in 2020 and 2021 because of injuries. Giving him that contract was still the right and wise thing to do.
Players are not infants. They (and their agents) understand the economics of the game, along with the objective realities of positional value as it relates to roster construction and the salary cap.
Not paying Saquon because they are making better decisions where to allocate monies or how much should be paid to a supply-rich position or because he is injured so frequently is business, not disrespect.
The comparison posts between Simms and Jones is also just pure comedy.
Winning strategies seem almost lost with some NY Giants at this point.
Not paying Saquon because they are making better decisions where to allocate monies or how much should be paid to a supply-rich position or because he is injured so frequently is business, not disrespect.
There's a reason I put quotation marks around the word disrespect.
Quote:
It would be just as damaging to morale to "disrespect" a star player as it would be to retain an unproductive player out of a sense of loyalty.
I'm not advocating retaining an unproductive player out of loyalty. That's never been my point.
You mean that wouldn't be "the right thing to do" anymore?
At the same time, anyone would in fact be a fool, at least from a football perspective, to want to give Jones another look simply because previous Giants’ QBs were latish bloomers. However, you do give another look (especially if you don't have any other real options) if you think he has some tools and want to see what he can do surrounded by some decent talent. In fact, that seems to be the thinking of the current administration. I certainly believe he’s a way better player than a lot of fans are giving him credit for these days. True, he has a ways to go to establish himself as a legit franchise QB, but he’s also not Jerry Goldsteyn or Joe Piscarcik. Last year, for example, he had a 64% completion rate that just isn't that far from the 68-70% mark that's kind of the benchmark these days and he's had 16 more TD passes than picks in his career. Even his 12-25 career W-L record is a little deceiving as Jones was 3-14 in his first 17 starts, but 10-11 since. I would also note that Jones QB rating in 2021 was over 90 in 8 of his 11 starts. Again, maybe not quite all-world, but also not chopped liver. And if he doesn’t deliver you move on, but right now I am hoping like hell that he can deliver, because moving on likely means starting all over again and I’m getting too old for that!
The other reason I raised the Simms-Jones connection is that I have a little bit different take on the state of the Giants these days. I lived through the down cycles of the 1970s and the 1990s. And the one thing I learned in those eras is that they do end and in some ways this past season had something of a 1983 feel to it, especially the final 6 weeks when the Giants were awful, terrible, dreadful however you want to describe it. But that was almost entirely due to the fact that the Glennon/Fromm QB tandem was awful, terrible, dreadful, and in a QB-driven league if your QBs are awful, terrible, dreadful, the whole team is almost by definition going to look that way.
However, I have had the feeling over the past couple of years that while it hasn’t necessarily shown up in the W-L record the Giants were getting closer. They were 6-5 to finish off the 2020 season and were flirting with .500 last fall until Jones was injured, despite one of the league’s tougher schedules and another run of frustrating injuries that had them scrambling on the OL and at the skill positions. And going into the 2022 season, I keep looking for all these holes on the roster I keep hearing we still have, but I’m not sure I am seeing them. The Giants, for example, have the makings of a very good defensive front with Thibo, Az, Leo Williams and Dex Lawrence (although one would like a couple of more big bodies inside for depth; the makings of a much-improved OL; and some decent talent at the offensive skill positions if they could ever stay healthy. Still, the NFL is very much a QB driven league, and ultimately how the Giants do this fall – not to mention where the organization goes down the road - still comes down to how well Jones plays. And personally I am looking forward to seeing how the season plays out.
You mean that wouldn't be "the right thing to do" anymore?
A hole on the roster shouldn’t just be defined as a weak unit or positional player. It’s also having so many fairly average or JAG-type guys that never really step up it’s basically creating a hole versus the competition.
QB, TE, Interior OL, LB, CB, P...all areas that can easily be defined as holes. And if our 2 first round picks don’t step up then I could add two more spots as well...
A hole on the roster shouldn’t just be defined as a weak unit or positional player. It’s also having so many fairly average or JAG-type guys that never really step up it’s basically creating a hole versus the competition.
QB, TE, Interior OL, LB, CB, P...all areas that can easily be defined as holes. And if our 2 first round picks don’t step up then I could add two more spots as well...
Jimmy: What do they say? Beauty, and presumably the lack thereof, is in the eye of the beholder! To my mind a 'hole' in the roster is a position where you are for all intents and purposes playing street free agent type players. In fact, there is nothing wrong per se with JAGs, at least at non-core positions like TE, IOL, LB, and P that you mention.
And there is no question that the CB situation makes one a tad nervous but even there you have a very good #1 type player in Adoree Jackson and a bunch of third round picks that all look like they have at least some potential.
In fact, what I would be tempted to say at this point is the Giants really don't have any glaring holes in the roster. What they do have is a number of questions like can the skill position people stay healthy. Of course, the biggest regards Dan Jones but even there to my mind the question is not so much whether he can play but can he be good enough. And people can howl at the moon all they want about what they think but like JoeinPa said above it don't matter a rat's petunia. What matters is how he plays this year and what Giants management thinks about his situation.
I have also written in a number of places over the years that I don't believe the old 'we have too many holes in the roster' bit is the wrong way to approach the whole issue. Fact is that being the team with the fewest holes in the roster isn't going to win you many championships. The teams that do win championships are the teams that have the most impact players - especially in the passing game on both sides of the ball - that make the most impact plays. And the real issue for the Giants these past few years is that they just haven't had many impact players and when they did get one - Odell, Saquon - they got hurt. And that doesn't count earlier in the decade with Nicks, Cruz, and JPP. That just maybe more star power than the rest of the league lost collectively.
But I digress. Going forward there is potential at the skill positions in Saquon, Toney, WanDale and Golladay, although I'd love to have a legit #1 receiver with the speed to take the top off defenses. And on the other side there is legit potential that guys like Thibo, Az, and Leo Williams can give you a disruptive pass rush that's not asking Nick Lalos to be the next coming of LT.
But again its why we play the games.
And this with a QB on a rookie deal, no less. Where does all that money go? (rhetorical...)