Can Saquon have a season comparable to 2004 Tiki Barber?

if he's healthy, with an improved O-Line and competence at play calling and the design of the offense, he can out produce 2004 Tiki.

Worth a big contract? I'd be wary due to how consistently injured he has been.

Certainly sounds like he is going to be used more like he was in college with regards to getting him in space and out from behind the qb more often. This i like.

Fingers crossed we have this 'dilema' at the end of the year.

Maybe not the way you specified but 2000+ total yards 15 TDs. If he did that again in whatever way another contract would be on the table. Whether Schoen signs him I don’t know but he’ll have to be considering it.

given to Saquon no matter how they use him. He may wear down slower based on how you hypothesize him gaining yards, but it will still nevertheless happen.

Why not just scout and draft another RB that fits that type of scheme if it's what you want to run? He would be younger, presumably last longer and be paid a lot less...

I hope he does. Frankly I hope our offense goes from bottom 5 to top 5 this fucking season. LFG

.

Saquon has a long way to go based upon his health and if he is ever going to be the same. How about we get a full season out of him and he plays above the league average for position. Let’s start there instead of pie in the sky BS.

play 15 games out of 17 at full strength. That would be a huge step forward.

I highly doubt he has 1200 receiving yards, let alone 1000. Rushing for 1000 may be a stretch. I’m as hopeful and optimistic a fan as many here but those numbers you projected are a little too good to be true.

Even if he rushes for 1200 and catches 800 yards, I still don’t think he’s worth a mega-deal. Not at the RB position. You can get similar production for a much lesser cost and spend your money elsewhere to have a better shot at sustained success.

this is a product of the Buff offensive scheme

If he stays healthy then yes, he should be able to get 2k total yds

In comment 15733707 BLUATHRT said:

Quote:

if he's healthy, with an improved O-Line and competence at play calling and the design of the offense, he can out produce 2004 Tiki.

No, it wasn't

Quote:

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)?

No. I don't think there's a scenario where paying Barkley makes sense. Look around the league - who's happy to be paying a running back big money? Nobody. If he had a big year and sometime else is dumb enough to pay him, fine.

And personally I don't think Barkley is anywhere close to Tiki as a player. Not close at all.

To give a big contract to a 5 th year off injured running back. If he has a big season and team has a good year, it might be tempting to do so, but it s kind of risky

There is very little he can do this year that would make it make sense for him to get a second contract. (Assuming he's looking for a big, multi year payday, which is almost assuredly is)

Is there an example of a big second contract to a RB that worked out? I doubt the cowboys are happy with Zeke at a 16 mil cap hit this year. I know I wouldn't want to be committed to giving Kamara 40 million over the next 3 years. Even if you look at a true receiving threat in CMC is going to be an albatross contract in the next few years as he's owed nearly 50 million over the next 3 years, and can't stay healthy.

Saquon has been injured, including very major injuries, and has been a top 6 cap hit at his position for every year. To give him even more money, and extend him into his late 20s (he'll be 26 this time next year) just doesn't make sense in almost any situation.

The absolute best case scenario for Saquon is to be able to move him sometime between now and the trade deadline for a 3rd rounder and change, or a maybe a 2nd rounder if we are truly lucky.

The question is can Saquon stay healthy for a season?

And keep in mind how important position value is to Schoen ( one of the first things he mentioned). The ONLY way he might consider it, is if Saquon is more of a RB/WR by years end. If he is a vital cog in the Passing attack, then maybe.
But just as a RB? Regardless of his numbers, no way.

In comment 15733707 BLUATHRT said:

Quote:

if he's healthy, with an improved O-Line and competence at play calling and the design of the offense, he can out produce 2004 Tiki.

Saquons Rookie year was not better than Tiki's 2004-2005 years

Saquon 1,307 Rushing, 721 Rec, Total 2028 yards, Total TDs 15

2004 Tiki 1,518 Rushing, 578 Rec, Total 2096, Total TDs 15 TDs
2005 Tiki 1,860 Rushing, 530 Rec, Total 2,390, Total TDs 11

Tiki could also block and lost a lot of TDs to Brandon Jacobs near the goal line. Jacobs only ran for 99 yards total in 2005 and scored 7 TDs and ran for 423 yards in 2006 and scored 9 TDs. Wayne Gallman only had 1 TD in 2018 with Saquon.

To the original post, If he puts up his rookie numbers again he will earn a 2nd contract here. He is the face of the franchise and is a good kid. If he remains healthy he will dominate in this O because he will be out in space. Running between the tackles on a regular basis he is an average player. If you look at the Coughlin effect on Tiki and the increase in productivity I am hoping for a similar outlook for Saquon. Saquons rookie year was with Shurmur, the last 2 years with Garrett everyone underperformed. You can hear the O players mentioning it. Its going to be a different wide open O that puts up big numbers.

In comment 15733743 Go Terps said:

Quote:

Quote: 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)? No. I don't think there's a scenario where paying Barkley makes sense. Look around the league - who's happy to be paying a running back big money? Nobody. If he had a big year and sometime else is dumb enough to pay him, fine. And personally I don't think Barkley is anywhere close to Tiki as a player. Not close at all.

"Not close at all"... you have to stop hating so hard on players on the team you "love".... After Tiki Barber's first 4/5 years in the NFL, by your own logic, you would argue against paying him but looking back at Tiki's career, he is exactly the type of RB that would have 10000000% warranted a 2nd contract because he did most of his damage on the back 9 of his career, Barkley could very well do the same. If he has a big, big year as he is absolutely capable of then I would hope NYG does what's right and locks him up for the next 4 to 5 years... not close to Tiki as a player at all... lol come on, now your being ridiculous, Saquon is the best/most talented RB we have had since Tiki and his skill set is absolutely comparable, did you forget Saquon had 2000 yards in his first season?

We need to stop referring to 2018 as if it is a reasonable reference for his current play. We are talking about a season that was 4 years, and 21 missed games (due to injury) ago.

I thought he was overrated his rookie year, and I think he is mostly washed up now.

Even still, I do expect him to put more than 800 yards on a 17 game season. And I also think you are vastly overrating him as a receiver. There is no way he comes close to sniffing 1200 yards. Maybe 800, depending on how the offense is constructed.

Hope I’m terribly wrong. And, if he does he is still not worthy of a huge contract and hopefully the powers that be, excluding Mara think so too as RB is not where you dump huge contracts

the judgement on how good Barkley was as a rookie. Its ok to think Barkley wasn't worth the #2 pick while also admitting he put the team on his back as a rookie, and did so behind a terrible line. Does a single 2018 OL start on the 2004 team?

Reading these all or nothing posts is mind numbing.

that particular bad 2018 team on his back four years ago?

They have little to do with the player he is today and what he will be over his next contract period.

last year is likely what we're going to get this year. Maybe slight improvement. Once the injuries start and guys struggle they rarely come all the way back. People like to say it takes 2 seasons to come back from such and such injury but in most cases when guys come back at lesser levels, that's it, that's what the guy is now.

if he does not get a contract.

He carried that team into the playoffs on his back. If Barkley were to ascend to that level in 2022, retaining him at market price would of course be appealing, as long as the contract was structured to prevent long-term cap damage if he were to revert to his mean level of performance and availability.

Here’s the problem: Barkley isn’t that player, and probably never will be. He lacks the vision or - despite the extra thirty pounds of muscle - the toughness. He can’t block and (with obvious caveats about the terrible line) doesn’t move the chains. Granted, nobody anticipated Barber becoming that player either, when he was Barkley’s age. But that’s because it’s so rare for a RB to elevate his game so far into his career. There’s little reason to think Barkley will be the next Tiki / Faulk.

One important edge Barkley has over mid-career Tiki: ball security. So, if Saquon approaches Tiki’s 2005 level in his many areas of deficiency, he will be a nearly perfect player, and well worth retaining. Also, if Barkley has to carry Jones the way Tiki carried Eli for most of three years, the team will move on from DJ to Taylor and a rookie, making the new, improved, imaginary Barkley more affordable.

If he makes it through this season what are the odds he misses significant time in at least two of the next five years? And isn’t himself one or more seasons due to recovery. In todays NFL they can find a much cheaper compliment to the offense and have extra rbs who can step in.

In comment 15733707 BLUATHRT said:

Quote:

Saquons rookie year was better than Tiki 2004

I really believe this is a case of recency bias.

In comment 15733715 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

given to Saquon no matter how they use him. He may wear down slower based on how you hypothesize him gaining yards, but it will still nevertheless happen. Why not just scout and draft another RB that fits that type of scheme if it's what you want to run? He would be younger, presumably last longer and be paid a lot less...

ARe we sure about that? If Barkley shows he's healthy and dangerous this season, he would be entering his 2nd contract 2 years removed from that injury and (theoretically) coming off a big season. How many career touches? LEt's be fair and give him 350 touches in 2022 which is a lot, but for the sake of debate why not...


Barkley would be at around 900 rushes (giving him 260 or so in 22) and about 350 receiving targets.

Again, HUGE if that he rumbles fully healthy all year but if he did, are we sure Barkley would be entering a diminishing returns phase of his career? I'm not, but only if he has a big healthy 2022.

It's not like the guy would be rounding into 2000 touches.

In comment 15733766 90.Cal said:

Quote:

In comment 15733743 Go Terps said: Quote: Quote: 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)? No. I don't think there's a scenario where paying Barkley makes sense. Look around the league - who's happy to be paying a running back big money? Nobody. If he had a big year and sometime else is dumb enough to pay him, fine. And personally I don't think Barkley is anywhere close to Tiki as a player. Not close at all. "Not close at all"... you have to stop hating so hard on players on the team you "love".... After Tiki Barber's first 4/5 years in the NFL, by your own logic, you would argue against paying him but looking back at Tiki's career, he is exactly the type of RB that would have 10000000% warranted a 2nd contract because he did most of his damage on the back 9 of his career, Barkley could very well do the same. If he has a big, big year as he is absolutely capable of then I would hope NYG does what's right and locks him up for the next 4 to 5 years... not close to Tiki as a player at all... lol come on, now your being ridiculous, Saquon is the best/most talented RB we have had since Tiki and his skill set is absolutely comparable, did you forget Saquon had 2000 yards in his first season?

Did you forget the offense sucked anyway that year?

It took almost 400 plays to get Barkley those 2000 yards. And a big portion of that was 6 yard check downs on 3rd and 9.

Running an offense through the running back is inefficient. Paying running backs is inefficient. Paying running backs with injury histories is worse than inefficient; it's foolish.

Schoen had publicly indicates his awareness of positional value in the modern NFL. Even if Barkley is converted full time to a slot receiver (seems unlikely with Toney, Shepard, Robinson, and James on the roster) it still won't make sense to pay him: slot receiver isn't a premium position.

There just aren't realistic avenues to Barkley being paid here.

With his injury history, his trade value is very low at this time. With an improved O-Line and if he says healthy, maybe we can trade Barkley for a 2nd or 3rd round pick in 2023 NFL Draft.

Injuries will occur on Superbowl contending rosters. I'm hoping for a big first half from Barkley to be able to then trade him to a contender who will need a RB.

No way Saquon repeats that year with DJ

Not sure about this but I think his rookie contract had him paid among the top,5 RBs at that time. I don’t know if he still among the top 5 but there’s nothing in his career here to support his being paid as a top RB. I’m guessing he want a a pay raise like most and doubt he would accept a pay cut to stay here. So, even he has a big year, I just don’t see him returning next year under any circumstances.

Not sure about comparing him to Tiki. He has not been on anything close to a winning team here which is the most important metric.

hope Saquon has a great year. We all do. But regardless of how well he plays, I don't see the Giants offering him a second contract. If he plays well, someone else will simply offer him a lot more than the Giants are willing to pay. This is likely his last year with the Giants. Same for Jones.

His talent has never been in question. What is in question is his health and his mindset.

I hope he has a monster season because it helps the team win and I would like to see him succeed because he seems like a good guy. But there is no scenario I would entertain than ends in giving him a huge contract based on his rookie season and current season and ignores the three years in-between which were all huge disappointments.

As mentioned above, what team has ever signed a RB to a huge contract and the deal aged well for them? Asked another way, if Barkley has a poor year and he moves on, what RB would you hope hits the free agent market that you would love to see the Giants offer a huge contract?

The Giants brought back Jason Whittle (a.k.a. Patrick Swayze Jr.) to fill a gaping hole at left guard after Barry Stokes was injured. Snee was a rookie, and missed five games with a bizarre growth in his neck. O’Hara missed four games too, so Wayne Lucier had to fill in at center and guard. Luke Petitgout never regained his 2002 form at left tackle after his back problems started. Diehl was a decent RT, but McKenzie was a huge upgrade the next year. The TEs blocked well, when Shockey’s heart was in it.

We need to stop this already. He is not a good receiver. He drops passes a lot. Mike Glennon would not throw to him. When a guy who has no respect from teammates ; coaches; the owner and front office -- and who by the looks of things isn't in the league any more--when that guy turns his nose up to throwing at you..... Enough said.

So many times people have thrown out "91 receptions!" as some kind of trump card proving Barkley is a great receiver, and they ignore how many of those were short dumpoffs that accomplished little. How many times did he catch a ball for five yards or so on third and long? Quite a few.

In comment 15733766 90.Cal said:

Quote:

In comment 15733743 Go Terps said: Quote: Quote: 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)? No. I don't think there's a scenario where paying Barkley makes sense. Look around the league - who's happy to be paying a running back big money? Nobody. If he had a big year and sometime else is dumb enough to pay him, fine. And personally I don't think Barkley is anywhere close to Tiki as a player. Not close at all. "Not close at all"... you have to stop hating so hard on players on the team you "love".... After Tiki Barber's first 4/5 years in the NFL, by your own logic, you would argue against paying him but looking back at Tiki's career, he is exactly the type of RB that would have 10000000% warranted a 2nd contract because he did most of his damage on the back 9 of his career, Barkley could very well do the same. If he has a big, big year as he is absolutely capable of then I would hope NYG does what's right and locks him up for the next 4 to 5 years... not close to Tiki as a player at all... lol come on, now your being ridiculous, Saquon is the best/most talented RB we have had since Tiki and his skill set is absolutely comparable, did you forget Saquon had 2000 yards in his first season?

That s actually a good pt about Tiki that I had not considered. It gives one pause for reflection where a second contract for Saquon is concerned should he have a really good season

The Giants averaged 134 yards/game. 4.4 aver.

After he left in 2007 Giants 135/game. 4.6 aver. In 2008 they led the league at 159 yards/game.

Giants should focus on building the OL where just solid backs can succeed.

I agree with those saying do not entertain signing SB to a long term contract. Based on how he does and where the cap is I'd consider the tag.

SB was drafted to carry the load his first contract. That time has passed imv.

when and if Barkley makes it to the bye week.

In comment 15733783 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

the judgement on how good Barkley was as a rookie. Its ok to think Barkley wasn't worth the #2 pick while also admitting he put the team on his back as a rookie, and did so behind a terrible line. Does a single 2018 OL start on the 2004 team? Reading these all or nothing posts is mind numbing.

Barkley was very good in 2018. He was also very bad in 2019, 2020 and 2021, mostly due to injuries and a clear difference in how he runs.

I think too many people on this site are picking one or the other to project 2022 when the actual will probably be somewhere in between (assuming he stays healthy which is a huge assumption).

To the OP's question, I don't know why you would ever consider offering a RB with one huge year, 3 disappointing years, and one bounce back year a huge contract in free agency. If he was not already a Giant nobody would even consider signing him to that. You can't overvalue your own players based on "he's a great guy!"

and that is vis a vis whether he is viewed as a running back or a wide receiver.

If Wan Dale Robinson put up those kind of numbers with a combination skewed to the pass - most of you guys would be all for a second contract.

I don't know if Saquon will last through the season -- but if he has more passes caught than runs he is really a hybrid and nod not really a RB - as a hybrid WR he may be a different animal -- but one would think that as a hybrid WR he would be worth a second contract if he puts up pro-bowl numbers comparable to Tiki Barber

In comment 15733849 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

So many times people have thrown out "91 receptions!" as some kind of trump card proving Barkley is a great receiver, and they ignore how many of those were short dumpoffs that accomplished little. How many times did he catch a ball for five yards or so on third and long? Quite a few.

And how many of those ended with him gingerly stepping out of bounds short of the marker?

I want to see him start playing with some heart this year. Watching him try and avoid contact on every touch (and every pass pro) is frustrating as hell.

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.

For Schoen

I think the worst thing that could happen is they give him the 6yr/$90m Zeke Elliot type deal.

Which would have been alot less than what Tiki averaged per year from 2002-2006

I would have coached the hell out of Barkley to avoid contact and step out of bounds. I also would have had a specialized bruising short yardage back and a specialized 3rd down back to put him on a pitch count rather than Shumer's brilliant "lets bench him when he's doing well against a hated division rival" strategy.

Don't think of Barkley as a workhorse, or short yardage or receiving back although he does all well and probably better than 98% of the backs in the league. He was most valuable as your "1st and 10 back who can break an 80 yard TD with any touch" back.

have drafted Nelson. My understanding is that there were people in the draft room who wanted to do so, but DG had been completely locked in on SB for months. "They took Mayfield. We're taking Saquon, end of discussion."

Allen of course would have been another good option, especially since Eli was done. Thinking that we could still compete with Eli at that point was a huge mistake by the FO, but Nelson would have helped him a lot more than SB. The Giants instead drafted Lauletta, who had no chance of succeeding Eli, and did so a year after drafting Webb.

In comment 15733883 AcidTest said:

Quote:

have drafted Nelson. My understanding is that there were people in the draft room who wanted to do so, but DG had been completely locked in on SB for months. "They took Mayfield. We're taking Saquon, end of discussion." Allen of course would have been another good option, especially since Eli was done. Thinking that we could still compete with Eli at that point was a huge mistake by the FO, but Nelson would have helped him a lot more than SB. The Giants instead drafted Lauletta, who had no chance of succeeding Eli, and did so a year after drafting Webb.

How many years have gone by now since Eli was benched? And what is the most amount of games the Giants have won in a single season since his benching? And how many of these years when they should moved on from him did he only put up garbage stats like 11 TDs a season?

I wonder how many more years will go by before people realize "maybe Eli was not the problem with this team".

First half, he racked up a lot of receiving yards. Second half had a lot of rushing yards. I think that had a lot to do with refocusing the offense to get away from Barkley’s weakness of rushing inside. You may recall Shurmur and Shula commenting on trying to get him to stop dancing and just hit the hole. I don’t think he was ever cured of that but they adjusted the offense to emphasize his strengths and avoid his weaknesses. This coaching staff probably recognizes his limitations and will design the offense accordingly.

However, back to the issue. No way does Barkley get a multiyear contract immediately, regardless of the season he has. If he doesn’t have a good season or misses more than one or two games, there will be no contract offer (maybe a token offer). If he has a good to great season and doesn’t miss time, he may get the franchise tag to prove the year wasn’t a fluke. If he accepts the tag, they may negotiate a multiyear deal. Only way he gets a multiyear deal without a franchise tag is if Barkley himself offers to take a prove-it deal. It is pointless to argue about multipurpose yards since he could set the all-time record and he still will be in the same situation.

I agree, this 2nd contract for Barkley talk is basically boredom filler. Schoen doesn't strike me as the type of GM salivating at the thought of giving a big money deal to an injury prone skill position player no matter how good the contract year season is. I can see a modest offer with low guarantees, that's about it. This monster deal isn't happening here.

It is hard to justify a multiple year, top dollar, contract for an RB, regardless of age.

The conversation is impossible to dive into without hypothetical contract terms.

No matter the season he has, I can't see him getting Zeke and Kamara money. I would assume average would be around $12-13m at best.

My appetite for a deal would be dependent on where the franchise goes with QB (DJ vs vet vs rookie).

In comment 15733826 djm said:

Quote:

In comment 15733715 Jimmy Googs said: Quote: given to Saquon no matter how they use him. He may wear down slower based on how you hypothesize him gaining yards, but it will still nevertheless happen. Why not just scout and draft another RB that fits that type of scheme if it's what you want to run? He would be younger, presumably last longer and be paid a lot less... ARe we sure about that? If Barkley shows he's healthy and dangerous this season, he would be entering his 2nd contract 2 years removed from that injury and (theoretically) coming off a big season. How many career touches? LEt's be fair and give him 350 touches in 2022 which is a lot, but for the sake of debate why not... Barkley would be at around 900 rushes (giving him 260 or so in 22) and about 350 receiving targets. Again, HUGE if that he rumbles fully healthy all year but if he did, are we sure Barkley would be entering a diminishing returns phase of his career? I'm not, but only if he has a big healthy 2022. It's not like the guy would be rounding into 2000 touches.

I didn't make some kind of certainty that he would fall off a cliff and die on the field, but I think it's pretty damn logical to believe that he will be in decline over a second contract.

Besides, but for some rare chance he isn't in decline, why would you ever pay MORE money for a running back that hasn't played well for years now and is oft-injured? Go find another RB in the next draft that has some decent speed and good hands...are the college ranks running out of them?

The goal here in NY is to actually start making better player evaluation and contract decisions....right?

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.

Good lord...we are rooting for the Giants not to fail due to poor player eval decisions.

Your post makes it feel like taking a risk on Saquon is more important than that actually happening...

In comment 15733836 uther99 said:

Quote:

No way Saquon repeats that year with DJ

Excellent point. Eli was the master at getting his offense into good plays. I've pointed out in the past how much worse Barkley's numbers are without Eli to set the protections and do line checks for him.

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.

He has already failed. No new contract no matter what. Big long term contracts for veteran running backs don't work. If he has a big year, happily take the draft pick and let him go plague some other organization like he has this one for the last four years.

Using past players to inform decisions on current players is deeply flawed, and is something I am certain Schoen is not doing. 2004 does not apply to 2023. Barkley is not Tiki.

If you want to accurately inform current decisions look out over the current NFL landscape.

In comment 15733876 90.Cal said:

Quote:

Stop rooting for Saquon to fail... thats what it feels like is going on at least.

No one is rooting for Barkley to fail. We are observing that he has failed to be a key part of a high functioning NFL offense.

We are rooting for the Giants to be winners. They aren't going to be winners by paying second contracts to the likes of Saquon Barkley. Schoen sounds like he understands that, so get ready to say goodbye.

In comment 15733883 AcidTest said:

Quote:

Should have drafted Nelson.

Story of the past 4 years.

They have delivered the worst Giants football many of us have seen in our lives.

Who cares if Barkley is a Giant? He is a nobody in Giants' history. Absolutely forgettable player.

Let's move on from this nightmare already.

In comment 15733707 BLUATHRT said:

Quote:

if he's healthy, with an improved O-Line and competence at play calling and the design of the offense, he can out produce 2004 Tiki.

The hell it was. Saquon had a great rookie year, but he had less TDs, less rushing yards, less total yards, less games with 100 yards rushing and less yards per reception (by a lot) than Tiki did in 2004.

Based on that, how was it better overall? Because Saquon had 0.3 more yards per carry?!? Saying his 2018 was better than Tiki's 2004 does Tiki a big disservice.

Good, bad, great, lousy, it doesn't matter: they should either make him the highest paid non-QB in the league or give him a 10% stake in ownership. Why? Just as a big fuck you to all the assholes on BBI who think it's wise to treat human beings as nothing but a commodity.

If a player produces for you, you pay him. Plain and simple. It's the right message for the locker room. If he asks for more than his anticipated free market value, that's a different story. You can either tag him or let him test the market. But there's such a thing as the right thing to do. And because it's the right thing to do, it's also the smart business decision. Loyalty is something that's earned and you don't earn it by treating your players like nothing more than assets to be exploited and then disposed of.

In comment 15733921 NYDCBlue said:

Quote:

In comment 15733836 uther99 said: Quote: No way Saquon repeats that year with DJ Excellent point. Eli was the master at getting his offense into good plays. I've pointed out in the past how much worse Barkley's numbers are without Eli to set the protections and do line checks for him.

No skilled player has done better away from Eli.

In comment 15733940 sb from NYT Forum said:

Quote:

In comment 15733707 BLUATHRT said: Quote: if he's healthy, with an improved O-Line and competence at play calling and the design of the offense, he can out produce 2004 Tiki. The hell it was. Saquon had a great rookie year, but he had less TDs, less rushing yards, less total yards, less games with 100 yards rushing and less yards per reception (by a lot) than Tiki did in 2004. Based on that, how was it better overall? Because Saquon had 0.3 more yards per carry?!? Saying his 2018 was better than Tiki's 2004 does Tiki a big disservice.

It's probably recency and "highlight plays". You can watch video on Tiki's 2004 season. It's a master class.

In comment 15733961 Milton said:

Quote:

Good, bad, great, lousy, it doesn't matter: they should either make him the highest paid non-QB in the league or give him a 10% stake in ownership. Why? Just as a big fuck you to all the assholes on BBI who think it's wise to treat human beings as nothing but a commodity. If a player produces for you, you pay him. Plain and simple. It's the right message for the locker room. If he asks for more than his anticipated free market value, that's a different story. You can either tag him or let him test the market. But there's such a thing as the right thing to do. And because it's the right thing to do, it's also the smart business decision. Loyalty is something that's earned and you don't earn it by treating your players like nothing more than assets to be exploited and then disposed of.

An object lesson on how to run a shitty football team.

In comment 15733961 Milton said:

Quote:

Good, bad, great, lousy, it doesn't matter: they should either make him the highest paid non-QB in the league or give him a 10% stake in ownership. Why? Just as a big fuck you to all the assholes on BBI who think it's wise to treat human beings as nothing but a commodity. If a player produces for you, you pay him. Plain and simple. It's the right message for the locker room. If he asks for more than his anticipated free market value, that's a different story. You can either tag him or let him test the market. But there's such a thing as the right thing to do. And because it's the right thing to do, it's also the smart business decision. Loyalty is something that's earned and you don't earn it by treating your players like nothing more than assets to be exploited and then disposed of.

Absolutely fine giving him a 10% stake in Ownership if it means he doesn't get a second contract...

If the OL gells I think he can. It was lousy OLs when he wasn't injured.

In comment 15733961 Milton said:

Quote:

Good, bad, great, lousy, it doesn't matter: they should either make him the highest paid non-QB in the league or give him a 10% stake in ownership. Why? Just as a big fuck you to all the assholes on BBI who think it's wise to treat human beings as nothing but a commodity. If a player produces for you, you pay him. Plain and simple. It's the right message for the locker room. If he asks for more than his anticipated free market value, that's a different story. You can either tag him or let him test the market. But there's such a thing as the right thing to do. And because it's the right thing to do, it's also the smart business decision. Loyalty is something that's earned and you don't earn it by treating your players like nothing more than assets to be exploited and then disposed of.

There's a salary cap to manage. You really can't operate this way. The league is forcing you to make hard choices. It's by design.

Yeah he made GREAT OLs look horrible in the last couple years. LMAO. This is usually when I hear "Gallman had no trouble behind the same OL in 2020. Same OL except 4 different. LOL

In comment 15733775 NYDCBlue said:

Quote:

I thought he was overrated his rookie year, and I think he is mostly washed up now. Even still, I do expect him to put more than 800 yards on a 17 game season. And I also think you are vastly overrating him as a receiver. There is no way he comes close to sniffing 1200 yards. Maybe 800, depending on how the offense is constructed.

Saquon has 15 drops in a 4 year career. He does not drop a lot of passes. Absurd claim.


In comment 15733845 Debaser said:

Quote:

We need to stop this already. He is not a good receiver. He drops passes a lot. Mike Glennon would not throw to him. When a guy who has no respect from teammates ; coaches; the owner and front office -- and who by the looks of things isn't in the league any more--when that guy turns his nose up to throwing at you..... Enough said.

Yeah the offensive lines really have very little to do with the running game, or pass protection...it turns out. Once you sour on a guy for what his GM did.


In comment 15733813 bluepepper said:

Quote:

last year is likely what we're going to get this year. Maybe slight improvement. Once the injuries start and guys struggle they rarely come all the way back. People like to say it takes 2 seasons to come back from such and such injury but in most cases when guys come back at lesser levels, that's it, that's what the guy is now.

I don't disagree, but we only had one playmaker on the roster in OBJ. I think that influenced him.


In comment 15733883 AcidTest said:

Quote:

have drafted Nelson. My understanding is that there were people in the draft room who wanted to do so, but DG had been completely locked in on SB for months. "They took Mayfield. We're taking Saquon, end of discussion." Allen of course would have been another good option, especially since Eli was done. Thinking that we could still compete with Eli at that point was a huge mistake by the FO, but Nelson would have helped him a lot more than SB. The Giants instead drafted Lauletta, who had no chance of succeeding Eli, and did so a year after drafting Webb.

we won't have to have these conversations about Barkley and Jones for much longer.

Barkley doesn't have a weakness running inside if there's somebody in there blocking and not getting dumped back into him as he takes the handoff. He's not Brandon Jacobs. It would be nice to see SOME holes rather than just creases for someone to stick their nose into and plow for 2-3 yards.

I think Dabe's offense is an inside and outside zone blocking scheme which can be very helpful if these inside guys can move somebody.


In comment 15733891 Ivan15 said:

Quote:

First half, he racked up a lot of receiving yards. Second half had a lot of rushing yards. I think that had a lot to do with refocusing the offense to get away from Barkley’s weakness of rushing inside. You may recall Shurmur and Shula commenting on trying to get him to stop dancing and just hit the hole. I don’t think he was ever cured of that but they adjusted the offense to emphasize his strengths and avoid his weaknesses. This coaching staff probably recognizes his limitations and will design the offense accordingly. However, back to the issue. No way does Barkley get a multiyear contract immediately, regardless of the season he has. If he doesn’t have a good season or misses more than one or two games, there will be no contract offer (maybe a token offer). If he has a good to great season and doesn’t miss time, he may get the franchise tag to prove the year wasn’t a fluke. If he accepts the tag, they may negotiate a multiyear deal. Only way he gets a multiyear deal without a franchise tag is if Barkley himself offers to take a prove-it deal. It is pointless to argue about multipurpose yards since he could set the all-time record and he still will be in the same situation.

The question to me is more can Barkley have a season like 2005 Barber.

Can he be a needle mover on the ground, and help open up the field for the passing game.

And can he do that as part of an offense that's actually good.

Barkley compiling stats on a bunch of touches on a shitty offense isn't the goal.

In comment 15733961 Milton said:

Quote:

Good, bad, great, lousy, it doesn't matter: they should either make him the highest paid non-QB in the league or give him a 10% stake in ownership. Why? Just as a big fuck you to all the assholes on BBI who think it's wise to treat human beings as nothing but a commodity. If a player produces for you, you pay him. Plain and simple. It's the right message for the locker room. If he asks for more than his anticipated free market value, that's a different story. You can either tag him or let him test the market. But there's such a thing as the right thing to do. And because it's the right thing to do, it's also the smart business decision. Loyalty is something that's earned and you don't earn it by treating your players like nothing more than assets to be exploited and then disposed of.

Who earning loyalty with who? The Giants are earning loyalty with Barkley? But what if he stinks and they don't want him on the team? He hasn't produced and, even if he had produced, he has already been well compensated for that production and it does not entitle him to future compensation (in reality he has been well compensated for no production to date). Perhaps he should offer to play for free this year to earn the loyalty back of the fans and the organization.

If you love Barkley so much, try to set him up with your sister or your daughter on a date. Just get him away from the Giants. He is football herpes.

In comment 15734004 widmerseyebrow said:

Quote:

we won't have to have these conversations about Barkley and Jones for much longer.

This.

Jones and Barkley were brought here by Dave Gettleman, a proven fool. Do we think Schoen is foolish enough to pay to retain these two players? I don't.

It's remarkable how many fans are like Milton and care about vague ideas like loyalty and are so happy to ignore wins and losses.

Gettleman didn't fuck everything else up and get Barkley right. That was a fuckup too.

And no one in the locker room is going to give a shit when Barkley is gone. The guys that played with him are going right out with him.

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!"

In comment 15733961 Milton said:

Quote:

Good, bad, great, lousy, it doesn't matter: they should either make him the highest paid non-QB in the league or give him a 10% stake in ownership. Why? Just as a big fuck you to all the assholes on BBI who think it's wise to treat human beings as nothing but a commodity. If a player produces for you, you pay him. Plain and simple. It's the right message for the locker room. If he asks for more than his anticipated free market value, that's a different story. You can either tag him or let him test the market. But there's such a thing as the right thing to do. And because it's the right thing to do, it's also the smart business decision. Loyalty is something that's earned and you don't earn it by treating your players like nothing more than assets to be exploited and then disposed of.

If Milton was a girl he would always be in a family way. He just can't say no.

It's a shame anyone in football gets cut or loses their job, but that is reality if you want to win. Or you can lose and just have a happy group!

In comment 15733961 Milton said:

Quote:

Good, bad, great, lousy, it doesn't matter: they should either make him the highest paid non-QB in the league or give him a 10% stake in ownership. Why? Just as a big fuck you to all the assholes on BBI who think it's wise to treat human beings as nothing but a commodity. If a player produces for you, you pay him. Plain and simple. It's the right message for the locker room. If he asks for more than his anticipated free market value, that's a different story. You can either tag him or let him test the market. But there's such a thing as the right thing to do. And because it's the right thing to do, it's also the smart business decision. Loyalty is something that's earned and you don't earn it by treating your players like nothing more than assets to be exploited and then disposed of.

The Giants already made Saquon a multi-millionaire. Otherwise, great post!

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

In comment 15733849 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

So many times people have thrown out "91 receptions!" as some kind of trump card proving Barkley is a great receiver, and they ignore how many of those were short dumpoffs that accomplished little. How many times did he catch a ball for five yards or so on third and long? Quite a few.

Barkley's season in 2018 was a mirage, definitely. Wasn't nearly as great as people make it out to be. He was - at best - a good fantasy player.

2018 Barkley was at least passable as a pass blocker. Hope he can at least get that back.

A fundamental truth remains: a play to Barkley (5.4) averaged fewer yards than the league average play that year (5.6).

Building the offense around getting Barkley the ball was inefficient, and that is likely to be the most productive season of his career. Schoen and Daboll seem to understand this, as evidenced by their apparent desire to center the offense on passing the ball and generating WR separation and YAC.

and a stat everyone should bow to. In 2004 the #1 offense in the NFL (Colts) had an average play of 6.7 yards (the exact same league high as in 2018) with Edgerrin James getting 5.3 yards per touch (half a yard less than Barkley).

I wonder if their respective teams had anything to do with it?

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.

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.

I don't recall him playing for the team lately. Do any of you?

In comment 15734096 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

and a stat everyone should bow to. In 2004 the #1 offense in the NFL (Colts) had an average play of 6.7 yards (the exact same league high as in 2018) with Edgerrin James getting 5.3 yards per touch (half a yard less than Barkley). I wonder if their respective teams had anything to do with it?

The point is that Barkley shouldn't be a focal point of the offense. He had the best year of his career in 2018, he was absolutely the focus of the offense, and the offense was poor as a result.

I don't know what Edgerrin James has to do with any of this (what's with BBI's obsession with irrelevant player comps?), but if he were playing for the Giants today I wouldn't want to pay him a second contract. And Edge James was twice the player Barkley is. James could actually be trusted to pick up a blitz.

Paying running backs doesn't make sense in 2022. The proof of this is overwhelmingly visible around the league.

When Barkley signs with another team in a few months his departure will barely register. Who cares?

in that season he was less effective than Barkley in 2018 on a per play basis, something you just quoted as the gold standard stat we should all abide by. James, in the #1 offense in the league in 2004, was even less effective on a per play basis. Fairly simple logic to follow here. There’s no obsession in my post, just refuting this stat that you keep posting, citing 3 examples to show why it’s just a stat, and not an indicator of how well the offense will or won’t be if it’s under the league average.

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?

When I ask "Who cares?" I am asking that about the prospect of Barkley leaving the Giants. When he leaves it will be a non story. The only relevant point of discussion will be the colossal waste of the second overall pick in the draft. Barkley will be a cautionary tale in Giants history, little more.

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.

He is afraid of contact, dances around too much and injury prone. On top of that he can’t pass block so I’m sure Daboll will realize he is a liability on the field on 3rd downs.

In comment 15734123 Mike from Ohio said:

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

In comment 15734166 joeinpa said:

Quote:

In comment 15734123 Mike from Ohio said: 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

Quote:

My point was it took Phil 5 years to become the quarterback he was, and that the same could happen for Daniel.

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.

Good Lord.

In comment 15734181 SFGFNCGiantsFan said:

Quote:

Good Lord.

It was 40 years ago. I dont get it.

If Daniel Jones tore his ACL next week, would you want him back in 2023?

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.

I was simply replying to Mike about why I had made that analogy months ago

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?

Joe -- isn't the whole point of posting on a fan forum to debate with other fans what has/will happen and why?

Neither KC or Buff really featured RBs too much.

if they show in 2022 that they are the key to winning games I think the Giants will consider 2nd contracts for them. I think both would have to play at an All Pro level or they're gone.

In comment 15734174 Go Terps said:

Quote:

Milton wants to run the Giants like a mom and pop where performance is secondary to loyalty.

Nothing wrong with running it like a mom and pop, but my point wasn't that performance is secondary to loyalty, it was that performance should be rewarded with loyalty. That's how you get loyalty in return. In an ideal world it's a draft pick going into the last year of his contract that you're rewarding with an extension, not someone just days away from free agency. And I'm talking about the guys who practiced hard and produced on Sunday, not everyone who puts on a uniform.

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.

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.

The odds just aren't in Barkley's favor to be a difference maker in years 6+ of his career.

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.

In comment 15734329 joeinpa said:

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.

In comment 15734340 joeinpa said:

Quote:

In comment 15734329 joeinpa said: 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.

"Nothing wrong with running it like a mom and pop, but my point wasn't that performance is secondary to loyalty, it was that performance should be rewarded with loyalty."

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.

Stop and shop that can play like Kurt Warner?

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

Teams make investments in players, and if they don't get favorable returns on those investments they need to move on.

In comment 15734166 joeinpa said:

Quote:

In comment 15734123 Mike from Ohio said: 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).

" 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)."

in 1979.

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.

In comment 15734598 gidiefor 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).

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.

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

To Simms or Eli Manning's first few seasons is a simple one.

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.

In comment 15734949 gidiefor said:

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.

In comment 15735189 Go Terps said:

Quote:

In comment 15734949 gidiefor said: 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.

Goodness. One side of the debate is the evidence and observations of three years in the league and three years of college football.

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.

In comment 15735249 christian said:

Quote:

Goodness. One side of the debate is the evidence and observations of three years in the league and three years of college football. 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.

After all they're both football players and both human beings.

Why stop at Simms for Jones? Maybe he can be Tom Brady!

In comment 15734104 Ten Ton Hammer 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. 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.

I actually thinks that makes a second contract likely, since the RB isn't pricing themselves out just yet. Also, this was the era of bellcow RBs. Those days are gone, the RB position is treated differently these day.

In comment 15734957 Ten Ton Hammer said:

Quote:

To Simms or Eli Manning's first few seasons is a simple one. 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.

In comment 15735295 Go Terps said:

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're either being intentionally obtuse or argumentative.

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.

In comment 15735316 gidiefor said:

Quote:

In comment 15735295 Go Terps said: 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.

In comment 15734547 Klaatu said:

Quote:

Teams make investments in players, and if they don't get favorable returns on those investments they need to move on.

Yeah teams make investments in players and if the player doesn't produce the team will move on, but that doesn't equate to it being wise to treat players like commodities; because unlike soybeans, the players have a say in their pricetag and that price can be impacted by how you treat him and/or his teammates. Not only that, it will impact locker room morale, ergo it will show up on the field of the play.

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.

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.

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.

for an NFL franchise that can't dig itself out a hole each year despite spending every possible dollar under it's 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.

.

In comment 15735325 Klaatu said:

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.

In comment 15735328 NYGgolfer said:

Quote:

for an NFL franchise that can't dig itself out a hole each year despite spending every possible dollar under it's 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.

There's a reason I put quotation marks around the word disrespect.

In comment 15735330 Milton said:

Quote:

In comment 15735325 Klaatu said: 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?

Afternoon Milton, gidie et al: I normally would no longer bother to comment on threads like these; however, I am probably more guilty than anyone in raising the Simms-Jones comparison in the first place so I feel a little compelled to clear up a couple of things. In particular, I tend to forget that BBI just doesn’t do nuance well. When I originally raised the connection a couple of months ago in a GBN piece it was more a rhetorical question in the sense that I was saying that I was a little surprised – maybe even a little shocked – that the fan base, or at least an element of it, of a team that won 4 Super Bowls in the past 36 years with what were in essence late blooming QBs, would be so quick, so uncompromising, so determined to move on from a 3rd year guy, who at least from a purely statistical perspective, has been at least as productive, if not more so, than the two SB winners through their first three years.

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.

In comment 15735342 Klaatu said:

Quote:

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?

That was never the right thing to do.

it’s time to start watching other teams play each week.

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...

In comment 15735419 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

it’s time to start watching other teams play each week. 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.

Will agree that you can't just have what we have at QB and not have far more star players elsewhere and/or far less JAGs everywhere.

And this with a QB on a rookie deal, no less. Where does all that money go? (rhetorical...)