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)?
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 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).
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?
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...
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.
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.
If you want to accurately inform current decisions look out over the current NFL landscape.
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.
Story of the past 4 years.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
In comment 15733775 NYDCBlue said:
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.
In comment 15733845 Debaser said:
In comment 15733813 bluepepper said:
In comment 15733883 AcidTest said:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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!
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!
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
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.
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.
I wonder if their respective teams had anything to do with it?
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 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?
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?