It will be a huge decision this offseason. We have so many holes on this roster can we afford to spend on a back who has broken down in the past but has looked terrific thus far?
Running backs are a dime a dozen in this league. And I still don’t think Barkley is a great player. Sorry, I’m sure I’ll be killed for saying that but as great as he sometimes plays there are games where he isn’t a factor. I think he’s a nice piece on a more complete team. But he’s too long in the tooth now to build around and when we tried (try) playing with him as the only playmaker he’s too easy to defend.
For me, it’s not even a close call. I said this summer, run him into the ground and either trade him or let him walk at the end of the season. I’m sticking with that and hope the Giants FO is too.
Long in the tooth? He's 25 years old! Next you're going to tell me how RBs age out faster in the NFL, I know all this.
A player of Barkley's caliber can play at a high level to 30 and likely beyond, though.
And move on from Jones. I think this regime is also thinking with that mindset and plan. Barkley is a playmaker and compared to deciding whether to extend Jones even at a discount rate, Barkley is by far the better short term value prop next 3-4 seasons even with injury risk.
You let Barkley go, you need to replace every single playmaker on offense. That will take years.
Yep, and using the tag once or twice if they're unable to strike a deal certainly figures to be available.
RE: I'd keep him, he's their engine currently and dynamic when healthy
We have severe cap issues and Barkley will be entering his 5th year already next year. And we have more important pieces to sign over Barkley, like Thomas. Franchise him, or trade him. RBs are a dime a dozen.
don't waste money on a RB that can be used at more critical positions.
A good, competent GM should be able to find a cadre of RBs that are at least 90% of what SB can do. And that is more than enough to be successful in today's game.
The strategic move is to trade SB by the deadline.
What does this even mean. I get that there may be more valid reasons for why you support this move. But what you stated doesn’t make sense to me.
He’s averaging 6 yards per carry, there’s only 8 other RB’s in the NFL averaging 90% of that. And you’re saying that a competent GM should be able to find a group of them? Are there no competent GM’s in the NFL?
Different metric? 317 rush yds on the season, there are 4 rb’s in the NFL at that mark. Catches? He has 13, 8 rb’s in the nfl have more than him.
This is the part I really don’t get, the Bills were not a free agency team, they drafted most of their best players.
Who is this special talent that we need to pay instead of saquon???
You really wanna go free agency shopping again instead of paying the guy we already have? Do we really think that will produce better results?
Christian Kirk, Kenny Golladay, Allen Robinson, dj chark, Michael Gallup, Odell have been the top free agents wr’s the past two years
You make these sweeping comments about what competent gm’s would do but it’s all theoretical, not based on the actual marketplace available to us. If we have to spend another top 3 pick on an RB next year while we have Tae Crowder, David Sills, and Bed Bredeson starting for us…
It doesn't matter where they come from. If Barkley can be used more in the pass game then you are not just getting a running back.
A game breaker from the RB position is going to touch the ball a lot.
I do the contract but with some safe guards for injury.
I get every reason not to sign him, and don't disagree with them and understand the risks.
However, I think he is the type of player that can make the team special. I think next year with a stronger, more experienced oline, drafting a few receivers, we can have a very strong offense with him.
At the end of the day, I want playmakers on the team.
But the NFL is adjusting, with only a few exceptions teams aren’t signing these guys to big deals. The franchise number is reasonable, play hardball on the contract and be willing to let him play on the tag. I think a tag and trade should be on the table as well but I’m not sure what kind of market he’d get. It would have to be mid season to a team trying to get over the hump for some hardware but if the giants are hovering around 500 by the deadline I don’t think they’ll move him.
If he keeps it up he’ll certainly deserve a new contract but what Barkley deserves isn’t necessarily in the best interest of the Giants.
Bringing Barkley back on a reasonable deal makes sense
For a number of reasons. At a minimum the Giants need to replace: QB, CB2, MLB, 2 WRs, at least one OL spot, TE. That’s not including adding depth at some positions. Every draft pick won’t produce right away, so why add RB to that list if we can get one that produces on a reasonable deal?
on a second contract for an RB given the needs at WR and OL. The $10-14M annually you’ll be paying Barkley (during his decline years) could be spend on an above average interior OL or a starting WR. You might even be able to get a pick for Barkley too in addition to not having to pay him.
so those concerns should be put to bed too. He will have mistakes, but he doesn't look to be the liability he's been the past couple of seasons in pass-pro.
so those concerns should be put to bed too. He will have mistakes, but he doesn't look to be the liability he's been the past couple of seasons in pass-pro.
I think his blocking issues are more technique than anything else. It’s not a lack of effort or will. It’s definitely improved
Many are saying you do not pay a RB that much money and are correct.
Barkley is more than a RB, he is a weapon.
Can you imagine him with Josh Allen or Patrick Mahomes in those dynamic offenses with those players he'd be with??? How do you defend SB in those offenses.
don't waste money on a RB that can be used at more critical positions.
A good, competent GM should be able to find a cadre of RBs that are at least 90% of what SB can do. And that is more than enough to be successful in today's game.
The strategic move is to trade SB by the deadline.
What does this even mean. I get that there may be more valid reasons for why you support this move. But what you stated doesn’t make sense to me.
He’s averaging 6 yards per carry, there’s only 8 other RB’s in the NFL averaging 90% of that. And you’re saying that a competent GM should be able to find a group of them? Are there no competent GM’s in the NFL?
Different metric? 317 rush yds on the season, there are 4 rb’s in the NFL at that mark. Catches? He has 13, 8 rb’s in the nfl have more than him.
This is the part I really don’t get, the Bills were not a free agency team, they drafted most of their best players.
Who is this special talent that we need to pay instead of saquon???
You really wanna go free agency shopping again instead of paying the guy we already have? Do we really think that will produce better results?
Christian Kirk, Kenny Golladay, Allen Robinson, dj chark, Michael Gallup, Odell have been the top free agents wr’s the past two years
You make these sweeping comments about what competent gm’s would do but it’s all theoretical, not based on the actual marketplace available to us. If we have to spend another top 3 pick on an RB next year while we have Tae Crowder, David Sills, and Bed Bredeson starting for us…
I will lose my shit, personally
Were my comments that difficult to process. It's the modern NFL.
It's not the '70s, '80s, '90s or early '00s where it was more traditional to have a bell-cow RB.
Today, you don't need a marquee RB to WIN in the NFL. How many examples do you need? Look at SB winners over the last 15 years - the Pats, Chiefs, Rams, Colts, Saints, Denver, Tampa Bay, Philly, etc. None of them had a high profile/HoF RB. Sure, Seattle won with Lynch, but that's an outlier.
Look, it's economics with the hard cap and the rules of the modern game. And those variables dictate it's more important to have a QB who can effectively execute a passing game and quality WRs. RB is the least important position on the offense. It's a relic position.
I wish it was a different way because I loved the smash-mouth era. But it's not. Adapt or die.
I would not let him go for anything less than a 3rd, which is likely what another team would get for compensatory pick. Draft equity is the only thing that will both cost control and improve the roster. That is the focus beyond developing what we have.
And let him show he can do it two seasons in a row while staying healthy. Then if he’s that great after 2023, they can try to work out a deal. They should have the cap space next season to franchise him without it crippling their ability to make other moves.
Is maybe a small bump to what Nick Chubb got but I imagine the Barkley camp will be shooting for CMC money. I have no problem with a 1 yr deal on that tag number. It won’t be an easy negotiation that’s for sure given the market correction at the position.
and see if another team will bite and sign him and give up the draft choice?
You're confusing tags with RFA tenders.
They can tag him with either the franchise tag (and there are two variations of those) or the transition tag. But the "round level" that you're thinking of is for restricted free agent tenders.
1) Trade him while his value is high
2) Franchise tag him if he keeps playing well, kick the decision down the road.
3) Let him walk in FA if there's an issue with the tag
4) Re-sign him long term (this should not happen under any circumstances)
so those concerns should be put to bed too. He will have mistakes, but he doesn't look to be the liability he's been the past couple of seasons in pass-pro.
I think his blocking issues are more technique than anything else. It’s not a lack of effort or will. It’s definitely improved
I can see that but I think the bigger issue was the state of the team and overcompensating as a result. Similar to him trying to make something out of nothing with every touch - what other choice did he have? We all saw what the put your head down for 3 did to the offense in 2020/2021 and it was miserable to watch.
so those concerns should be put to bed too. He will have mistakes, but he doesn't look to be the liability he's been the past couple of seasons in pass-pro.
I think his blocking issues are more technique than anything else. It’s not a lack of effort or will. It’s definitely improved
I can see that but I think the bigger issue was the state of the team and overcompensating as a result. Similar to him trying to make something out of nothing with every touch - what other choice did he have? We all saw what the put your head down for 3 did to the offense in 2020/2021 and it was miserable to watch.
That’s definitely true too
RE: I'd keep him, he's their engine currently and dynamic when healthy
If you're of the fiscal mindset RBs are fungible, you probably would choose to move on with cheaper options.
I asked this before the season started and only Eric recognized the legitimacy of the question. The most flattering Barkley response was to trade him mid season.
No way does he leave. He is the face of a franchise in need of an identity, is beloved by ownership, puts money in the seats and to let him go is a sign of giving up. It will not happen.
the stars have to align for someone to give us much in a trade.
What is elite to some of you guys? He leads the NFL in scrimmage yards through three games. He has 6.2 yards per touch and 12 first downs, both among the leaders for his position.
don't waste money on a RB that can be used at more critical positions.
A good, competent GM should be able to find a cadre of RBs that are at least 90% of what SB can do. And that is more than enough to be successful in today's game.
The strategic move is to trade SB by the deadline.
What does this even mean. I get that there may be more valid reasons for why you support this move. But what you stated doesn’t make sense to me.
He’s averaging 6 yards per carry, there’s only 8 other RB’s in the NFL averaging 90% of that. And you’re saying that a competent GM should be able to find a group of them? Are there no competent GM’s in the NFL?
Different metric? 317 rush yds on the season, there are 4 rb’s in the NFL at that mark. Catches? He has 13, 8 rb’s in the nfl have more than him.
This is the part I really don’t get, the Bills were not a free agency team, they drafted most of their best players.
Who is this special talent that we need to pay instead of saquon???
You really wanna go free agency shopping again instead of paying the guy we already have? Do we really think that will produce better results?
Christian Kirk, Kenny Golladay, Allen Robinson, dj chark, Michael Gallup, Odell have been the top free agents wr’s the past two years
You make these sweeping comments about what competent gm’s would do but it’s all theoretical, not based on the actual marketplace available to us. If we have to spend another top 3 pick on an RB next year while we have Tae Crowder, David Sills, and Bed Bredeson starting for us…
I will lose my shit, personally
Were my comments that difficult to process. It's the modern NFL.
It's not the '70s, '80s, '90s or early '00s where it was more traditional to have a bell-cow RB.
Today, you don't need a marquee RB to WIN in the NFL. How many examples do you need? Look at SB winners over the last 15 years - the Pats, Chiefs, Rams, Colts, Saints, Denver, Tampa Bay, Philly, etc. None of them had a high profile/HoF RB. Sure, Seattle won with Lynch, but that's an outlier.
Look, it's economics with the hard cap and the rules of the modern game. And those variables dictate it's more important to have a QB who can effectively execute a passing game and quality WRs. RB is the least important position on the offense. It's a relic position.
I wish it was a different way because I loved the smash-mouth era. But it's not. Adapt or die.
Im taking into account that you don’t want to move forward with Jones and you want to draft another qb… so who else are we paying money to when Golladay and Leonard Williams contracts are off the books.
Shep will be gone, no receiver making money, Andrew Thomas will be the only lineman getting paid in the near future. That’s 1 high paid guy on the whole offense.
We likely resign Mckinney, ok that makes sense.
But we’re gonna let saquon walk for a 3rd rounder that might be good enough to start year 3? Just so we can give 20 million to another average wide receiver because some analyst concluded they matter more and get injured less?
Well, that receiver has a similar probability of getting hurt as Barkley but has a much lower probability of being as successful.
Injuries are part of the sport, we might as well not pay anyone if we’re going to let it dictate who we pay.
Regarding your point about the Super Bowl teams. Cap space is never going to land us a top 10 QB so I don’t know how it’s relevant to signing Barkley or not.
Signing Barkley does nothing to stop us from signing or trading for a QB
But we’re gonna let saquon walk for a 3rd rounder that might be good enough to start year 3?
I am genuinely at a loss for words. Do you not watch any NFL games besides the Giants?
You think it takes three years for a 3rd round RB to become a starter? Teams pluck late round rookies and insert them seamlessly into their lineup all the time. Do you realize how antiquated your thinking is?
so that there will be some interest at the trade deadline.
Last night should have been a good reminder to Schoen (if he needed it) and you all that we require as many draft picks as possible to fix this thing...
I think he is playing really well and will be a hot
free agent, not going to be a good investment for the Giants he's a finishing touch to a team on the verge, Giants have much bigger concerns. Pass rush, LB, TE, O-line needs to get fixed or it won't matter what we have in the backfield. We have to get the finances fixed and continue to build through the draft. The tranches is the problem for a decade, not pass rush and no blocking for a decade.
I don't want Barkley back if he's going to cost top five RB money.
I do want him back if he takes starter RB money for a few years (or an incentive-laden deal).
I also want him back because: a) he's easy to root for; b) fun to watch; c) our only proven playmaker on offense right now.
My best guess is it doesn't work - Barkley makes more sense for a contender and this is probably his best shot at a big deal. But I am hoping it does.
I’be heard from a few people that at best he will get is somewhere along the lines of 3 years, $25- $30 million, about half guaranteed with an option for the 3rd year. I think that’s a price that I would bring him back at.
It could be set up similar to Kamara’s restructure
Low cap it’s for the first two years, and a base of about $7 million in the 3rd year that he can opt in to and get paid or go somewhere else to get more
but smart rebuilding teams don't waste that kind of cap space on a RB, especially one that gets hurt a lot. I just don't think his value will be higher than it will be in a few weeks(if he has a good few weeks). He's led to 0 wins for us lol.
Did the week 1 Titans game not happen?
I love him and think this is the best he's looked as a pro
...they can find in the offseason then decide whether or not beating that deal fits their cap strategy. Should do the same for Jones if they're not confident on replacing him with any of their rookie or veteran preferred choices.
Based on way Saquon is playing this year there is no shot his camp let's him play on the Franchise Tag. He will absolutely hold out especially given his injury history. No way he risks the big payout for a 10m FT contract.
Based on way Saquon is playing this year there is no shot his camp let's him play on the Franchise Tag. He will absolutely hold out especially given his injury history. No way he risks the big payout for a 10m FT contract.
Today's lesson:
sharp315 thinks that every player's camp will not allow their player to play on the FT. So far, on two different threads, we have sharp's brilliant insight that there's no way that either DJ or SB would play under the franchise tag.
Now here's what a realistic, intelligent person would say:
The Giants can only tag one of them anyway, if they tag either in the first place. If they tag DJ, he'd sign it so fast the pen would melt. If they tag SB, he'll use the tag as a starting point for a 3+ year contract because the risk of going year-to-year as a RB is too great.
What I know will NOT happen is sharp's suggestion that Barkley would hold out if tagged. Look how that worked out for LeVeon Bell.
See how the season goes and if they are seemingly in
a playoff chase at end of October then maybe just let him play out his deal. If Giants are outside looking in at the trade deadline and a good offer comes calling, then they need to consider it.
I don't see any solid reason for resigning him without letting the market set his price.
Based on way Saquon is playing this year there is no shot his camp let's him play on the Franchise Tag. He will absolutely hold out especially given his injury history. No way he risks the big payout for a 10m FT contract.
Today's lesson:
sharp315 thinks that every player's camp will not allow their player to play on the FT. So far, on two different threads, we have sharp's brilliant insight that there's no way that either DJ or SB would play under the franchise tag.
Now here's what a realistic, intelligent person would say:
The Giants can only tag one of them anyway, if they tag either in the first place. If they tag DJ, he'd sign it so fast the pen would melt. If they tag SB, he'll use the tag as a starting point for a 3+ year contract because the risk of going year-to-year as a RB is too great.
What I know will NOT happen is sharp's suggestion that Barkley would hold out if tagged. Look how that worked out for LeVeon Bell.
Lev Bell signed for 35m guaranteed from the Jets. Check my math but I think 35m is more than 10m. You might laugh at Lev Bell but he walked away with a lot of money in his pocket that might not have happened if he played on the Tag and got injured.
Realistically this will be Saquon's only Free Agent contract. He is not going to play into his 30s based on his injury history. He is going to find a suitor who will pay 30 to 40 million guaranteed. He will not risk another a career ending injury for a 10m tag.
Whether DJ would play on the Tag is irrelevant - Giants are not going to Tag him at 30m when his 5th year option that they just declined was only 22m.
I realize math isn't your strong suit but try to keep up.
For me, it’s not even a close call. I said this summer, run him into the ground and either trade him or let him walk at the end of the season. I’m sticking with that and hope the Giants FO is too.
Long in the tooth? He's 25 years old! Next you're going to tell me how RBs age out faster in the NFL, I know all this.
A player of Barkley's caliber can play at a high level to 30 and likely beyond, though.
You let Barkley go, you need to replace every single playmaker on offense. That will take years.
Yep, and using the tag once or twice if they're unable to strike a deal certainly figures to be available.
Not paying a Franchise Qb for at least another 4 years is a big reason I’d be perfectly okay with re signing Barkley
A good, competent GM should be able to find a cadre of RBs that are at least 90% of what SB can do. And that is more than enough to be successful in today's game.
The strategic move is to trade SB by the deadline.
What does this even mean. I get that there may be more valid reasons for why you support this move. But what you stated doesn’t make sense to me.
He’s averaging 6 yards per carry, there’s only 8 other RB’s in the NFL averaging 90% of that. And you’re saying that a competent GM should be able to find a group of them? Are there no competent GM’s in the NFL?
Different metric? 317 rush yds on the season, there are 4 rb’s in the NFL at that mark. Catches? He has 13, 8 rb’s in the nfl have more than him.
This is the part I really don’t get, the Bills were not a free agency team, they drafted most of their best players.
Who is this special talent that we need to pay instead of saquon???
You really wanna go free agency shopping again instead of paying the guy we already have? Do we really think that will produce better results?
Christian Kirk, Kenny Golladay, Allen Robinson, dj chark, Michael Gallup, Odell have been the top free agents wr’s the past two years
You make these sweeping comments about what competent gm’s would do but it’s all theoretical, not based on the actual marketplace available to us. If we have to spend another top 3 pick on an RB next year while we have Tae Crowder, David Sills, and Bed Bredeson starting for us…
I will lose my shit, personally
A game breaker from the RB position is going to touch the ball a lot.
I do the contract but with some safe guards for injury.
I get every reason not to sign him, and don't disagree with them and understand the risks.
However, I think he is the type of player that can make the team special. I think next year with a stronger, more experienced oline, drafting a few receivers, we can have a very strong offense with him.
At the end of the day, I want playmakers on the team.
If he keeps it up he’ll certainly deserve a new contract but what Barkley deserves isn’t necessarily in the best interest of the Giants.
Could you imagine this offense without him?
But I don't think it is elite.
I want to keep him, but not at elite dollars.
the stars have to align for someone to give us much in a trade.
I think his blocking issues are more technique than anything else. It’s not a lack of effort or will. It’s definitely improved
Barkley is more than a RB, he is a weapon.
Can you imagine him with Josh Allen or Patrick Mahomes in those dynamic offenses with those players he'd be with??? How do you defend SB in those offenses.
Just sit back and watch him drop the ball
Quote:
don't waste money on a RB that can be used at more critical positions.
A good, competent GM should be able to find a cadre of RBs that are at least 90% of what SB can do. And that is more than enough to be successful in today's game.
The strategic move is to trade SB by the deadline.
What does this even mean. I get that there may be more valid reasons for why you support this move. But what you stated doesn’t make sense to me.
He’s averaging 6 yards per carry, there’s only 8 other RB’s in the NFL averaging 90% of that. And you’re saying that a competent GM should be able to find a group of them? Are there no competent GM’s in the NFL?
Different metric? 317 rush yds on the season, there are 4 rb’s in the NFL at that mark. Catches? He has 13, 8 rb’s in the nfl have more than him.
This is the part I really don’t get, the Bills were not a free agency team, they drafted most of their best players.
Who is this special talent that we need to pay instead of saquon???
You really wanna go free agency shopping again instead of paying the guy we already have? Do we really think that will produce better results?
Christian Kirk, Kenny Golladay, Allen Robinson, dj chark, Michael Gallup, Odell have been the top free agents wr’s the past two years
You make these sweeping comments about what competent gm’s would do but it’s all theoretical, not based on the actual marketplace available to us. If we have to spend another top 3 pick on an RB next year while we have Tae Crowder, David Sills, and Bed Bredeson starting for us…
I will lose my shit, personally
Were my comments that difficult to process. It's the modern NFL.
It's not the '70s, '80s, '90s or early '00s where it was more traditional to have a bell-cow RB.
Today, you don't need a marquee RB to WIN in the NFL. How many examples do you need? Look at SB winners over the last 15 years - the Pats, Chiefs, Rams, Colts, Saints, Denver, Tampa Bay, Philly, etc. None of them had a high profile/HoF RB. Sure, Seattle won with Lynch, but that's an outlier.
Look, it's economics with the hard cap and the rules of the modern game. And those variables dictate it's more important to have a QB who can effectively execute a passing game and quality WRs. RB is the least important position on the offense. It's a relic position.
I wish it was a different way because I loved the smash-mouth era. But it's not. Adapt or die.
The upside is obviously not committing to that second year, the downside is you can probably get three years of play on 28.5M guaranteed money.
You're confusing tags with RFA tenders.
They can tag him with either the franchise tag (and there are two variations of those) or the transition tag. But the "round level" that you're thinking of is for restricted free agent tenders.
2) Franchise tag him if he keeps playing well, kick the decision down the road.
3) Let him walk in FA if there's an issue with the tag
4) Re-sign him long term (this should not happen under any circumstances)
Quote:
so those concerns should be put to bed too. He will have mistakes, but he doesn't look to be the liability he's been the past couple of seasons in pass-pro.
I think his blocking issues are more technique than anything else. It’s not a lack of effort or will. It’s definitely improved
I can see that but I think the bigger issue was the state of the team and overcompensating as a result. Similar to him trying to make something out of nothing with every touch - what other choice did he have? We all saw what the put your head down for 3 did to the offense in 2020/2021 and it was miserable to watch.
Quote:
In comment 15834984 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
so those concerns should be put to bed too. He will have mistakes, but he doesn't look to be the liability he's been the past couple of seasons in pass-pro.
I think his blocking issues are more technique than anything else. It’s not a lack of effort or will. It’s definitely improved
I can see that but I think the bigger issue was the state of the team and overcompensating as a result. Similar to him trying to make something out of nothing with every touch - what other choice did he have? We all saw what the put your head down for 3 did to the offense in 2020/2021 and it was miserable to watch.
That’s definitely true too
I asked this before the season started and only Eric recognized the legitimacy of the question. The most flattering Barkley response was to trade him mid season.
No way does he leave. He is the face of a franchise in need of an identity, is beloved by ownership, puts money in the seats and to let him go is a sign of giving up. It will not happen.
But I don't think it is elite.
I want to keep him, but not at elite dollars.
the stars have to align for someone to give us much in a trade.
What is elite to some of you guys? He leads the NFL in scrimmage yards through three games. He has 6.2 yards per touch and 12 first downs, both among the leaders for his position.
5.8 ypc and 7 yards per catch.
But I don't think it is elite.
.
What stats and games are you looking at?
Quote:
In comment 15834681 bw in dc said:
Quote:
don't waste money on a RB that can be used at more critical positions.
A good, competent GM should be able to find a cadre of RBs that are at least 90% of what SB can do. And that is more than enough to be successful in today's game.
The strategic move is to trade SB by the deadline.
What does this even mean. I get that there may be more valid reasons for why you support this move. But what you stated doesn’t make sense to me.
He’s averaging 6 yards per carry, there’s only 8 other RB’s in the NFL averaging 90% of that. And you’re saying that a competent GM should be able to find a group of them? Are there no competent GM’s in the NFL?
Different metric? 317 rush yds on the season, there are 4 rb’s in the NFL at that mark. Catches? He has 13, 8 rb’s in the nfl have more than him.
This is the part I really don’t get, the Bills were not a free agency team, they drafted most of their best players.
Who is this special talent that we need to pay instead of saquon???
You really wanna go free agency shopping again instead of paying the guy we already have? Do we really think that will produce better results?
Christian Kirk, Kenny Golladay, Allen Robinson, dj chark, Michael Gallup, Odell have been the top free agents wr’s the past two years
You make these sweeping comments about what competent gm’s would do but it’s all theoretical, not based on the actual marketplace available to us. If we have to spend another top 3 pick on an RB next year while we have Tae Crowder, David Sills, and Bed Bredeson starting for us…
I will lose my shit, personally
Were my comments that difficult to process. It's the modern NFL.
It's not the '70s, '80s, '90s or early '00s where it was more traditional to have a bell-cow RB.
Today, you don't need a marquee RB to WIN in the NFL. How many examples do you need? Look at SB winners over the last 15 years - the Pats, Chiefs, Rams, Colts, Saints, Denver, Tampa Bay, Philly, etc. None of them had a high profile/HoF RB. Sure, Seattle won with Lynch, but that's an outlier.
Look, it's economics with the hard cap and the rules of the modern game. And those variables dictate it's more important to have a QB who can effectively execute a passing game and quality WRs. RB is the least important position on the offense. It's a relic position.
I wish it was a different way because I loved the smash-mouth era. But it's not. Adapt or die.
Im taking into account that you don’t want to move forward with Jones and you want to draft another qb… so who else are we paying money to when Golladay and Leonard Williams contracts are off the books.
Shep will be gone, no receiver making money, Andrew Thomas will be the only lineman getting paid in the near future. That’s 1 high paid guy on the whole offense.
We likely resign Mckinney, ok that makes sense.
But we’re gonna let saquon walk for a 3rd rounder that might be good enough to start year 3? Just so we can give 20 million to another average wide receiver because some analyst concluded they matter more and get injured less?
Well, that receiver has a similar probability of getting hurt as Barkley but has a much lower probability of being as successful.
Injuries are part of the sport, we might as well not pay anyone if we’re going to let it dictate who we pay.
Regarding your point about the Super Bowl teams. Cap space is never going to land us a top 10 QB so I don’t know how it’s relevant to signing Barkley or not.
Signing Barkley does nothing to stop us from signing or trading for a QB
I am genuinely at a loss for words. Do you not watch any NFL games besides the Giants?
You think it takes three years for a 3rd round RB to become a starter? Teams pluck late round rookies and insert them seamlessly into their lineup all the time. Do you realize how antiquated your thinking is?
I do want him back if he takes starter RB money for a few years (or an incentive-laden deal).
I also want him back because: a) he's easy to root for; b) fun to watch; c) our only proven playmaker on offense right now.
My best guess is it doesn't work - Barkley makes more sense for a contender and this is probably his best shot at a big deal. But I am hoping it does.
Last night should have been a good reminder to Schoen (if he needed it) and you all that we require as many draft picks as possible to fix this thing...
I do want him back if he takes starter RB money for a few years (or an incentive-laden deal).
I also want him back because: a) he's easy to root for; b) fun to watch; c) our only proven playmaker on offense right now.
My best guess is it doesn't work - Barkley makes more sense for a contender and this is probably his best shot at a big deal. But I am hoping it does.
I’be heard from a few people that at best he will get is somewhere along the lines of 3 years, $25- $30 million, about half guaranteed with an option for the 3rd year. I think that’s a price that I would bring him back at.
Did the week 1 Titans game not happen?
Today's lesson:
sharp315 thinks that every player's camp will not allow their player to play on the FT. So far, on two different threads, we have sharp's brilliant insight that there's no way that either DJ or SB would play under the franchise tag.
Now here's what a realistic, intelligent person would say:
The Giants can only tag one of them anyway, if they tag either in the first place. If they tag DJ, he'd sign it so fast the pen would melt. If they tag SB, he'll use the tag as a starting point for a 3+ year contract because the risk of going year-to-year as a RB is too great.
What I know will NOT happen is sharp's suggestion that Barkley would hold out if tagged. Look how that worked out for LeVeon Bell.
I don't see any solid reason for resigning him without letting the market set his price.
Quote:
Based on way Saquon is playing this year there is no shot his camp let's him play on the Franchise Tag. He will absolutely hold out especially given his injury history. No way he risks the big payout for a 10m FT contract.
Today's lesson:
sharp315 thinks that every player's camp will not allow their player to play on the FT. So far, on two different threads, we have sharp's brilliant insight that there's no way that either DJ or SB would play under the franchise tag.
Now here's what a realistic, intelligent person would say:
The Giants can only tag one of them anyway, if they tag either in the first place. If they tag DJ, he'd sign it so fast the pen would melt. If they tag SB, he'll use the tag as a starting point for a 3+ year contract because the risk of going year-to-year as a RB is too great.
What I know will NOT happen is sharp's suggestion that Barkley would hold out if tagged. Look how that worked out for LeVeon Bell.
Lev Bell signed for 35m guaranteed from the Jets. Check my math but I think 35m is more than 10m. You might laugh at Lev Bell but he walked away with a lot of money in his pocket that might not have happened if he played on the Tag and got injured.
Realistically this will be Saquon's only Free Agent contract. He is not going to play into his 30s based on his injury history. He is going to find a suitor who will pay 30 to 40 million guaranteed. He will not risk another a career ending injury for a 10m tag.
Whether DJ would play on the Tag is irrelevant - Giants are not going to Tag him at 30m when his 5th year option that they just declined was only 22m.
I realize math isn't your strong suit but try to keep up.
Famous last words.
Quote:
I realize math isn't your strong suit but try to keep up.
Famous last words.
What a compelling argument.