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?
I think he wants to stay in New York. He has made a lot of money off the field already and he seems like he isn't the type of guy that is going to demand to be the highest paid running back in history when it is his turn to get his 2nd deal.
We'd probably have to lose a few more games, but smart teams that are rebuilding, don't pay RB's big money especially when these RB's don't lead to wins.
I'd like to watch him on a team where he has some help.
I think he could put up scary numbers. Feels like his career is dying here like Randy Moss in Oakland. He will never reach his full potential with the supporting cast on the NYG. Hope he has a great year and trade him before the deadline to a contender.
I'd keep him, he's their engine currently and dynamic when healthy
on the money, and I want to see how the rest of the season unfolds. But I'm more inclined to at least try and resign him now than I was before the season started. RBs wear down quickly, but his ACL injury actually reduced his "mileage." It's also apparent that he has regained almost all of his quickness and agility. If he remains healthy and continues to produce at his current level, I could definitely see someone offering him more money than the Giants are willing to spend on him as a FA.
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.
lowest non K/P tag in the NFL at 12.5M. Maybe work something out longer term depending on cost. This isn't 4-5 years ago when guys like Gurley and Zeke were signing big dollar contracts.
If he gets back to being what he was as a rookie (which so far seems to be the case), then you keep him
He is 80% of the offense. Get at least one real WR and WanDale or Toney on the field and he will be even better (a couple better interior OL would also help)
The silver lining of the injuries is that his body did not take a pounding the last three years like it normally would at RB.
His career is staring to mirror Tiki's. A kneee injury and Not much the first couple of years but then steady improvement as he learned how to play the position rather than just rely on raw ability.
Obviously assumes a reasonable deal.
Had Toney or Robinson started showing some consistent playmaking, I would be less sure. And of course, there’s plenty of season left for them to step up.
Offenses in today’s game need playmakers. Preferably at least two. Without Barkley, we have zero. I know RB has short shelf life, but I suspect he’s got at least 3 good, possibly great, years ahead of him. That’s enough time for the rest of the team to realistically be in contention for all the marbles.
lowest non K/P tag in the NFL at 12.5M. Maybe work something out longer term depending on cost. This isn't 4-5 years ago when guys like Gurley and Zeke were signing big dollar contracts.
This is the correct answer. I don't get the "Giants can't afford him" takes. Franchise tag is cheap for a RB, Giants will have a ton of cap room next year, they have no suitable replacements, and they have no other real offensive weapons.
Before the trade deadline and really feel like we're going to the playoffs, I'd trade him while his value is high.
I'd love to have him back but this roster is in a position where we can't invest capital in a RB right now and we're going to need draft capital going into the 2023 draft.
Again, he'll walk and this is another matter of circumstance created by the previous front office.
What they do at the QB position will have a impact in how they treat him. Rookie QB then I think they bring him back but they will not get into a bad long term contract imv.
They need to continue to invest in the OL so that it can support a good compliment of backs whoever it is long term. Giants went from Tiki to Jacobs/Bradshaw and they got better. Why? The OL got better.
Second contracts for RBs rarely work out in the team's favor. Even with him playing well the offense has been sub par this year. The position doesn't move the needle for a team. Trade him if you can, otherwise you wish him well.
Barkley is a FA after this season, I don't think we'd get much for him in a trade unless the acquiring team had a deal in place to extend him. And I'm not sure how many teams would be willing to do that for a FA RB who tore an ACL, even two years ago.
If he continues to play at this level and stays healthy, I'd consider using the FT on him. As someone said, it's not a lot for a RB, and he is a playmaker on a team with essentially no others.
my head tells me we cannot afford him, we are rebuilding, and he has an injury history and we do not extend him. Even tagging him would likely be expensive.
Let's be realistic here, do we really think he has much more than 2 more dominant years left? Probability tells us absolutely not. Giants still have major holes at both OG positions and CB is a position that needs to be addresses before committing to a RB. It would not surprise me to see the Giants aggressively try to trade for Lamar Jackson this offseason using both Barkley and Jones as part of the package with a slew of picks.
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.
But I'd be fine with keeping him in principle. We don't have many good players. We don't have many playmakers, especially on O.
Hopefully we'll get a QB this offseason and then in 2023 we're actually going to start trying to win. We need good players to win. He can help. It just comes down to $$ and years.
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.
Second contracts for RBs rarely work out in the team's favor. Even with him playing well the offense has been sub par this year. The position doesn't move the needle for a team. Trade him if you can, otherwise you wish him well.
Exactly. Barkley's injury history, plus he's just not that special to overcome that trend on RBs, should make the decision to move on a layup.
An if he does, you have to consider the amount of touches he get this year. If he get 350 to 400 touches you have to wonder if he can do that 2 years in a row.
Smart move is if he plays all year and has a similar year to his rookie year, you franchise him and go year by year.
No long term deals for RBs....
will get a Break the Bank type contract. I don't know that this is true.
We seem to think that he has very little trade value, in part because he's currently owed 1 year, like 7 M. If teams aren't willing to trade for him, why are we sure that there is going to be a big marketfor an expensive contract?
Every other team knows RBs aren't worth a lot, his injuries, his limitations as a player.
Barkley is a very good if not great RB. However, he can’t carry a team
For a season without a decent offensive line. Let him test free agency, make him a fair office that is less than the tag, and whether he accepts or not, take the leftover cap space that might have spent on the tagged Barkley and spend it on the o-line.
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.
Yeah but we don't have Allen or Mahomes. By the time we find them, Barkley will have used a ton of cap space. He makes sense for a team like Bills or Chiefs, but not for Giants.
The Giants don't have to decide now, and that's good.
Let's see where he and the team are after 17 games. There are a lot of things in motion.
For this season, if/when Wan'dale Robinson gets on the field; Neal improves in pass protection; Kadarius Toney becomes productive (increasingly big "if"); and they can get anything out of Golladay and/or Slayton (huge "if"), their passing game should improve and that should open things up somewhat for Barkley.
I'm optimistic about Robinson and Neal, suspicious about Toney, skeptical about Golladay and Slayton, but y'know, we can hope.
The decision on Jones also affects the decision on Barkley. If they decide to draft a QB early in 2023, then it's probably 2-3 years before they really contend. Part of the consideration then becomes: What will Barkley contribute in 2025-26-27-28? If that's the thinking, trading him is better than signing him.
But if they are going after a veteran FA QB and think they can start a run in 2023 or 2024, Barkley becomes a more attractive signing — if they can afford him.
RE: The Giants don't have to decide now, and that's good.
Let's see where he and the team are after 17 games. There are a lot of things in motion.
For this season, if/when Wan'dale Robinson gets on the field; Neal improves in pass protection; Kadarius Toney becomes productive (increasingly big "if"); and they can get anything out of Golladay and/or Slayton (huge "if"), their passing game should improve and that should open things up somewhat for Barkley.
I'm optimistic about Robinson and Neal, suspicious about Toney, skeptical about Golladay and Slayton, but y'know, we can hope.
The decision on Jones also affects the decision on Barkley. If they decide to draft a QB early in 2023, then it's probably 2-3 years before they really contend. Part of the consideration then becomes: What will Barkley contribute in 2025-26-27-28? If that's the thinking, trading him is better than signing him.
But if they are going after a veteran FA QB and think they can start a run in 2023 or 2024, Barkley becomes a more attractive signing — if they can afford him.
Yeah but if they are letting him walk, wouldn' it be smarter to get a pick for him? I'd imagine we could get at least a 3rd rounder, maybe even a 2nd.
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.
Yeah but we don't have Allen or Mahomes. By the time we find them, Barkley will have used a ton of cap space. He makes sense for a team like Bills or Chiefs, but not for Giants.
It makes sense to use cap space for players that produce. Let's say they move on from Jones(likely) and keep Barkley for the rookie QB. Doesn't it make sense to give the rookie QB an actual weapon he can use? IDK
BTW, I am in favor of trading him by November if it is clear that playoffs are out of the question.
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.
but the days of the Herschel Walker trades are over. Even if he plays out of his mind, what are we getting? Second or third round pick? Not exactly an exciting proposition.
keeps playing like he does, then I’d seriously consider a short term deal or FT him. He’s a key piece to this offense, otherwise, we will be starting over at that position too?! I could also understand if they chose to trade him if we are going anywhere this year, as well. I guess I’m a bit torn.
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.
Barkley is not just a RB, that has to be factored in. But of course, spending $12 mill is still a lot when AT has to be re-signed.
We have to consider just what type of offense Daboll and Kafka are building, too.
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.
the numbers will be there. I think its almost a 100% lock that he is given an extension. Not only is he a star, but he is the face of the Franchise, and the most marketable star we have.
I also don't think the money will be as wild as people think.
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.
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.
He is 80% of the offense. Get at least one real WR and WanDale or Toney on the field and he will be even better (a couple better interior OL would also help)
His career is staring to mirror Tiki's. A kneee injury and Not much the first couple of years but then steady improvement as he learned how to play the position rather than just rely on raw ability.
Had Toney or Robinson started showing some consistent playmaking, I would be less sure. And of course, there’s plenty of season left for them to step up.
Offenses in today’s game need playmakers. Preferably at least two. Without Barkley, we have zero. I know RB has short shelf life, but I suspect he’s got at least 3 good, possibly great, years ahead of him. That’s enough time for the rest of the team to realistically be in contention for all the marbles.
This is the correct answer. I don't get the "Giants can't afford him" takes. Franchise tag is cheap for a RB, Giants will have a ton of cap room next year, they have no suitable replacements, and they have no other real offensive weapons.
I'd love to have him back but this roster is in a position where we can't invest capital in a RB right now and we're going to need draft capital going into the 2023 draft.
Again, he'll walk and this is another matter of circumstance created by the previous front office.
As long as you don't pay him like a star. At that position, you can find replacements at 80-85% of his production at 25% of price a second RB contract
Maybe we can get rid of Andrew Thomas too. And see if Leonard Williams can net us a 4th round pick in 2032.
They need to continue to invest in the OL so that it can support a good compliment of backs whoever it is long term. Giants went from Tiki to Jacobs/Bradshaw and they got better. Why? The OL got better.
The NFL has changed. We are seeing it now - a star running back can't overcome shitty team play.
A star WR on the other hand has more opportunities to change a game. How many 6 yard slants did OBJ take to the house in his prime?
If we don't land a big trade for picks then I'm all for this. It at least gives us a breather from having to fill another position this offseason.
If he continues to play at this level and stays healthy, I'd consider using the FT on him. As someone said, it's not a lot for a RB, and he is a playmaker on a team with essentially no others.
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.
Hopefully we'll get a QB this offseason and then in 2023 we're actually going to start trying to win. We need good players to win. He can help. It just comes down to $$ and years.
You let Barkley go, you need to replace every single playmaker on offense. That will take years.
Yes.
Exactly. Barkley's injury history, plus he's just not that special to overcome that trend on RBs, should make the decision to move on a layup.
Smart move is if he plays all year and has a similar year to his rookie year, you franchise him and go year by year.
No long term deals for RBs....
We seem to think that he has very little trade value, in part because he's currently owed 1 year, like 7 M. If teams aren't willing to trade for him, why are we sure that there is going to be a big marketfor an expensive contract?
Every other team knows RBs aren't worth a lot, his injuries, his limitations as a player.
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.
Yeah but we don't have Allen or Mahomes. By the time we find them, Barkley will have used a ton of cap space. He makes sense for a team like Bills or Chiefs, but not for Giants.
For this season, if/when Wan'dale Robinson gets on the field; Neal improves in pass protection; Kadarius Toney becomes productive (increasingly big "if"); and they can get anything out of Golladay and/or Slayton (huge "if"), their passing game should improve and that should open things up somewhat for Barkley.
I'm optimistic about Robinson and Neal, suspicious about Toney, skeptical about Golladay and Slayton, but y'know, we can hope.
The decision on Jones also affects the decision on Barkley. If they decide to draft a QB early in 2023, then it's probably 2-3 years before they really contend. Part of the consideration then becomes: What will Barkley contribute in 2025-26-27-28? If that's the thinking, trading him is better than signing him.
But if they are going after a veteran FA QB and think they can start a run in 2023 or 2024, Barkley becomes a more attractive signing — if they can afford him.
For this season, if/when Wan'dale Robinson gets on the field; Neal improves in pass protection; Kadarius Toney becomes productive (increasingly big "if"); and they can get anything out of Golladay and/or Slayton (huge "if"), their passing game should improve and that should open things up somewhat for Barkley.
I'm optimistic about Robinson and Neal, suspicious about Toney, skeptical about Golladay and Slayton, but y'know, we can hope.
The decision on Jones also affects the decision on Barkley. If they decide to draft a QB early in 2023, then it's probably 2-3 years before they really contend. Part of the consideration then becomes: What will Barkley contribute in 2025-26-27-28? If that's the thinking, trading him is better than signing him.
But if they are going after a veteran FA QB and think they can start a run in 2023 or 2024, Barkley becomes a more attractive signing — if they can afford him.
Yeah but if they are letting him walk, wouldn' it be smarter to get a pick for him? I'd imagine we could get at least a 3rd rounder, maybe even a 2nd.
Quote:
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.
Yeah but we don't have Allen or Mahomes. By the time we find them, Barkley will have used a ton of cap space. He makes sense for a team like Bills or Chiefs, but not for Giants.
It makes sense to use cap space for players that produce. Let's say they move on from Jones(likely) and keep Barkley for the rookie QB. Doesn't it make sense to give the rookie QB an actual weapon he can use? IDK
BTW, I am in favor of trading him by November if it is clear that playoffs are out of the question.
I remember when Hampton hit year 8, he hit a wall. Hampton had more miles on him but 8 years is a good gauge on the life of a RB
But the Giants will probably look to resign him,he's clearly a favorite.
Not a huge decision at all.
Barkley is not just a RB, that has to be factored in. But of course, spending $12 mill is still a lot when AT has to be re-signed.
We have to consider just what type of offense Daboll and Kafka are building, too.
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.
I also don't think the money will be as wild as people think.
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.