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.
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.