with the roster as it is the last 2 losses have been disappointing but not too surprising. the dallas passing offense was a mismatch for the backup secondary and the fighting dan campbells were on a 2 game winning streak and has been competitive all year (almost made it 4 in a row vs buf). since the mckinney bye week announcement there's been an avalanche of players out of the lineup.
that said there are some surprising numbers under the surface particularly with barkley.
a popular theme has been that teams are loading the box to stop him but that doesn't appear to be true. 8+ in the box% per nextgenstats:
full season - 22.77% (23rd most, Derrick Henry #1 at 36.84%)
week 10 - 28.57% (big game vs. Houston, 9th most that week)
week 11 - 6.67% (detroit #31 in ypc allowed at 5.2)
week 12 - 36.36% (dalls #25 in ypc allowed at 4.7)
against Detroit Saquon had 15 carries for 22 yards (1.5 ypc) despite one of the lowest 8 in the box% he faced all year.
against Dallas he had 11 for 39 (3.5 ypc).
there appeared to be a lot of runs where he was hit behind the line of scrimmage in both games and the interior OL being unsettled has been a factor but here's his net impact. Rush yards over expected by week:
week 10 - plus 9
week 11 - minus 38
week 12 - minus 7
he is still top 10 in rush yards over expected on the season and was close to #1 for a lot of the year but in weeks 11 and 12 he didn't hit any plays longer that 10 yards. on the year his greatest asset was consistently ripping off 20+ yard runs and 40+ yard runs at the highest rate of any RB (he's currently tied for 3rd with 9 20+ yard runs even with the 2 week goose egg). presumably that's where a lot of his yards over expected were generated (along with yards after first contact since the OL has been somewhat unsettled most of the year).
there's obviously been a lot of discussion re the 4th and 1, but putting that play aside Barkley the passing game has been one of the more disappointing aspects of the offense and at least part of it is on him. in 44 targets this year Barkley has 4 drops - which is pretty bad for a RB. just as frustrating as that 4th and 1, i thought he should have been able to get the first down on that 3rd and 6 but he went down to contact surprisingly easily.
so adding all this up:
1. i think they probably gave him too many carries vs houston and should have mixed in brightwell more knowing there were 2 games in 10 days next up. just like the adoree punt return injury, some of this may have been self inflicted from an unusual usage decision. hopefully the mini-bye resolves this.
2. inserting lemiuex was obviously a mistake but im pretty sure he's been benched since halftime vs detroit. harder to decipher is the disappointing play from their 2 key veteran IOL additions which needs to get cleaned up even if it means replacing "dirtbag" with Gates. it's no secret this team was getting wins thanks in part to near flawless coaching the first 2 months of the year and now in november we've seen some mistakes (combined with a lot of bad injury luck).
3. i've been a pretty big advocate of a barkley extension but i will say the receiving issue is becoming a real red flag that needs to improve the rest of the year. i think part of it is usage and i dont know why they dont let him run more routes from a wr spot like that shallow crosser against green bay, but simply put he needs to be better. if he wants to have an argument to getting paid as a hybrid player he needs to show he can make difficult plays in the passing game - which we did see in his first 2 years. if the season ended today my preference has shifted to a straight tag unless he's willing to extend on real favorable terms.
at home vs. washington with 10 days off should be a winnable but good test of both this staff and barkley. on the year Washington allows 4.4 yards per carry (15th best), which is on trend over their last 3 games (4.3), and 4.8 on the road (8th worst). last week they gave up 5.8 ypc against atlanta at home despite playing 40% 8+ in the box vs. Patterson and Allgeier (as a team they combined for 29 carries and 167 yards, mariota added 6 for 49 yards). if the staff wants more wins and barkley wants an extension they need solve this equation, and the roster getting healthier should help both do that.
He seems similar to Jones in that they both seem to lack the "it" factor. They just don't seem to play up to their level of talent.
They play well but not great but we see the talent that makes us believe they could be great consistently.
Quote:
injury prone or non-elite, running backs moving onto their second contract.
The comp stuff I have seen from the OP is not compelling.
and the alternatives you propose spending 1 year / 10m cap space on are...?
Is the entire roster good to go but for Running Back?
If that is the case, maybe the Giants should spend the $10M on 2 good RBs and pay them $5M each so we aren't reliant on just one guy if he gets injured or dinged up during the year. Or maybe even 3 solid RBs and give them $3.33M each.
Quote:
In comment 15926876 NYGgolfer said:
Quote:
injury prone or non-elite, running backs moving onto their second contract.
The comp stuff I have seen from the OP is not compelling.
and the alternatives you propose spending 1 year / 10m cap space on are...?
Is the entire roster good to go but for Running Back?
If that is the case, maybe the Giants should spend the $10M on 2 good RBs and pay them $5M each so we aren't reliant on just one guy if he gets injured or dinged up during the year. Or maybe even 3 solid RBs and give them $3.33M each.
Here's what that would have bought you 6 months ago in March, these are the top 7 RBs from UFA last year.
Even with the benefit of hindsight, which combination of 2 or 3 of these guys would you rather have than Barkley right now for the rest of the year?
Here's what that would have bought you 6 months ago in March, these are the top 7 RBs from UFA last year.
Even with the benefit of hindsight, which combination of 2 or 3 of these guys would you rather have than Barkley right now for the rest of the year?
Why is your assumption that the Giants should pursue a top UFA running back? They could very easily roll with Brightwell, an inexpensive veteran, and a mid-round pick at the position.
That's the point many people have been trying to make since Barkley was drafted, the RB position is easily the most fungible in the NFL. Your money is better spent elsewhere.
Several attractive free agent RBs coming available next year. Add another young one from the draft in the middle rounds and build your Committee.
Many ways to better invest the $10M+ across the roster.
Unless of course you think this is a blip and Saquon is actually going to get better over time, with more carries and a higher salary.
to those who think it's better to go with unproven young guys that sounds great in theory but consider that odds are strong that this year they'd probably have at least 3 or 4 fewer wins had they done that. TEN, GB, and HOU at a minimum. How much money is even 1 extra win worth?
there isn't a team in the league that doesn't want to get a cheap young player who can produce at any position so that's probably an even bigger cop out than saying 'better use of $'. if they had a tony pollard on the roster that would be 1 thing but they dont.
Not against a one guy (or mostly one guy) approach if he can do it all, especially on his rookie deal. But once that's up or he is showing enough wear and tear then move on versus anteing up bigger dollars for what will likely be declining years.
If there is anything to what we saw from Saquon as of late, it would a bad investment to keep him IF we have to pay more money. Shouldn't you pay less for declining assets?
Or bet he won't be declining and this is just a blip AND pay more for him.
Seems like bad business for a team not knocking on the door for a Lombardi next year.
Actually Verified
@FieldYates
The 2023 free agent RB class is absolutely stacked, including:
- Josh Jacobs
- Saquon Barkley
- Miles Sanders
- Tony Pollard
- David Montgomery
- Kareem Hunt
- Jamaal Williams
- Damien Harris
- Jeff Wilson, Jr.
- Devin Singletary
- Raheem Mostert
- Rashaad Penny
so who are you replacing Barkley with and how much do you think they will cost?
On the open market i'd expect Jacobs and Pollard to get more than the 1/10m tag amount so presumably they don't fit your plan.
Sanders and Montgomery i'd guess will be in the ballpark fournette hit last year (7m AAV x 3 years and 9m guaranteed).
Harris, Wilson, Singletary, Williams probably more like the $5m range.
Wilson, Penny, Mostert should be cheaper because they are never healthy. Hunt looks cooked.
but as i said above anyone other than the guys who will cost as much or more than a barkley tag (jacobs/pollard) and the nyg almost certainly have fewer wins this year.
Shouldn't you pay less for declining assets?
the rest other than pollard are all inferior players so you are wasting money and lowering the ceiling. montgomery, singletary, and jamaal williams aren't putting together performances that win you games. they just aren't on that level. and all of them are probably going to get 5m+ per over multiple years.
Shouldn't you pay less for declining assets?
was he a declining asset when he was basically the entire offense against houston? that was like 15 days ago.
Saquon Barkley - 2022 OTC Valuation: $14,004,000
Josh Jacobs - 2022 OTC Valuation: $15,258,000
Tony Pollard - 2022 OTC Valuation: $10,019,000
David Montgomery - 2022 OTC Valuation: $4,919,000
Devin Singletary - 2022 OTC Valuation: $8,157,000
Jamaal Williams - 2022 OTC Valuation: $5,176,000
so even williams + singletary would conceivably cost 3m more than tagging barkley per year on top of needing to go multiple years since it would be open market prices.
Quote:
If there is anything to what we saw from Saquon as of late, it would a bad investment to keep him IF we have to pay more money.
Shouldn't you pay less for declining assets?
was he a declining asset when he was basically the entire offense against houston? that was like 15 days ago.
Are you suggesting he is an asset appreciating in value and will be worth more to us in future?
And nobody should want a team that has a single RB as its entire Offense. And then have to pay more for him going forward than now which is already pretty high...why would you do that?
Saquon Barkley - 2022 OTC Valuation: $14,004,000
Josh Jacobs - 2022 OTC Valuation: $15,258,000
Tony Pollard - 2022 OTC Valuation: $10,019,000
David Montgomery - 2022 OTC Valuation: $4,919,000
Devin Singletary - 2022 OTC Valuation: $8,157,000
Jamaal Williams - 2022 OTC Valuation: $5,176,000
so even williams + singletary would conceivably cost 3m more than tagging barkley per year on top of needing to go multiple years since it would be open market prices.
Some different figures than your earlier post but whatever the point is still the same. It will be a market and plenty of choices to mix and match dollars and players. And can always increase investment from draft if lose out on free agent negotiations.
And it's okay if several guys combined cost somewhat more than one guy. There's value in having a RB Unit on various life-cycles, skill sets and injury profiles, etc. than only one single resource to turn to.
Quote:
In comment 15927309 NYGgolfer said:
Quote:
If there is anything to what we saw from Saquon as of late, it would a bad investment to keep him IF we have to pay more money.
Shouldn't you pay less for declining assets?
was he a declining asset when he was basically the entire offense against houston? that was like 15 days ago.
Are you suggesting he is an asset appreciating in value and will be worth more to us in future?
And nobody should want a team that has a single RB as its entire Offense. And then have to pay more for him going forward than now which is already pretty high...why would you do that?
he (and jacobs) appreciated so far this year relative to last year so who knows? if he finishes the year the way he started it then he will have appreciated in value from right now and be worth more than the tag value to the point where he will likely hold trade value on it.
Quote:
In comment 15927319 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
In comment 15927309 NYGgolfer said:
Quote:
If there is anything to what we saw from Saquon as of late, it would a bad investment to keep him IF we have to pay more money.
Shouldn't you pay less for declining assets?
was he a declining asset when he was basically the entire offense against houston? that was like 15 days ago.
Are you suggesting he is an asset appreciating in value and will be worth more to us in future?
And nobody should want a team that has a single RB as its entire Offense. And then have to pay more for him going forward than now which is already pretty high...why would you do that?
he (and jacobs) appreciated so far this year relative to last year so who knows? if he finishes the year the way he started it then he will have appreciated in value from right now and be worth more than the tag value to the point where he will likely hold trade value on it.
Tagging and allocating more $ to Barkley doesn't make our backfield any better. While he might have trade value next year, it won't be all that much and that isn't a good business decision as to why tag.
Again, I don't see him appreciating in value and not sure that's even debatable. And see a whole lot of sense in spreading that money around several guys because there is supply, the position takes a beating and the Offense shouldn't slow down because one RB is hurt.
The Giants are bottom third in yards per play (5.1) and points per game (20.5).
Running back and Barkley is one very viable investment, but you can tackle the problem at other positions as well. 10M against the 2023 salary cap alternatively could markedly improve the interior offensive line and have a bigger net impact.
The goal is a better offense, not necessarily a better running back.
Saquon Barkley - 2022 OTC Valuation: $14,004,000
Josh Jacobs - 2022 OTC Valuation: $15,258,000
Tony Pollard - 2022 OTC Valuation: $10,019,000
David Montgomery - 2022 OTC Valuation: $4,919,000
Devin Singletary - 2022 OTC Valuation: $8,157,000
Jamaal Williams - 2022 OTC Valuation: $5,176,000
so even williams + singletary would conceivably cost 3m more than tagging barkley per year on top of needing to go multiple years since it would be open market prices.
As many people have pointed out, the Giants don't need to be in the market for ANY of those players. There are plenty of cheaper ways to build a backfield, and given the weaknesses across the roster, there are better ways to spend your money than at the RB position.
It would be much easier, by the way, for you to just say you don't want to let Barkley go. Creating all these specific criteria for "replacing" him on the UFA market eliminates very reasonable arguments against your position.
"Don't spend $10-12 million on ANY one RB" is not an unreasonable opinion to hold.
The Giants are bottom third in yards per play (5.1) and points per game (20.5).
Running back and Barkley is one very viable investment, but you can tackle the problem at other positions as well. 10M against the 2023 salary cap alternatively could markedly improve the interior offensive line and have a bigger net impact.
The goal is a better offense, not necessarily a better running back.
sure but worse players on offense is likely to = worse offense and unlike any prospective UFA signing there is a fixed cost option year on Barkley that is lower than what his value on the field has been so far this year.
1 year 10m is almost exactly what Evan Engram got on the open market in lower cap environment off a terrible 2 years. and unlike Barkley the last time his individual performances contributed to multiple wins in a season was...never.
10m broken up among several players can be easily proxied in terms of how far that amount can go because it's essentially exactly the amount this regime spent on glowinski, feliciano, and taylor. who have been various shades of replacement level and insignificant factors in any outcomes.
nothing about tagging barkley stops them from using the rest of their cap room improving other positions or 1 of their 11 projected 2023 draft picks on a RB. would be a great outcome if they select next year's dameon pierce and can actually set themselves up to still have a solid running game cheaply post-barkley as opposed to a wing and a prayer on unknowns. or spending more on replacement level players like Williams/Singletary as suggested above.
The Giants are bottom third in yards per play (5.1) and points per game (20.5).
Running back and Barkley is one very viable investment, but you can tackle the problem at other positions as well. 10M against the 2023 salary cap alternatively could markedly improve the interior offensive line and have a bigger net impact.
The goal is a better offense, not necessarily a better running back.
Agree and said same at my 10:54am post.
However, the OP seemed dead set on wanting to argue a point that there isn't any better investment available than giving the money to Barkley, at all. And pushed to hear RB alternatives despite being dug in on this stance.
Overvaluing/overpaying NY Giants because they happen to be some of the better NY Giants doesn't mean those are good decisions. The goal is to build the best overall roster. So why not use a deep supply at some positions, like RB, to your advantage as to how your overall resources and priorities are allocated versus pinning your hopes that Barkley drank from the fountain of youth.
Building an effective running game doesn't have to come with just accepting a higher price tag with Saquon. I still don't know why it make sense to pay him more in the future while almost certainly expecting to get less out of him.
Quote:
It’s bad strategy to get stuck thinking solutions are locked to position swim lanes.
The Giants are bottom third in yards per play (5.1) and points per game (20.5).
Running back and Barkley is one very viable investment, but you can tackle the problem at other positions as well. 10M against the 2023 salary cap alternatively could markedly improve the interior offensive line and have a bigger net impact.
The goal is a better offense, not necessarily a better running back.
Agree and said same at my 10:54am post.
However, the OP seemed dead set on wanting to argue a point that there isn't any better investment available than giving the money to Barkley, at all. And pushed to hear RB alternatives despite being dug in on this stance.
Overvaluing/overpaying NY Giants because they happen to be some of the better NY Giants doesn't mean those are good decisions. The goal is to build the best overall roster. So why not use a deep supply at some positions, like RB, to your advantage as to how your overall resources and priorities are allocated versus pinning your hopes that Barkley drank from the fountain of youth.
Building an effective running game doesn't have to come with just accepting a higher price tag with Saquon. I still don't know why it make sense to pay him more in the future while almost certainly expecting to get less out of him.
you think he needs a fountain of youth to play like he did all of 2 weeks ago when he was the entire offense vs houston?
the OP literally said in the OP that there are reasons to be concerned about extending him beyond just a franchise tag - as the FO attempted to do just a few weeks ago. in fact the entire premise of the thread is that the conventional wisdom that detroit and dallas just stacked the box is wrong.
as foolish as it is for anyone to act like barkley hasn't struggled the past couple weeks, it's equally silly to not recognize the fact that he was a big part of the 7 wins and the basic economic reality that it's almost impossible to find players of any position in UFA who can impact games as he has this year on what is essentially a risk free 1 year deal.
And of course he was a big part of those wins, no question. Just as he plays his part in the losses too.
Nobody is arguing you can just easily pick a "Barkley" out of free agency in one fell swoop, or even should. The point is to create a stable of very capable but cheaper running backs (cheaper individually) so you have options with skills sets and personnel when injuries hit.
Use Day 3 of the draft (maybe Day 2 depending on circumstance) to find higher quality RBs at low prices for the 4-year time frames, and never-ending supply of RBs in free agency for the 1-2 year time frames.
And stay away from putting up bigger dollars when the supply chain is so plentiful, and history shows large second contract RBs are a waste of money. As are tags and #2 overall picks on RBs for teams in rebuilds.
All things equal, if I were in charge in the abstract I would spend it on an interior lineman. If I had 20M, I’d spend it on an interior lineman and then a 2-way TE.
So for me the alternatives aren’t limited to what RB will replace Barkley’s production. I look at it as: how can Giants beaf up their overall production. I think there will be plenty of scenarios equally attractive to a 1/10M investment in Barkley.
I’m not saying an investment in Barkley is necessarily bad either. I’d just put it lower on the list.
All things equal, if I were in charge in the abstract I would spend it on an interior lineman. If I had 20M, I’d spend it on an interior lineman and then a 2-way TE.
So for me the alternatives aren’t limited to what RB will replace Barkley’s production. I look at it as: how can Giants beaf up their overall production. I think there will be plenty of scenarios equally attractive to a 1/10M investment in Barkley.
I’m not saying an investment in Barkley is necessarily bad either. I’d just put it lower on the list.
sorted by snaps played this year, here's your 2023 list of FA TEs and IOLs. who you paying $10m over barkley?
free agency has it's occasional uses but it seems there are a lot of goldfish on this board who forget that in the last decade+ almost every nyg multi-year UFA deal over $5m ended poorly. Ironically the only one that may have looked good over the entire deal was Bradberry and they cut him (PFF has him re-entering next year as the 19th best UFA available, 3 spots behind Barkley).
https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-2023-free-agent-rankings-free-agency - ( New Window )
bradbury seems scheme dependent so not sure whether he's a fit here or not. hopefully they give gates a chance to lock down the c spot the rest of the year.
johnson has 48 catches and 500 yards in 33 career games. on a low risk deal sure but i wouldn't set expectations too far beyond jordan akins (who has actually ended up doing pretty well back in houston) and/or ricky seals jones.
swap both for barkley this year and this team has probably half as many wins as it has right now.
I think the idea (and I thought this was something most ppl agreed on (imagine that!)) was to draft and resign our own as a team building strategy.
As Eric pointed out big money FA doesn’t often work out. I really dislike it. On top of that we actually have a culture to protect now, so bringing in outsiders is it’s own kettle of fish. Not to mention you want that reputation of a team that takes care of its own.
Last thing with Barkley is the guy is a leader. I think that is being severely undervalued in a lot of ways. He is the teams most dynamic player. A legit superstar, and everything you would want in a person or teammate. That is not fungible.
Rb contracts are no where near what they were and pale in comparison to the insanity at WR(who also get injured. Don’t have to look far to see that). More then half of the league has 2nd contract RBs.
I think the idea (and I thought this was something most ppl agreed on (imagine that!)) was to draft and resign our own as a team building strategy.
As Eric pointed out big money FA doesn’t often work out. I really dislike it. On top of that we actually have a culture to protect now, so bringing in outsiders is it’s own kettle of fish. Not to mention you want that reputation of a team that takes care of its own.
Last thing with Barkley is the guy is a leader. I think that is being severely undervalued in a lot of ways. He is the teams most dynamic player. A legit superstar, and everything you would want in a person or teammate. That is not fungible.
Rb contracts are no where near what they were and pale in comparison to the insanity at WR(who also get injured. Don’t have to look far to see that). More then half of the league has 2nd contract RBs.
There are three QB's projected in the first round but only two of merit (top 5 picks). Giants have to hope they get lucky with a 2nd round QB perhaps? Someone with issues or question marks but talent? I dunno....
I think Jones is good enough but he needs a real OL to know.
If the question is: you have 10M to give to one player for one year, under the assumption 9 of the other 10 players on the team will remain below average or worse. Sure, Barkley.
If the question is: you have 10M to spend anywhere you'd like on any contract you'd like, under the assumption you're building towards improving your roster for the medium term. No, one year of Barkley is not the right answer.
But as fungible as RB is, it's a pretty big risk for this team in particular to go into the season with backups and question marks
They also may prove to be the wrong decisions a year or two from now. But, we're going to find out the risk level Schoen is willing to take in a few months. If he boots Jones, for example, things get really interesting moving forward. I'm much more interested in that than retaining Jones.
If the question is: you have 10M to give to one player for one year, under the assumption 9 of the other 10 players on the team will remain below average or worse. Sure, Barkley.
If the question is: you have 10M to spend anywhere you'd like on any contract you'd like, under the assumption you're building towards improving your roster for the medium term. No, one year of Barkley is not the right answer.
the question isn't "10m spent anywhere" it's $50m-60m to spend anywhere in a year with a really bad FA class.
I posted this link above but will repost again, PFF posted their early top 25 FA's next year. Jakobi Meyers is #9 and the best WR available. A nice slot guy but hardly a difference maker. Heck with another good month Slayton could have a claim on the 2023 class' WR1.
and as history has relentlessly shown us the better chunk of this list is likely to get tagged (Barkley and Jacobs included) so any big signings will be from another team's castoffs (like golladay) and more likely do more harm then good cancelling out comp picks and adding dead money to future years.
barkley on a 1 year 10m deal is about as low risk of an investment as any team can make which is why he wont reach UFA - he will either get tagged, extended, or traded.
i'd again ask the goldfish to consider:
1. how many fewer wins do the nyg have without barkley this year?
2. how many wins above replacement do you expect to gain with any use of $10m (less than 5% of cap)?
https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-2023-free-agent-rankings-free-agency - ( New Window )
But as fungible as RB is, it's a pretty big risk for this team in particular to go into the season with backups and question marks
the cost of running backs is priced into the market values established by the tag.
a top WR = 30m per year
a top RB = 12m per year
that's why barkley on a 10m tag is a no brainer assuming he finishes the season productively and without major injury.
Like I posted above, I have no objection to signing Barkley to a 1/10M agreement.
Among the order of operations, if the goal is to improve the team the most in the medium term, a one year deal for a running back would be down the list.
If they check all of the more important boxes first, cool.
If we're taking the other view- Schoen says 2022 wins were a fluke. The target is still 2-3 years out and we're not making moves to try to win now at all. If it's that, then the tag doesn't really matter.
But I think we're going to start trying to win in 23. And for this team, Barkley at the tag is a great value. Whether our QB is a rookie, Jones, or another placeholder, we're not going to be good at QB. And if we bring in a rookie, we really need to give him something to work with.
Like I posted above, I have no objection to signing Barkley to a 1/10M agreement.
Among the order of operations, if the goal is to improve the team the most in the medium term, a one year deal for a running back would be down the list.
If they check all of the more important boxes first, cool.
literally mentioned that in the OP so no goldfish here. the entire premise of the thread is that the last few games his performance has regressed and there are legitimate red flags for extension talks that didn't exist previously -- you know when the actual nyg FO was negotiating with him and rumored to not be that far apart on $.
If the question is: you have 10M to spend anywhere you'd like on any contract you'd like, under the assumption you're building towards improving your roster for the medium term. No, one year of Barkley is not the right answer.
I share your view. And while the free agent pool doesn't look enticing now, it will expand once teams start to trim players they can't afford. It always happens. There are always surprises. So, having money tucked away for the unexpected is a better strategy than a one-year guarantee for SB - IMV.
Like others, however, I expect SB to be retained for a variety of reasons. I just hope it's less stupid with a franchise tag versus a multi-year deal.
As discussed many times, great players don’t make it to UFA. They are either extended or traded. Barkley certainly qualifies for that not great distinction. Great running back, but positional value is graded on a curve.
I’d much rather they concentrate on upgrading Glowinski and Feliciano, and then turn their attention to running back.
As discussed many times, great players don’t make it to UFA. They are either extended or traded. Barkley certainly qualifies for that not great distinction. Great running back, but positional value is graded on a curve.
I’d much rather they concentrate on upgrading Glowinski and Feliciano, and then turn their attention to running back.
they just gave glowinski 7m per year, is your plan really to go to a weaker UFA market and try to upgrade him? Moving on from him this offseason would result in almost 9m of dead money. the deals they gave glowsinki and feliciano are actually the perfect example of how far $10m doesn't go because that's their exact combined AAV and both have been replacement level at best. And those were 2 players the current regime specifically targeted from a strong UFA class because of their familiarity with them!
re Felciano he was only a 1 year deal so finding a replacement is possible if not likely, but the best possible upgrade is probably also already here in gates. Your suggestion of bradberry is interesting but he's undersized and seems the opposite of what they've looked for in this scheme.
and re Barkley and any other player, yes, every game makes a difference. each game is 1/17th of a season which is 6%. 2 games = 12% of his performance review. that's not insignificant - and a big reason why the NYG should have held some leverage to get a team friendly structure ahead of the bye with almost half of a season left to go. again as i noted in the OP the performance the past 2 weeks is 1 red flag but his regression as a receiver the last 3 seasons is starting to become the real notable issue, then highlighted in a key play against dallas. even with that deficiency i have no doubts about a healthy barkley being worth 10m the question is deal structure beyond in an extension.
Hypothetically, if the option is sign Garret Bradbury to a 3/25M deal, with a 7M 2023 cap hit, and keep Gates at a 3M cap hit. I’d do that 100% over Barkley for 1/10M.
I don’t view that 10M as a single chip, it’s just money to be spent. I’d invest in Barkley at the very end of a long list of offensive needs.
i haven't heard seen any alternatives proposed that realistically would have helped any team win as many games as he helped the nyg this year.
it's unlikely the nyg will be able to sign anyone other than barkley from the top 25 FA list i posted for 1 year 10m, and there are very few players on that list id trade barkley straight up for who won't likely get tagged themselves.
I’m purely looking at a scenario where the Giants can use 10M on the 2023 cap to best improve the offense for 2023 and forward.
Put it this way, if the Giants could only use 10M of the 2023 cap to improve the offense, I would pick spending all of it on IOL.
I’m purely looking at a scenario where the Giants can use 10M on the 2023 cap to best improve the offense for 2023 and forward.
Put it this way, if the Giants could only use 10M of the 2023 cap to improve the offense, I would pick spending all of it on IOL.
you cant invent an IOL to spend it on though. The '23 FA's are who they are - and you may be right that Garrett Bradbury is the best of the bunch - which isn't a huge selling point because bradbury has take 4 penalties to felciano's 2 and allowed 22 pressures to felciano's 18 (both have allowed 2 sacks).
do you think the 2022 nyg have fewer wins if MIN/NYG swapped Bradbury for Feliciano/Barkley and had some more replacement level RB?