Can’t find any other source of Garafolo saying this so not sure where he said it.
Quote:
According to NFL insider @MikeGarafolo, the Giants would be open to retaining Saquon Barkley at slightly above $12M per season but if he wants McCaffrey money at $16M per year, he doesn't think it'll get done
he doesn't have much leverage. This is the first "healthy" season he's had in years and his pace has slowed in the recent weeks. There's also the fact that CMC earned that contract coming off of multiple productive and healthy campaigns. Don't get me wrong. Love SB26 but only if he doesn't price himself out of a multi-year deal to stay in blue. At that point, just keep tagging him year after year like what happened to Leveon Bell.
I think someone posted that this year's tag is around $10.
I wanted to draft Barkley. It is time to move on. Thank you for what you gave this team but we shouldn't be paying him decent money on a long term deal.
How many yards has he run for in the last 2 games? Did he get 50 yards combined? And both teams are not known for great run defenses? He did hurt his shoulder this year. Maybe it’s bothering , maybe something else. Given his injury record over the last few years, I would not break the bank for him.
We don’t even know what the second contract would be. Saying no just because doesn’t make sense. What if they want to tag someone else where there would be a larger financial benefit?
Looked like he was shot out of a canon comparatively - I don’t think anything beyond the Giants comfort level or a franchise tag is going to happen. And they shouldn’t. It would be really interesting to see how the offense responds to different players in the mix
Can’t go over $12M per year. Barkley has either been out or nicked up for 60% of his career thus far including now with the shoulder that seems to be hampering him.
How many teams that have paid major cash to the RB position have been successful in the last decade? Pretty much no one. The Titans have made the playoffs and had decent records with Henry, but they haven’t been realistic contenders.
Evaluate him compared to the rest of the team and then compared to the league’s running backs. Excluding QB, what is his value compared to any other Giants player? Do you really want to go into next season with a veteran borderline starter or do you think you are going to find one using draft capital in Day 1 or Day 2 of the draft?
If you pay a RB that much it means the offense has to go thru him
deal ended up paying out for the panthers. 40m over 3 years (30m of which was guaranteed on signing).
the devil is in the details but assuming barkley's performance this year doesn't regress further as long as they can structure a similar 3 year outlay the rest of the extension is window dressing.
talk about a guy who never carried a team to anything. He can’t do what Barkley did to help get us to 7-2. CMC might not play this week as well, yet another injury.
Looked like he was shot out of a canon comparatively - I don’t think anything beyond the Giants comfort level or a franchise tag is going to happen. And they shouldn’t. It would be really interesting to see how the offense responds to different players in the mix
Watch those plays. They were running some very interesting plays with Barkley lined up close to the line. When he went in motion and Jones faked to Barkley, the ENTIRE DEFENSE flowed to Barkley. The result were huge holes for Brightwell. He did nothing special whatsoever on those runs. In fact, I'd guess that if Barkley had either of those holes, he'd have gone for 10-15 extra yards.
people forget the crazy plays Barkley was making the first half of the year that no other RB in the league makes. Is he in a rut right now, yes? But I'd bank on him bouncing back especially if we get our real two way TE back this weekend as well as Neal.
and that's such a crucial part of today's game for an RB. He's gotten serviceable at pass blocking, but he's not really an asset there either.
He's still our best weapon, but a 4-5 year commitment seems like a bad idea. Stay young and cheap at RB IMO.
I was and am a big fan of SB, but I agree with this 100%.
I agree too. I wanted to draft Barkley and I really like him as a player. But to tie that much cap $ up in him, especially multi-year, would set this team back a lot in retaining other talent and signing better FAs. And, NYG can likely find a "good" to "serviceable" replacement RB for a fraction of the cost.
and this is the return message. So, there figures to be a significant gap. 4/68 from the agent, 3/36 from NYG figures to be the gap like I mentioned a few weeks ago.
talk about a guy who never carried a team to anything. He can’t do what Barkley did to help get us to 7-2. CMC might not play this week as well, yet another injury.
There's perhaps 1 RB in the league that's good enough to "carry" a team anywhere. It's Henry.
talk about a guy who never carried a team to anything. He can’t do what Barkley did to help get us to 7-2. CMC might not play this week as well, yet another injury.
There's perhaps 1 RB in the league that's good enough to "carry" a team anywhere. It's Henry.
Everyone else doesn't do that.
I don’t agree. Barkley has done more to contribute to our 7-2 start than anything CMC has done to date. People claiming he’s the better player must be watching a different game and from a different year.
with Jones, I'd like to see how the rest of the year plays out before making a final decision about what to do with either.
Barkley has been facing a lot of eight man fronts designed to stop him, behind a porous OL, with essentially no viable WRs or TEs, and a QB that the coach clearly doesn't trust. He's willed this team to several victories.
But RBs have a short shelf life, he has an injury history, and as others have noted, many good RBs can be found on day three. It does seem like a fungible position.
As of right now, $12M is the maximum that I would consider, but we'd also need to know the length of the contract and guaranteed money.
But I won't mind at all if he goes. His talent just doesn't translate to any more wins than any other RB who's capable of getting 100 yards per game. Look at Dameon Pierce. He was a 4th rounder, and he's on a rookie deal. Tell me that having (and PAYING) Barkley over a guy like Pierce translates to more wins. You can't.
Every Giants HC who's had Barkley healthy has leaned so much on him that the offense are always facing 9 in the box, and every opponent is keying to stop Barkley. A few years back, there was ample evidence that the offense was more balanced and more effective when Barkley was out and Wayne Gallman was in. Mostly because they weren't facing 9 in the box.
The only way Barkley is possibly MORE valuable than any other GOOD RB is if you have a loaded offense (ha!), and/or a totally dominant OL -- which the Giants haven't had in over 10 years. Hopefully they're building one now under Schoen.
I wouldn't pay Barkley a ton. At all. If they can get him reasonably, fine (even 12 mil seems ridiculous. Draft a mid round kid). RBs just aren't where you want those assets tied up.
I'd sooner pay a true #1 FA WR.
And if it's between paying Barkley or Jones -- even Jones as the BRIDGE to the next guy, you have to pay/tag Jones. There are no clearly better options at QB at the moment. But effective RBs (comparatively) grow on trees.
has declined. Why?
We don't know.
What we do know is that he lost 4 of his 5 starting lineman and his TE whose greatest asset could be his run blocking.
I think this week we will see an increase in production with what might be the best offensive line we've seen all year in talent and an improved and more mature Neal at RT.
Time will tell.
You'd rather have a top WR than a top RB. You'd even rather have a 2nd or 3rd tier WR than a top RB.
The problems are 1) WRs aren't available in FA, 2) They're expensive.
Courtland Sutton, for example, signed for 4/60. Probably a 3rd tier guy. AJ Brown was 4/100 plus the 18th pick. Christian Kirk was 4/72 (most people thought that was an overpay).
I get not wanting to pay Barkley. But its not like we can just let him go and turn that space into AJ Brown or even Courtland Sutton.
talk about a guy who never carried a team to anything. He can’t do what Barkley did to help get us to 7-2. CMC might not play this week as well, yet another injury.
There's perhaps 1 RB in the league that's good enough to "carry" a team anywhere. It's Henry.
Everyone else doesn't do that.
I don’t agree. Barkley has done more to contribute to our 7-2 start than anything CMC has done to date. People claiming he’s the better player must be watching a different game and from a different year.
They were 7-2. They're now 7-4 though. They go as Barkley goes. If 7-2 becomes 7-5 because Barkley once again is injured and less effective, it is only fair to make that part of the math for the future. He's just got a habit of getting hurt.
and it’s preposterous to pin much of the losses on him. This roster is a mess and 3/5 of the line has been absent for a while. He helped a talentless team punch above its weight class.
I have no qualms about moving on from Barkley. But some of the reasoning doesn’t make sense.
He gets credit for most of the success
as the main reason theyre 7-2 but doesn't wear the negatives when they lose if he's banged up or had too many carries the week before?
My main point is if you're going to regard him as a franchise player and pay him accordingly, then fair or not, it's on him to lead the team to success with his play. Same standard applied to Eli.
And if the team isn't good enough to survive Barkley not able to play to his best, then you have to question if it makes sense to keep him because you have a lot of work to do.
people forget the crazy plays Barkley was making the first half of the year that no other RB in the league makes. Is he in a rut right now, yes? But I'd bank on him bouncing back especially if we get our real two way TE back this weekend as well as Neal.
He gets credit for most of the success
as the main reason theyre 7-2 but doesn't wear the negatives when they lose if he's banged up or had too many carries the week before?
My main point is if you're going to regard him as a franchise player and pay him accordingly, then fair or not, it's on him to lead the team to success with his play. Same standard applied to Eli.
And if the team isn't good enough to survive Barkley not able to play to his best, then you have to question if it makes sense to keep him because you have a lot of work to do.
That’s just not true. A “franchise” RB makes less than 1/3 the salary as a franchise QB. The risk isn’t anywhere on the same planet
SF was crazy to take a $16M contract for a guy that’s already had a ton of injuries.
NYFG would be crazy to give that to a RB that’s had major injury, and he’s not likely to get that anywhere else either, even with a projected cap increase of 40M over 22 in 24.
And I am a SB guy.
He gets credit for most of the success
as the main reason theyre 7-2 but doesn't wear the negatives when they lose if he's banged up or had too many carries the week before?
My main point is if you're going to regard him as a franchise player and pay him accordingly, then fair or not, it's on him to lead the team to success with his play. Same standard applied to Eli.
And if the team isn't good enough to survive Barkley not able to play to his best, then you have to question if it makes sense to keep him because you have a lot of work to do.
I’m not into assigning specific credit but it’s pretty clear that the talent stinks with all these injuries and all of our good players aren’t having a big impact because it’s simply too much to overcome. Barkley, LW, Dex, etc. these guys can’t do any more right now.
I ask this on every “never pay RBs thread” - when RB prices are at a low, and their impact is still pretty high, where exactly does the risk lie? This cliche of never paying RBs is group think. Go look up salaries, look up the cap increases. Top paid RBs used to make up 8%+ of the annual cap. Barkley could potentially be had around 5% ($12m of $228m cap). It’s quite possible we can sign Barkley for 3 years for as much money as we guaranteed Golladay, lol.
There should be a price we don’t pay for Barkley. But $12m is reasonable IMO, and a 2-3 year deal is not a major contract. The risk is already factored into the RB market.
talk about a guy who never carried a team to anything. He can’t do what Barkley did to help get us to 7-2. CMC might not play this week as well, yet another injury.
There's perhaps 1 RB in the league that's good enough to "carry" a team anywhere. It's Henry.
Everyone else doesn't do that.
I don’t agree. Barkley has done more to contribute to our 7-2 start than anything CMC has done to date. People claiming he’s the better player must be watching a different game and from a different year.
Barkley is a better runner. CMC is a better receiver. They both spend a lot of time not playing. There is very little difference.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's a case of the Giants wanting to look like they are interested in retaining him when in fact they're not. Make him the highest possible offer that you know he won't accept so it looks like you tried to the fans.
running backs in AAV make 12m or more and they all signed contracts before crazy inflation happened. If you don't think barkley is a top 8 running back or if there aren't 5+ teams willing to pay him 15m per year, your crazy.
Also until this gets reported directly from someone else, specifically someone credible, like Glazer I'm calling bullshit.
With so many holes to fill in the roster next season - I think it’d be unwise to invest heavy at the running back position when its success is so dependent on oline play anyway
I ask this on every “never pay RBs thread” - when RB prices are at a low, and their impact is still pretty high, where exactly does the risk lie?
The risk lies in a multi-year deal for the RB seeking the second contract; and the low odds of a that RB being productive over those multiple years.
It's a position that should be used for young players recently drafted (much lower costs) or one-year deals for current RBs in the league. Those RBs should be viewed as one-year mercenaries.
RE: If you pay a RB that much it means the offense has to go thru him
...and Barkley has proven that he cannot contribute to a winning team on a consistent game-to-game basis.
He is not durable enough. He has too many games where his production stifles the offense.
Great teammate, great character, but that is not worth the money he wants or even a long term contract averaging $12 million per year, IMO.
He is the offense! When he struggles, because defenses don't respect Jones and load the box, we don't have a QB that can make anyone better or take over a game.
Without SB, Jones would be terrible. DJ can't throw with 8-9 in the box, imagine if there were 6-7.
It cracks me up that most of the same people who want to give too much money to Jones, don't want to pay the guy that is literally carrying our offense.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's a case of the Giants wanting to look like they are interested in retaining him when in fact they're not. Make him the highest possible offer that you know he won't accept so it looks like you tried to the fans.
If they're willing to pay him $12 million, which may not be true, they'll tag him.
I fail to see the logic in a long-term deal? Just tag him and trade him. McCaffrey yielded a 2nd, 3rd, and 2 4ths. SB is easily worth a 3rd and 4th, probably more.
You'd rather have a top WR than a top RB. You'd even rather have a 2nd or 3rd tier WR than a top RB.
The problems are 1) WRs aren't available in FA, 2) They're expensive.
Courtland Sutton, for example, signed for 4/60. Probably a 3rd tier guy. AJ Brown was 4/100 plus the 18th pick. Christian Kirk was 4/72 (most people thought that was an overpay).
I get not wanting to pay Barkley. But its not like we can just let him go and turn that space into AJ Brown or even Courtland Sutton.
Exactly. You are not getting a top receiver at 12 million. You can, however, franchise a top running back "touched by the hand of God" for $10-$12.
I ask this on every “never pay RBs thread” - when RB prices are at a low, and their impact is still pretty high, where exactly does the risk lie?
The risk lies in a multi-year deal for the RB seeking the second contract; and the low odds of a that RB being productive over those multiple years.
It's a position that should be used for young players recently drafted (much lower costs) or one-year deals for current RBs in the league. Those RBs should be viewed as one-year mercenaries.
Already addressed. You don’t know the years terms or guarantees but somehow it’s automatically bad. I already said you don’t just give him anything he wants, there has to be a cap and it seems like Schoen is going to go that route.
There’s risk with every FA contract handed out, and at RB the risk is a lot lower right now IMO (depending on years). I’d like to see the terms before speaking in absolutes.
On the Giants Insider podcast weeks back, Chris mentioned that Saquon told him & Kim Jones that being a Giant means a helluva lot to him & he wants to be a Giant for life, ala Eli, Strahan, etc. Now, I doubt he's turning down less coin if some other team offers more than we do, but it was a nugget I thought was interesting.
running backs in AAV make 12m or more and they all signed contracts before crazy inflation happened. If you don't think barkley is a top 8 running back or if there aren't 5+ teams willing to pay him 15m per year, your crazy.
Also until this gets reported directly from someone else, specifically someone credible, like Glazer I'm calling bullshit.
running backs in AAV make 12m or more and they all signed contracts before crazy inflation happened. If you don't think barkley is a top 8 running back or if there aren't 5+ teams willing to pay him 15m per year, your crazy.
Also until this gets reported directly from someone else, specifically someone credible, like Glazer I'm calling bullshit.
Since when is Garafolo not credible?
its someone on twitter saying Garafolo said it, not Garafolo himself and not someone thats credible.
You think someone who works for the NFL saying something like that wouldn't be picked up by national media outlets but rather some no name guy on twitter?
We had one year of great production. Two injury filled years. And this year he is fading fast.
If he wants the big money he has to play big. This means being a reliable receiving threat, running through contact and not getting injured. I hope that happens but I won't hold my breath.
running backs in AAV make 12m or more and they all signed contracts before crazy inflation happened. If you don't think barkley is a top 8 running back or if there aren't 5+ teams willing to pay him 15m per year, your crazy.
Also until this gets reported directly from someone else, specifically someone credible, like Glazer I'm calling bullshit.
Since when is Garafolo not credible?
its someone on twitter saying Garafolo said it, not Garafolo himself and not someone thats credible.
You think someone who works for the NFL saying something like that wouldn't be picked up by national media outlets but rather some no name guy on twitter?
Already addressed. You don’t know the years terms or guarantees but somehow it’s automatically bad. I already said you don’t just give him anything he wants, there has to be a cap and it seems like Schoen is going to go that route.
There’s risk with every FA contract handed out, and at RB the risk is a lot lower right now IMO (depending on years). I’d like to see the terms before speaking in absolutes.
I was answering your general question about the risk element with RBs.
I could live with a one-year deal for SB under the tag. However, I would prefer to let SB hit the market to see what his real value is. And if he gets a deal that he can't refuse, wish him well and look for new solutions.
Probably like you, the QB issue is > than the SB issue.
We had one year of great production. Two injury filled years. And this year he is fading fast.
If he wants the big money he has to play big. This means being a reliable receiving threat, running through contact and not getting injured. I hope that happens but I won't hold my breath.
He actually had 2 good years upfront. His second year he was the same as his first year "per game", but he only played 13 games. So he still got to 1,000 yds rushing plus a lot of receiving yards. This year he will be stats-wise as good as his first 2 years.
running backs in AAV make 12m or more and they all signed contracts before crazy inflation happened. If you don't think barkley is a top 8 running back or if there aren't 5+ teams willing to pay him 15m per year, your crazy.
Also until this gets reported directly from someone else, specifically someone credible, like Glazer I'm calling bullshit.
Since when is Garafolo not credible?
its someone on twitter saying Garafolo said it, not Garafolo himself and not someone thats credible.
You think someone who works for the NFL saying something like that wouldn't be picked up by national media outlets but rather some no name guy on twitter?
https://youtu.be/HBu_q1g-xME
It's at 13:20.
no where in the video does he say or infer what the Giants have said they are willing to pay him or that he has any inside info. The tweet specifically says according to garafolo the giants are willing to pay him x amount.
Its literally some guy on twitter twisting words to try to get noticed
I still say one of the biggest faulty assumptions fans like to make is don’t pay player X that money they should pay some other player that same money. In other words don’t pay Barkley, save the money for some other guy.
Who is this other guy? And when and how are we getting him? I used to ask the same shit when Knicks fans were hesitant to trade all in for Donovan Mitchell. Not to compare the two or even condemn the Knicks for holding back, but what elite WR are the giants missing out on if they instead spend on Barkley?
Not saying we absolutely should throw every cent at Barkley but the grass ain’t always greener if we save that money. Who we giving it too? When? Maybe Barkley is in fact the bird in the hand. Don’t tell me a great rb can’t help you score.
It’s not just that east to pivot off not signing Barkley, while replacing him adequately AND spending that money on a ready made stud elsewhere.
In basketball that one guy rarely becomes a available. IN the NFL, having a couple of guys may be more valuable than signing a running back long term.
Two competent inside linebackers would do a lot. Or maybe just one and some money to allocate to keeping other free agents at a premium position. Long term deals for running backs rarely work out. I'd use that money in another way. A tag and trade would make the most sense to me.
I still say one of the biggest faulty assumptions fans like to make is don’t pay player X that money they should pay some other player that same money. In other words don’t pay Barkley, save the money for some other guy.
Who is this other guy? And when and how are we getting him? I used to ask the same shit when Knicks fans were hesitant to trade all in for Donovan Mitchell. Not to compare the two or even condemn the Knicks for holding back, but what elite WR are the giants missing out on if they instead spend on Barkley?
Not saying we absolutely should throw every cent at Barkley but the grass ain’t always greener if we save that money. Who we giving it too? When? Maybe Barkley is in fact the bird in the hand. Don’t tell me a great rb can’t help you score.
It’s not just that east to pivot off not signing Barkley, while replacing him adequately AND spending that money on a ready made stud elsewhere.
He's currently playing on a 1 year $10 M deal with the Lions. That is the type of comp in the FA market that we're talking about. We desperately need WRs, but Saquon on the tag is a much better value than DJ Chark.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's a case of the Giants wanting to look like they are interested in retaining him when in fact they're not. Make him the highest possible offer that you know he won't accept so it looks like you tried to the fans.
In basketball that one guy rarely becomes a available. IN the NFL, having a couple of guys may be more valuable than signing a running back long term.
Two competent inside linebackers would do a lot. Or maybe just one and some money to allocate to keeping other free agents at a premium position. Long term deals for running backs rarely work out. I'd use that money in another way. A tag and trade would make the most sense to me.
In comment 15928456 djm said:
Quote:
I still say one of the biggest faulty assumptions fans like to make is don’t pay player X that money they should pay some other player that same money. In other words don’t pay Barkley, save the money for some other guy.
Who is this other guy? And when and how are we getting him? I used to ask the same shit when Knicks fans were hesitant to trade all in for Donovan Mitchell. Not to compare the two or even condemn the Knicks for holding back, but what elite WR are the giants missing out on if they instead spend on Barkley?
Not saying we absolutely should throw every cent at Barkley but the grass ain’t always greener if we save that money. Who we giving it too? When? Maybe Barkley is in fact the bird in the hand. Don’t tell me a great rb can’t help you score.
It’s not just that east to pivot off not signing Barkley, while replacing him adequately AND spending that money on a ready made stud elsewhere.
I seem to think we tried this approach repeatedly. I seem to recall we had fuckall at the RB position for the better part of a decade as the resident Putz's went on, year after year about how good RBs are " a dime a dozen, yet prerry sure we went through closer to 2 dozen and didn't have any worth a shit. I distinctly remember that. A dime a dozen. And every year we were among the lowest teams in the league in production from the RB position.
Know what I think? I think Shoen is going to outsmart himself, bigtime. I think Daboll did wonders with what he's has ( which is basically Barkley and Jones) and Scchoen is gonna move on from both. I think he will be way less succesful next year, and by years end we'll be screaming how he fooled us like judge did, after a shitty season filled with injuries once again, new playing surface notwithstanding.
P.S. So far Both Scoens draft picks and FAs have been every bit as much injured as Gettlemans, and it wouldn't surprise me if next year as more of the same, and in 24 months the fanbase is screaming for his head, as they are wont to do...
Gentlemen tried it and we finally saw a little reward early this season. Even with that, they were winning these games by their fingernails. Hopefully, Schoen and Daboll will make the decision
have used Barkley this season. Barkley's best season was his rookie season where Barkley was Barkley. Yes I know he's produced, but he looks worn down. He's not Nick Chubb or Derrick Henry and should play his style which is more like Barry Sanders. So if the Giants want a back like Chubb or Henry, then they should draft a guy like that in the 3rd or 4th round, retain Matt Breida and Gary Brightwell and hopefully take a comp pick for Barkley.
When we drafted Barkley I really thought this organization was getting a version of my favorite player growing up...Barry Sanders.
In basketball that one guy rarely becomes a available. IN the NFL, having a couple of guys may be more valuable than signing a running back long term.
Two competent inside linebackers would do a lot. Or maybe just one and some money to allocate to keeping other free agents at a premium position. Long term deals for running backs rarely work out. I'd use that money in another way. A tag and trade would make the most sense to me.
In comment 15928456 djm said:
Quote:
I still say one of the biggest faulty assumptions fans like to make is don’t pay player X that money they should pay some other player that same money. In other words don’t pay Barkley, save the money for some other guy.
Who is this other guy? And when and how are we getting him? I used to ask the same shit when Knicks fans were hesitant to trade all in for Donovan Mitchell. Not to compare the two or even condemn the Knicks for holding back, but what elite WR are the giants missing out on if they instead spend on Barkley?
Not saying we absolutely should throw every cent at Barkley but the grass ain’t always greener if we save that money. Who we giving it too? When? Maybe Barkley is in fact the bird in the hand. Don’t tell me a great rb can’t help you score.
It’s not just that east to pivot off not signing Barkley, while replacing him adequately AND spending that money on a ready made stud elsewhere.
I seem to think we tried this approach repeatedly. I seem to recall we had fuckall at the RB position for the better part of a decade as the resident Putz's went on, year after year about how good RBs are " a dime a dozen, yet prerry sure we went through closer to 2 dozen and didn't have any worth a shit. I distinctly remember that. A dime a dozen. And every year we were among the lowest teams in the league in production from the RB position.
Know what I think? I think Shoen is going to outsmart himself, bigtime. I think Daboll did wonders with what he's has ( which is basically Barkley and Jones) and Scchoen is gonna move on from both. I think he will be way less succesful next year, and by years end we'll be screaming how he fooled us like judge did, after a shitty season filled with injuries once again, new playing surface notwithstanding.
P.S. So far Both Scoens draft picks and FAs have been every bit as much injured as Gettlemans, and it wouldn't surprise me if next year as more of the same, and in 24 months the fanbase is screaming for his head, as they are wont to do...
I hope Schoen doesn't make decisions based on winning 8 or 9 games next year to keep the fanbase happy. This team isn't as good as their record this year, the sooner the fanbase realizes that, the happier they'll be with a REAL rebuild.
Jones isn't a guy to build around. SB may not be a guy Schoen and Daboll want to build around. Time will tell...
Looked like he was shot out of a canon comparatively - I don’t think anything beyond the Giants comfort level or a franchise tag is going to happen. And they shouldn’t. It would be really interesting to see how the offense responds to different players in the mix
You don't honestly think Brightwell can do that over 200 carries...do you?
people saying they'd rather pay for a #1wr are foolish imo
a better team, whether on a tag or an extension? He is a good player that is most certainly a declining asset because of his years, injuries and how the Giants utilize him.
Team is much better off spreading those monies around to several backs utilized in an more efficient manner with various skills and at different points in their life cycles. Keep a Breida, add 1-2 free agents on short deals and draft another RB in round 3/4 to be your next 4 year back. Use them all, keep them fresh, and rotate around the eventual injuries.
Take advantage of the supply at the position versus paying one expensive back, who continues to get injured, more money as this rebuild continues.
running backs in AAV make 12m or more and they all signed contracts before crazy inflation happened. If you don't think barkley is a top 8 running back or if there aren't 5+ teams willing to pay him 15m per year, your crazy.
Also until this gets reported directly from someone else, specifically someone credible, like Glazer I'm calling bullshit.
Since when is Garafolo not credible?
its someone on twitter saying Garafolo said it, not Garafolo himself and not someone thats credible.
You think someone who works for the NFL saying something like that wouldn't be picked up by national media outlets but rather some no name guy on twitter?
https://youtu.be/HBu_q1g-xME
It's at 13:20.
no where in the video does he say or infer what the Giants have said they are willing to pay him or that he has any inside info. The tweet specifically says according to garafolo the giants are willing to pay him x amount.
Its literally some guy on twitter twisting words to try to get noticed
You're being very odd about this. It's garafolo delivering a report, verbatim, "fron what i gathered, if he thinks he's getting McCaffery money at 16m a year, it's not getting done,but north of dalvin cook, 12m a year, yeah"
Four backs churn out over 1000 yards. Barber, Jacobs, Ward and Bradshaw. We all saw the consequences and destruction when that fell apart the following years except for a few.
JS will evaluate SB in relation to that talent/scheme and assign a value appropriate imv. Maybe a tag and a RB drafted in a later round that can develop for a couple years to take over the feature role. We'll see.
Dallas did not want to pay E Smith at one point. Started 0-2 and Jerry caved in. So maybe its not that any 4th round back is going to fill in and in that case it was the best OL in the league. Then you had Ward get big bucks with the Bucs and he was cut two years later. Not always so simple.
offered an opinion of where he thought Barkley would get paid. It wasn't phrased as 'this is the Giants line in the sand'.
Maybe it's passing along the Giants' thinking without actually saying this is their position - based on inside info, or just being a mouthpiece for them. Or maybe it's just his interpretation of the situation. I don't think you can chisel it in stone as 12 being the line in the sand.
He did say north of 12, somewhere between 12 and 16. That's a lot of gray area.
That said, the key is guaranteed money and ability to dump him after a year or two and/or if he gets injured.
SB has to finish strong if he wants the Giants to move off their initial offer. If he makes business decisions down the stretch, it means he's already decided he wants off the Giants. Take anything a player says during contract negotiations with a grain of salt. Of course he's going to say he wants to go wire to wire with the Giants.
RE: Where would the Giants be this year without Barkley? You have to
Evaluate him compared to the rest of the team and then compared to the league’s running backs. Excluding QB, what is his value compared to any other Giants player? Do you really want to go into next season with a veteran borderline starter or do you think you are going to find one using draft capital in Day 1 or Day 2 of the draft?
You're not asking the right question. A more appropriate question would be can Barkley turn the team into a contender and how long can he do it for?
1--- I doubt he can carry a team to being a contender. He needs a super QB and overall a team ready to be a contender.
2--- He has injury / durability issues and is a huge risk for rb's on a 2nd contract.
Not saying "without a doubt" don't sign him and ofc teh Giants will do what they feel is reasonable - but SB is a risk,
RE: RE: If you pay a RB that much it means the offense has to go thru him
...and Barkley has proven that he cannot contribute to a winning team on a consistent game-to-game basis.
He is not durable enough. He has too many games where his production stifles the offense.
Great teammate, great character, but that is not worth the money he wants or even a long term contract averaging $12 million per year, IMO.
It cracks me up that most of the same people who want to give too much money to Jones, don't want to pay the guy that is literally carrying our offense.
Maybe because you're an idiot. Jones has made the JV Wide Receivers better. Someone like Sills doesn't even belong in the NFL. He sometimes makes Slayton look like a 2 but is no more than a bottom 3 high 4.
The problem with Barkley which you don't understand is that SB can possibly make the Giants mediocre which is the worst place to be.
The bigger problem with morons like you that have bashed Jones is that you always move the goalposts to bash Jones. You even said on this thread the following:
"I hope Schoen doesn't make decisions based on winning 8 or 9 games next year to keep the fanbase happy. This team isn't as good as their record this year, the sooner the fanbase realizes that, the happier they'll be with a REAL rebuild."
In that thick-headed" pea-brain of yours how is a "REAL rebuild" conducive to signing an injury prone RB getting up on years on a position that tends to wear out quickly?
I'm fine with not signing Jones. Just what's funny is reading silly posts from lunatic posters like you. The goalposts always move in order to slam Jones. So transparent.
I ask this on every “never pay RBs thread” - when RB prices are at a low, and their impact is still pretty high, where exactly does the risk lie? This cliche of never paying RBs is group think. Go look up salaries, look up the cap increases. Top paid RBs used to make up 8%+ of the annual cap. Barkley could potentially be had around 5% ($12m of $228m cap). It’s quite possible we can sign Barkley for 3 years for as much money as we guaranteed Golladay, lol.
It's a risk compared vs other RB's. Paying "more" is always a risk in some manner. Paying much higher above market value at the RB position with a player that has shown to be a bit injury prone and wears down a bit is a huge risk for that position that tends to get injured/wear down more than other positions.. Unless Barkley can put team on his back and have his team become a perennial playoff team with a chance to win a title-- why take on that risk?
Schoen will make a good decision and sign him at the appropriate level. Barkley will stay if it's best for him, and it could easily be--remember he makes outside $ and being a NYG is a good thing.
Barkley has 35 receptions this year and four have made a first down. Four.
One of these players is not like the other. At all.
We don’t even know what the second contract would be. Saying no just because doesn’t make sense. What if they want to tag someone else where there would be a larger financial benefit?
I am good with that
Will be the same with DJ
If I were him Id take it, I know they will negotiate but he's been hurt so much. 12M is a good offer (We'll see whats guaranteed).
How many teams that have paid major cash to the RB position have been successful in the last decade? Pretty much no one. The Titans have made the playoffs and had decent records with Henry, but they haven’t been realistic contenders.
He is not durable enough. He has too many games where his production stifles the offense.
Great teammate, great character, but that is not worth the money he wants or even a long term contract averaging $12 million per year, IMO.
He's still our best weapon, but a 4-5 year commitment seems like a bad idea. Stay young and cheap at RB IMO.
the devil is in the details but assuming barkley's performance this year doesn't regress further as long as they can structure a similar 3 year outlay the rest of the extension is window dressing.
Agree, 12 seems too high. CMC is better player and Barkley should not be paid like CMC
There is no such thing as RB hell in this league, it is the easiest to replicate production by late round picks and undrafted free agents.
Watch those plays. They were running some very interesting plays with Barkley lined up close to the line. When he went in motion and Jones faked to Barkley, the ENTIRE DEFENSE flowed to Barkley. The result were huge holes for Brightwell. He did nothing special whatsoever on those runs. In fact, I'd guess that if Barkley had either of those holes, he'd have gone for 10-15 extra yards.
He's still our best weapon, but a 4-5 year commitment seems like a bad idea. Stay young and cheap at RB IMO.
I was and am a big fan of SB, but I agree with this 100%.
CMC had fewer years and injuries on his sheet, and the Panthers paid 40M for 2.5 years of injury plagued, low performance.
The only silver lining for them, he was young enough that SF was willing to trade value for the remainder of his deal.
If Barkley has 2.5 years equivalent to CMC, he’s out of the league. Not a trade chip.
The Giants should invest significantly less than Carolina did in those 3 years.
Quote:
and that's such a crucial part of today's game for an RB. He's gotten serviceable at pass blocking, but he's not really an asset there either.
He's still our best weapon, but a 4-5 year commitment seems like a bad idea. Stay young and cheap at RB IMO.
I was and am a big fan of SB, but I agree with this 100%.
I agree too. I wanted to draft Barkley and I really like him as a player. But to tie that much cap $ up in him, especially multi-year, would set this team back a lot in retaining other talent and signing better FAs. And, NYG can likely find a "good" to "serviceable" replacement RB for a fraction of the cost.
Easy peasy.
There's perhaps 1 RB in the league that's good enough to "carry" a team anywhere. It's Henry.
Everyone else doesn't do that.
I don’t like giving 20 plus million to WRs.
the struggles in pass catching limits what they would value
Quote:
talk about a guy who never carried a team to anything. He can’t do what Barkley did to help get us to 7-2. CMC might not play this week as well, yet another injury.
There's perhaps 1 RB in the league that's good enough to "carry" a team anywhere. It's Henry.
Everyone else doesn't do that.
I don’t agree. Barkley has done more to contribute to our 7-2 start than anything CMC has done to date. People claiming he’s the better player must be watching a different game and from a different year.
I don’t like giving 20 plus million to WRs.
I'd like for the money/ball to go towards WRs. That way we can score more points
Barkley has been facing a lot of eight man fronts designed to stop him, behind a porous OL, with essentially no viable WRs or TEs, and a QB that the coach clearly doesn't trust. He's willed this team to several victories.
But RBs have a short shelf life, he has an injury history, and as others have noted, many good RBs can be found on day three. It does seem like a fungible position.
As of right now, $12M is the maximum that I would consider, but we'd also need to know the length of the contract and guaranteed money.
And he's a good guy and a good company man.
But I won't mind at all if he goes. His talent just doesn't translate to any more wins than any other RB who's capable of getting 100 yards per game. Look at Dameon Pierce. He was a 4th rounder, and he's on a rookie deal. Tell me that having (and PAYING) Barkley over a guy like Pierce translates to more wins. You can't.
Every Giants HC who's had Barkley healthy has leaned so much on him that the offense are always facing 9 in the box, and every opponent is keying to stop Barkley. A few years back, there was ample evidence that the offense was more balanced and more effective when Barkley was out and Wayne Gallman was in. Mostly because they weren't facing 9 in the box.
The only way Barkley is possibly MORE valuable than any other GOOD RB is if you have a loaded offense (ha!), and/or a totally dominant OL -- which the Giants haven't had in over 10 years. Hopefully they're building one now under Schoen.
I wouldn't pay Barkley a ton. At all. If they can get him reasonably, fine (even 12 mil seems ridiculous. Draft a mid round kid). RBs just aren't where you want those assets tied up.
I'd sooner pay a true #1 FA WR.
And if it's between paying Barkley or Jones -- even Jones as the BRIDGE to the next guy, you have to pay/tag Jones. There are no clearly better options at QB at the moment. But effective RBs (comparatively) grow on trees.
We don't know.
What we do know is that he lost 4 of his 5 starting lineman and his TE whose greatest asset could be his run blocking.
I think this week we will see an increase in production with what might be the best offensive line we've seen all year in talent and an improved and more mature Neal at RT.
Time will tell.
The problems are 1) WRs aren't available in FA, 2) They're expensive.
Courtland Sutton, for example, signed for 4/60. Probably a 3rd tier guy. AJ Brown was 4/100 plus the 18th pick. Christian Kirk was 4/72 (most people thought that was an overpay).
I get not wanting to pay Barkley. But its not like we can just let him go and turn that space into AJ Brown or even Courtland Sutton.
Quote:
In comment 15928129 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
talk about a guy who never carried a team to anything. He can’t do what Barkley did to help get us to 7-2. CMC might not play this week as well, yet another injury.
There's perhaps 1 RB in the league that's good enough to "carry" a team anywhere. It's Henry.
Everyone else doesn't do that.
I don’t agree. Barkley has done more to contribute to our 7-2 start than anything CMC has done to date. People claiming he’s the better player must be watching a different game and from a different year.
They were 7-2. They're now 7-4 though. They go as Barkley goes. If 7-2 becomes 7-5 because Barkley once again is injured and less effective, it is only fair to make that part of the math for the future. He's just got a habit of getting hurt.
I have no qualms about moving on from Barkley. But some of the reasoning doesn’t make sense.
as the main reason theyre 7-2 but doesn't wear the negatives when they lose if he's banged up or had too many carries the week before?
My main point is if you're going to regard him as a franchise player and pay him accordingly, then fair or not, it's on him to lead the team to success with his play. Same standard applied to Eli.
And if the team isn't good enough to survive Barkley not able to play to his best, then you have to question if it makes sense to keep him because you have a lot of work to do.
Right…? just get the deal done.
as the main reason theyre 7-2 but doesn't wear the negatives when they lose if he's banged up or had too many carries the week before?
My main point is if you're going to regard him as a franchise player and pay him accordingly, then fair or not, it's on him to lead the team to success with his play. Same standard applied to Eli.
And if the team isn't good enough to survive Barkley not able to play to his best, then you have to question if it makes sense to keep him because you have a lot of work to do.
That’s just not true. A “franchise” RB makes less than 1/3 the salary as a franchise QB. The risk isn’t anywhere on the same planet
NYFG would be crazy to give that to a RB that’s had major injury, and he’s not likely to get that anywhere else either, even with a projected cap increase of 40M over 22 in 24.
And I am a SB guy.
as the main reason theyre 7-2 but doesn't wear the negatives when they lose if he's banged up or had too many carries the week before?
My main point is if you're going to regard him as a franchise player and pay him accordingly, then fair or not, it's on him to lead the team to success with his play. Same standard applied to Eli.
And if the team isn't good enough to survive Barkley not able to play to his best, then you have to question if it makes sense to keep him because you have a lot of work to do.
I’m not into assigning specific credit but it’s pretty clear that the talent stinks with all these injuries and all of our good players aren’t having a big impact because it’s simply too much to overcome. Barkley, LW, Dex, etc. these guys can’t do any more right now.
I ask this on every “never pay RBs thread” - when RB prices are at a low, and their impact is still pretty high, where exactly does the risk lie? This cliche of never paying RBs is group think. Go look up salaries, look up the cap increases. Top paid RBs used to make up 8%+ of the annual cap. Barkley could potentially be had around 5% ($12m of $228m cap). It’s quite possible we can sign Barkley for 3 years for as much money as we guaranteed Golladay, lol.
There should be a price we don’t pay for Barkley. But $12m is reasonable IMO, and a 2-3 year deal is not a major contract. The risk is already factored into the RB market.
Quote:
In comment 15928129 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
talk about a guy who never carried a team to anything. He can’t do what Barkley did to help get us to 7-2. CMC might not play this week as well, yet another injury.
There's perhaps 1 RB in the league that's good enough to "carry" a team anywhere. It's Henry.
Everyone else doesn't do that.
I don’t agree. Barkley has done more to contribute to our 7-2 start than anything CMC has done to date. People claiming he’s the better player must be watching a different game and from a different year.
Barkley is a better runner. CMC is a better receiver. They both spend a lot of time not playing. There is very little difference.
The 49ers didn't do that. CMC is only a 690K cap hit for SF this season.
For 2023, they can either keep him for 12M or cut him with no dead cap hit.
Panthers ate $26M in dead cap to make the deal.
Also until this gets reported directly from someone else, specifically someone credible, like Glazer I'm calling bullshit.
I ask this on every “never pay RBs thread” - when RB prices are at a low, and their impact is still pretty high, where exactly does the risk lie?
The risk lies in a multi-year deal for the RB seeking the second contract; and the low odds of a that RB being productive over those multiple years.
It's a position that should be used for young players recently drafted (much lower costs) or one-year deals for current RBs in the league. Those RBs should be viewed as one-year mercenaries.
He is not durable enough. He has too many games where his production stifles the offense.
Great teammate, great character, but that is not worth the money he wants or even a long term contract averaging $12 million per year, IMO.
He is the offense! When he struggles, because defenses don't respect Jones and load the box, we don't have a QB that can make anyone better or take over a game.
Without SB, Jones would be terrible. DJ can't throw with 8-9 in the box, imagine if there were 6-7.
It cracks me up that most of the same people who want to give too much money to Jones, don't want to pay the guy that is literally carrying our offense.
Quote:
Wonder if it was Barkleys agent or the Giants ?
I wouldn't be surprised if it's a case of the Giants wanting to look like they are interested in retaining him when in fact they're not. Make him the highest possible offer that you know he won't accept so it looks like you tried to the fans.
If they're willing to pay him $12 million, which may not be true, they'll tag him.
I fail to see the logic in a long-term deal? Just tag him and trade him. McCaffrey yielded a 2nd, 3rd, and 2 4ths. SB is easily worth a 3rd and 4th, probably more.
The problems are 1) WRs aren't available in FA, 2) They're expensive.
Courtland Sutton, for example, signed for 4/60. Probably a 3rd tier guy. AJ Brown was 4/100 plus the 18th pick. Christian Kirk was 4/72 (most people thought that was an overpay).
I get not wanting to pay Barkley. But its not like we can just let him go and turn that space into AJ Brown or even Courtland Sutton.
Quote:
I ask this on every “never pay RBs thread” - when RB prices are at a low, and their impact is still pretty high, where exactly does the risk lie?
The risk lies in a multi-year deal for the RB seeking the second contract; and the low odds of a that RB being productive over those multiple years.
It's a position that should be used for young players recently drafted (much lower costs) or one-year deals for current RBs in the league. Those RBs should be viewed as one-year mercenaries.
Already addressed. You don’t know the years terms or guarantees but somehow it’s automatically bad. I already said you don’t just give him anything he wants, there has to be a cap and it seems like Schoen is going to go that route.
There’s risk with every FA contract handed out, and at RB the risk is a lot lower right now IMO (depending on years). I’d like to see the terms before speaking in absolutes.
Also until this gets reported directly from someone else, specifically someone credible, like Glazer I'm calling bullshit.
Since when is Garafolo not credible?
Quote:
running backs in AAV make 12m or more and they all signed contracts before crazy inflation happened. If you don't think barkley is a top 8 running back or if there aren't 5+ teams willing to pay him 15m per year, your crazy.
Also until this gets reported directly from someone else, specifically someone credible, like Glazer I'm calling bullshit.
Since when is Garafolo not credible?
its someone on twitter saying Garafolo said it, not Garafolo himself and not someone thats credible.
You think someone who works for the NFL saying something like that wouldn't be picked up by national media outlets but rather some no name guy on twitter?
We had one year of great production. Two injury filled years. And this year he is fading fast.
If he wants the big money he has to play big. This means being a reliable receiving threat, running through contact and not getting injured. I hope that happens but I won't hold my breath.
Quote:
In comment 15928339 outeiroj said:
Quote:
running backs in AAV make 12m or more and they all signed contracts before crazy inflation happened. If you don't think barkley is a top 8 running back or if there aren't 5+ teams willing to pay him 15m per year, your crazy.
Also until this gets reported directly from someone else, specifically someone credible, like Glazer I'm calling bullshit.
Since when is Garafolo not credible?
its someone on twitter saying Garafolo said it, not Garafolo himself and not someone thats credible.
You think someone who works for the NFL saying something like that wouldn't be picked up by national media outlets but rather some no name guy on twitter?
https://youtu.be/HBu_q1g-xME
It's at 13:20.
Already addressed. You don’t know the years terms or guarantees but somehow it’s automatically bad. I already said you don’t just give him anything he wants, there has to be a cap and it seems like Schoen is going to go that route.
There’s risk with every FA contract handed out, and at RB the risk is a lot lower right now IMO (depending on years). I’d like to see the terms before speaking in absolutes.
I was answering your general question about the risk element with RBs.
I could live with a one-year deal for SB under the tag. However, I would prefer to let SB hit the market to see what his real value is. And if he gets a deal that he can't refuse, wish him well and look for new solutions.
Probably like you, the QB issue is > than the SB issue.
We had one year of great production. Two injury filled years. And this year he is fading fast.
If he wants the big money he has to play big. This means being a reliable receiving threat, running through contact and not getting injured. I hope that happens but I won't hold my breath.
He actually had 2 good years upfront. His second year he was the same as his first year "per game", but he only played 13 games. So he still got to 1,000 yds rushing plus a lot of receiving yards. This year he will be stats-wise as good as his first 2 years.
Quote:
In comment 15928371 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
In comment 15928339 outeiroj said:
Quote:
running backs in AAV make 12m or more and they all signed contracts before crazy inflation happened. If you don't think barkley is a top 8 running back or if there aren't 5+ teams willing to pay him 15m per year, your crazy.
Also until this gets reported directly from someone else, specifically someone credible, like Glazer I'm calling bullshit.
Since when is Garafolo not credible?
its someone on twitter saying Garafolo said it, not Garafolo himself and not someone thats credible.
You think someone who works for the NFL saying something like that wouldn't be picked up by national media outlets but rather some no name guy on twitter?
https://youtu.be/HBu_q1g-xME
It's at 13:20.
no where in the video does he say or infer what the Giants have said they are willing to pay him or that he has any inside info. The tweet specifically says according to garafolo the giants are willing to pay him x amount.
Its literally some guy on twitter twisting words to try to get noticed
I’d say you’re right with the contract since he didn’t sign one. Nothing Is a certainty that’s for sure.
And the shoulder is definitely a factor but he can play well with it. Needs a bounce back big game here Sunday.
Who is this other guy? And when and how are we getting him? I used to ask the same shit when Knicks fans were hesitant to trade all in for Donovan Mitchell. Not to compare the two or even condemn the Knicks for holding back, but what elite WR are the giants missing out on if they instead spend on Barkley?
Not saying we absolutely should throw every cent at Barkley but the grass ain’t always greener if we save that money. Who we giving it too? When? Maybe Barkley is in fact the bird in the hand. Don’t tell me a great rb can’t help you score.
It’s not just that east to pivot off not signing Barkley, while replacing him adequately AND spending that money on a ready made stud elsewhere.
Two competent inside linebackers would do a lot. Or maybe just one and some money to allocate to keeping other free agents at a premium position. Long term deals for running backs rarely work out. I'd use that money in another way. A tag and trade would make the most sense to me.
In comment 15928456 djm said:
Who is this other guy? And when and how are we getting him? I used to ask the same shit when Knicks fans were hesitant to trade all in for Donovan Mitchell. Not to compare the two or even condemn the Knicks for holding back, but what elite WR are the giants missing out on if they instead spend on Barkley?
Not saying we absolutely should throw every cent at Barkley but the grass ain’t always greener if we save that money. Who we giving it too? When? Maybe Barkley is in fact the bird in the hand. Don’t tell me a great rb can’t help you score.
It’s not just that east to pivot off not signing Barkley, while replacing him adequately AND spending that money on a ready made stud elsewhere.
Quote:
$14 mill a season because of how much the ball goes to him and the impact he can have with the ball in his hand.
I don’t like giving 20 plus million to WRs.
I'd like for the money/ball to go towards WRs. That way we can score more points
Quote:
Wonder if it was Barkleys agent or the Giants ?
I wouldn't be surprised if it's a case of the Giants wanting to look like they are interested in retaining him when in fact they're not. Make him the highest possible offer that you know he won't accept so it looks like you tried to the fans.
Two competent inside linebackers would do a lot. Or maybe just one and some money to allocate to keeping other free agents at a premium position. Long term deals for running backs rarely work out. I'd use that money in another way. A tag and trade would make the most sense to me.
In comment 15928456 djm said:
Quote:
I still say one of the biggest faulty assumptions fans like to make is don’t pay player X that money they should pay some other player that same money. In other words don’t pay Barkley, save the money for some other guy.
Who is this other guy? And when and how are we getting him? I used to ask the same shit when Knicks fans were hesitant to trade all in for Donovan Mitchell. Not to compare the two or even condemn the Knicks for holding back, but what elite WR are the giants missing out on if they instead spend on Barkley?
Not saying we absolutely should throw every cent at Barkley but the grass ain’t always greener if we save that money. Who we giving it too? When? Maybe Barkley is in fact the bird in the hand. Don’t tell me a great rb can’t help you score.
It’s not just that east to pivot off not signing Barkley, while replacing him adequately AND spending that money on a ready made stud elsewhere.
Know what I think? I think Shoen is going to outsmart himself, bigtime. I think Daboll did wonders with what he's has ( which is basically Barkley and Jones) and Scchoen is gonna move on from both. I think he will be way less succesful next year, and by years end we'll be screaming how he fooled us like judge did, after a shitty season filled with injuries once again, new playing surface notwithstanding.
P.S. So far Both Scoens draft picks and FAs have been every bit as much injured as Gettlemans, and it wouldn't surprise me if next year as more of the same, and in 24 months the fanbase is screaming for his head, as they are wont to do...
When we drafted Barkley I really thought this organization was getting a version of my favorite player growing up...Barry Sanders.
Quote:
In basketball that one guy rarely becomes a available. IN the NFL, having a couple of guys may be more valuable than signing a running back long term.
Two competent inside linebackers would do a lot. Or maybe just one and some money to allocate to keeping other free agents at a premium position. Long term deals for running backs rarely work out. I'd use that money in another way. A tag and trade would make the most sense to me.
In comment 15928456 djm said:
Quote:
I still say one of the biggest faulty assumptions fans like to make is don’t pay player X that money they should pay some other player that same money. In other words don’t pay Barkley, save the money for some other guy.
Who is this other guy? And when and how are we getting him? I used to ask the same shit when Knicks fans were hesitant to trade all in for Donovan Mitchell. Not to compare the two or even condemn the Knicks for holding back, but what elite WR are the giants missing out on if they instead spend on Barkley?
Not saying we absolutely should throw every cent at Barkley but the grass ain’t always greener if we save that money. Who we giving it too? When? Maybe Barkley is in fact the bird in the hand. Don’t tell me a great rb can’t help you score.
It’s not just that east to pivot off not signing Barkley, while replacing him adequately AND spending that money on a ready made stud elsewhere.
I seem to think we tried this approach repeatedly. I seem to recall we had fuckall at the RB position for the better part of a decade as the resident Putz's went on, year after year about how good RBs are " a dime a dozen, yet prerry sure we went through closer to 2 dozen and didn't have any worth a shit. I distinctly remember that. A dime a dozen. And every year we were among the lowest teams in the league in production from the RB position.
Know what I think? I think Shoen is going to outsmart himself, bigtime. I think Daboll did wonders with what he's has ( which is basically Barkley and Jones) and Scchoen is gonna move on from both. I think he will be way less succesful next year, and by years end we'll be screaming how he fooled us like judge did, after a shitty season filled with injuries once again, new playing surface notwithstanding.
P.S. So far Both Scoens draft picks and FAs have been every bit as much injured as Gettlemans, and it wouldn't surprise me if next year as more of the same, and in 24 months the fanbase is screaming for his head, as they are wont to do...
I hope Schoen doesn't make decisions based on winning 8 or 9 games next year to keep the fanbase happy. This team isn't as good as their record this year, the sooner the fanbase realizes that, the happier they'll be with a REAL rebuild.
Jones isn't a guy to build around. SB may not be a guy Schoen and Daboll want to build around. Time will tell...
You don't honestly think Brightwell can do that over 200 carries...do you?
I'd rather pay Barkley. Just not for a long contract. 4 years max.
Team is much better off spreading those monies around to several backs utilized in an more efficient manner with various skills and at different points in their life cycles. Keep a Breida, add 1-2 free agents on short deals and draft another RB in round 3/4 to be your next 4 year back. Use them all, keep them fresh, and rotate around the eventual injuries.
Take advantage of the supply at the position versus paying one expensive back, who continues to get injured, more money as this rebuild continues.
Quote:
In comment 15928379 outeiroj said:
Quote:
In comment 15928371 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
In comment 15928339 outeiroj said:
Quote:
running backs in AAV make 12m or more and they all signed contracts before crazy inflation happened. If you don't think barkley is a top 8 running back or if there aren't 5+ teams willing to pay him 15m per year, your crazy.
Also until this gets reported directly from someone else, specifically someone credible, like Glazer I'm calling bullshit.
Since when is Garafolo not credible?
its someone on twitter saying Garafolo said it, not Garafolo himself and not someone thats credible.
You think someone who works for the NFL saying something like that wouldn't be picked up by national media outlets but rather some no name guy on twitter?
https://youtu.be/HBu_q1g-xME
It's at 13:20.
no where in the video does he say or infer what the Giants have said they are willing to pay him or that he has any inside info. The tweet specifically says according to garafolo the giants are willing to pay him x amount.
Its literally some guy on twitter twisting words to try to get noticed
You're being very odd about this. It's garafolo delivering a report, verbatim, "fron what i gathered, if he thinks he's getting McCaffery money at 16m a year, it's not getting done,but north of dalvin cook, 12m a year, yeah"
That is garafolo saying that at 13:40 to 13:52.
JS will evaluate SB in relation to that talent/scheme and assign a value appropriate imv. Maybe a tag and a RB drafted in a later round that can develop for a couple years to take over the feature role. We'll see.
Dallas did not want to pay E Smith at one point. Started 0-2 and Jerry caved in. So maybe its not that any 4th round back is going to fill in and in that case it was the best OL in the league. Then you had Ward get big bucks with the Bucs and he was cut two years later. Not always so simple.
Maybe it's passing along the Giants' thinking without actually saying this is their position - based on inside info, or just being a mouthpiece for them. Or maybe it's just his interpretation of the situation. I don't think you can chisel it in stone as 12 being the line in the sand.
He did say north of 12, somewhere between 12 and 16. That's a lot of gray area.
That said, the key is guaranteed money and ability to dump him after a year or two and/or if he gets injured.
SB has to finish strong if he wants the Giants to move off their initial offer. If he makes business decisions down the stretch, it means he's already decided he wants off the Giants. Take anything a player says during contract negotiations with a grain of salt. Of course he's going to say he wants to go wire to wire with the Giants.
You're not asking the right question. A more appropriate question would be can Barkley turn the team into a contender and how long can he do it for?
1--- I doubt he can carry a team to being a contender. He needs a super QB and overall a team ready to be a contender.
2--- He has injury / durability issues and is a huge risk for rb's on a 2nd contract.
Not saying "without a doubt" don't sign him and ofc teh Giants will do what they feel is reasonable - but SB is a risk,
Quote:
...and Barkley has proven that he cannot contribute to a winning team on a consistent game-to-game basis.
He is not durable enough. He has too many games where his production stifles the offense.
Great teammate, great character, but that is not worth the money he wants or even a long term contract averaging $12 million per year, IMO.
It cracks me up that most of the same people who want to give too much money to Jones, don't want to pay the guy that is literally carrying our offense.
Maybe because you're an idiot. Jones has made the JV Wide Receivers better. Someone like Sills doesn't even belong in the NFL. He sometimes makes Slayton look like a 2 but is no more than a bottom 3 high 4.
The problem with Barkley which you don't understand is that SB can possibly make the Giants mediocre which is the worst place to be.
The bigger problem with morons like you that have bashed Jones is that you always move the goalposts to bash Jones. You even said on this thread the following:
"I hope Schoen doesn't make decisions based on winning 8 or 9 games next year to keep the fanbase happy. This team isn't as good as their record this year, the sooner the fanbase realizes that, the happier they'll be with a REAL rebuild."
In that thick-headed" pea-brain of yours how is a "REAL rebuild" conducive to signing an injury prone RB getting up on years on a position that tends to wear out quickly?
I'm fine with not signing Jones. Just what's funny is reading silly posts from lunatic posters like you. The goalposts always move in order to slam Jones. So transparent.
Quote:
I ask this on every “never pay RBs thread” - when RB prices are at a low, and their impact is still pretty high, where exactly does the risk lie? This cliche of never paying RBs is group think. Go look up salaries, look up the cap increases. Top paid RBs used to make up 8%+ of the annual cap. Barkley could potentially be had around 5% ($12m of $228m cap). It’s quite possible we can sign Barkley for 3 years for as much money as we guaranteed Golladay, lol.
It's a risk compared vs other RB's. Paying "more" is always a risk in some manner. Paying much higher above market value at the RB position with a player that has shown to be a bit injury prone and wears down a bit is a huge risk for that position that tends to get injured/wear down more than other positions.. Unless Barkley can put team on his back and have his team become a perennial playoff team with a chance to win a title-- why take on that risk?