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
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.
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?