The Giants don’t win near as many games this year w/o Saquon. He carried the offense most of the year. Once teams started taking him away, the losses mounted
But now I’d rather move on. Why does he have some immense value for NYG? The truth is he doesn’t. There has been more hype than substance with him in his years here and it’s not his fault, he just got hurt. I view him the same way as Shep. Good guys, very good/great talents, never realized potential here because they got hurt too much.
I’d rather put the money towards Love, Lawrence, McKinney and Thomas.
Save the franchise tag for positions with higher value/lower supply.
Here is all the proof you need not to move forward without SB:
Cincinnati: Mixon and S.Perine
Kansas City: Pacheco, Edwards-Helaire, McKinnon
Philly: Miles Sanders, Gainwell, Scott
49ers: They used a luxury investment in CMC, but they have a very diverse running game using Mitchell, Samuel, etc. And Shanahan is a savant developing a running game, like his dad.
But let's keep SB because he's a got added value by being a good guy, face of the franchise, sells jerseys, etc.
I’m not sure what your “proof” is here? Three teams have what will be the 3top vote getters for league MVP at QB and the 4th team has the RB with the highest contract for a RB in the sport. If your “proof” is it’s better to have an MVP caliber QB, we can agree on that.
I have no interest in signing Barkley to an expensive extension. But this post of yours is asinine to be honest with you
But now I’d rather move on. Why does he have some immense value for NYG? The truth is he doesn’t. There has been more hype than substance with him in his years here and it’s not his fault, he just got hurt. I view him the same way as Shep. Good guys, very good/great talents, never realized potential here because they got hurt too much.
I’d rather put the money towards Love, Lawrence, McKinney and Thomas.
They’re talents aren’t comparable. Shep was never a great talent. He’s a dime a dozen wr in the league. He had a penchant for getting open on third downs and was a good player but has no trait that jumps off the screen especially YAC ability. Saquon when healthy is a top back in this league. I
Don’t support paying him $16 mil but those 2 and their importance to the team couldn’t be more polar opposites.
But now I’d rather move on. Why does he have some immense value for NYG? The truth is he doesn’t. There has been more hype than substance with him in his years here and it’s not his fault, he just got hurt. I view him the same way as Shep. Good guys, very good/great talents, never realized potential here because they got hurt too much.
I’d rather put the money towards Love, Lawrence, McKinney and Thomas.
They’re talents aren’t comparable. Shep was never a great talent. He’s a dime a dozen wr in the league. He had a penchant for getting open on third downs and was a good player but has no trait that jumps off the screen especially YAC ability. Saquon when healthy is a top back in this league. I
Don’t support paying him $16 mil but those 2 and their importance to the team couldn’t be more polar opposites.
Yep. I meant one was a very good talent (Shep), Barkley was a great talent. Barkley was so dynamic that in an alternate universe where he stayed healthy we’re talking about this past season as pedestrian for him rather than one of his better seasons.
including 120 more carries. And what better time to pay him than after his career year!
You can just say I wouldn’t play Barkley and leave it at that. All the other stuff added isn’t necessary and contradicts many of the reasons why you wouldn’t sign Barkley.
Below is a recent quote from Barkley and it gives a little insight into how he feels. He’s also on record saying he wants to remain in NY and be able to retire as a NY Giant. This is likely a starting point from his agent but in the end I’m guessing both sides come up with a number that works for both
"I'm not looking to reset a market. I'm realistic. Having two years of injuries doesn't help. But I think I was able to show the caliber of player I am."
including 120 more carries. And what better time to pay him than after his career year!
You can just say I wouldn’t play Barkley and leave it at that. All the other stuff added isn’t necessary and contradicts many of the reasons why you wouldn’t sign Barkley.
I'm assuming this is meant for me.
Aces brought up Jacobs as a possible proxy for Barkley. I said I wouldn't pay Jacobs, either.
But if a team wants really wants to spend money for a RB it looks like Jacobs would be the better investment.
Word is Giants offer is the 12M ballpark, Schoen volunteers they're not close, SB says he's not looking to reset the market, which is a nice soundbyte but reality is he very likely views himself at CMC's level.
If NYG's value for him is 12M, SB has a big decision to make, otherwise he's facing a tag and another year of no longterm security.
The front office has to be realistic. They meed good players at every position. I'd offer 13 and let that be my walk away number. The bears would probably trade for him. What rounds exactly? Who knows. But I'd rather have running back by committee than dump a boatload of cash on one guy. Heck, draft a rd every year in the 3rd round is fine by me.
RE: RE: He's everything you want in a player except
Word is Giants offer is the 12M ballpark, Schoen volunteers they're not close, SB says he's not looking to reset the market, which is a nice soundbyte but reality is he very likely views himself at CMC's level.
If NYG's value for him is 12M, SB has a big decision to make, otherwise he's facing a tag and another year of no longterm security.
The front office has to be realistic. They meed good players at every position. I'd offer 13 and let that be my walk away number. The bears would probably trade for him. What rounds exactly? Who knows. But I'd rather have running back by committee than dump a boatload of cash on one guy. Heck, draft a rd every year in the 3rd round is fine by me.
He said multiple times he wants to stay and doesn’t want to reset the market. That sure sounds like a guy who wants to stay . Just don’t tag him , meaning he’s worth more than 10 million which he is.
RE: RE: He's everything you want in a player except
Word is Giants offer is the 12M ballpark, Schoen volunteers they're not close, SB says he's not looking to reset the market, which is a nice soundbyte but reality is he very likely views himself at CMC's level.
If NYG's value for him is 12M, SB has a big decision to make, otherwise he's facing a tag and another year of no longterm security.
The front office has to be realistic. They meed good players at every position. I'd offer 13 and let that be my walk away number. The bears would probably trade for him. What rounds exactly? Who knows. But I'd rather have running back by committee than dump a boatload of cash on one guy. Heck, draft a rd every year in the 3rd round is fine by me.
The problem is running back by committee is you have three below average guys all getting touches, rather than a very good or truly great back getting the majority of touches.
Heck, the Giants didn’t even do running back by committee this year. What makes you think they’ll do it next year? If they chose to, they could have given Breida and Brightwell more touches. They didn’t. They fed Barkley. Clearly they know the importance of a great running back.
I said this in the other thread on Barkley - the Giants have stunk at running back in the past few years outside of Barkley. Now fans seek to want to go back to those days.
Breida had 54 carries all years, Brightwell has 31 I think. Suddenly we add a rookie running back and we expect the offense to hum along with a rookie, and two guys who the coaching staff didn’t put on the field consistently this season?
Schoen should play hardball and tell Saquon he wants him back on the Giants but will let him test the market with a chance to match. Barkley wants to be here so with the amount of quality running backs hitting FA I think this is the best move.
The FT has to be used on Jones. He is either a trade asset if he wants too much or the Giants have him for at least one more year without a long term commitment to prove more to the team with better receivers.
Word is Giants offer is the 12M ballpark, Schoen volunteers they're not close, SB says he's not looking to reset the market, which is a nice soundbyte but reality is he very likely views himself at CMC's level.
If NYG's value for him is 12M, SB has a big decision to make, otherwise he's facing a tag and another year of no longterm security.
The front office has to be realistic. They meed good players at every position. I'd offer 13 and let that be my walk away number. The bears would probably trade for him. What rounds exactly? Who knows. But I'd rather have running back by committee than dump a boatload of cash on one guy. Heck, draft a rd every year in the 3rd round is fine by me.
The problem is running back by committee is you have three below average guys all getting touches, rather than a very good or truly great back getting the majority of touches.
Heck, the Giants didn’t even do running back by committee this year. What makes you think they’ll do it next year? If they chose to, they could have given Breida and Brightwell more touches. They didn’t. They fed Barkley. Clearly they know the importance of a great running back.
I said this in the other thread on Barkley - the Giants have stunk at running back in the past few years outside of Barkley. Now fans seek to want to go back to those days.
Breida had 54 carries all years, Brightwell has 31 I think. Suddenly we add a rookie running back and we expect the offense to hum along with a rookie, and two guys who the coaching staff didn’t put on the field consistently this season?
Giants fans have an uncanny desire to jettison their best players. I mean look at the responses. Some don’t want him back for $10 mil 1 year. Can you imagine? 2 mil more than he made this year. How many games do the giants win without him this year? 5? I don’t want to break the bank for him but some of the responses are comical.
And only teams that just need that final player to put them over the top on offense. The Bills and Lions come to mind.
I love Saquon, but a high dollar commitment over four or five years makes little sense. I would either do a "tag, tender and trade" or let him walk and get the compensatory pick.
Seriously though, I get not wanting to pay a RB. But I cannot imagine what this offense would look like without Saquon. Just the attention he warrants from the opposing defense makes a difference.
to re-sign the current roster just leaves us treading water, plus draft picks.
We're not close enough to truly competing to spend so much on Barkley. That includes anything above 10 mil.
If you're sold on Jones, pay him and tag SB. If you're not, move on from both and tank for drafting a QB next year. Err, I mean accept that our record may not be so good.
And only teams that just need that final player to put them over the top on offense. The Bills and Lions come to mind.
I love Saquon, but a high dollar commitment over four or five years makes little sense. I would either do a "tag, tender and trade" or let him walk and get the compensatory pick.
You only need 1.
1 does not a market make. It takes 2.
I know you're trying to be cute and act like the smartest guy in the room, but wrong....it just takes 1 team. 1 team needs to view him as a CMC type and offer him a contract.
Kareem Hunt has tread on the tires playing behind Chubb, Can catch, only 27, probably can get him for 6-7 mil a year. I’d take that in a heartbeat over Barkley.
Not only is $16M too much, but I'm not sure I even want to spend the $10M tag on a RB. And I do love SB.
The thing is, if he doesn’t sign with us for $10-12/yr, who is going to pay him more, with all of the other quality FA backs out there?
Even if Saquon is the best rb on the market, is he so much better than everyone else that he will draw a bidding war for more money?
I just don’t see any other team doing what we won’t do.
Of course someone will. Plenty of teams have cap room and almost every team in the league is looking to add playmakers. We’ve gotten to watch Barkley perform most of his career behind a bad OL and with crap at WR and nothing but questions at QB. He’s going to be a very effective player for someone.
RE: Consider this. What if Barkley was playing for his contract last
season and once he gets paid, he becomes the next Golladay?
Go with Breida, Brightwell and draft a RB like other teams....in the 4th or 5th round.....
Sign Boston Scott to round it out.
You fundamentally don't understand the kind of person Barkley is. He's the exact opposite personality and character of the type of player that would do that.
including 120 more carries. And what better time to pay him than after his career year!
You can just say I wouldn’t play Barkley and leave it at that. All the other stuff added isn’t necessary and contradicts many of the reasons why you wouldn’t sign Barkley.
I'm assuming this is meant for me.
Aces brought up Jacobs as a possible proxy for Barkley. I said I wouldn't pay Jacobs, either.
But if a team wants really wants to spend money for a RB it looks like Jacobs would be the better investment.
I think you're funny bw. I don't really believe you actually believe that. I think you are saying that because of your anti-Barkley in the draft stance 4 years ago.
Jacobs has been very consistent until this year in terms of production. Seasons, in scrimmage yards, rushing yards, rushing yards/attempt and TDs prior to 2022:
So what changed in 2022 for Jacobs? Several things. Based on this (and I am not a member, but this is at least some evidence that Football Outsiders (probably the best site for advanced data and analysis), that the Raiders had the best run blocking offensive line in the NFL in 2022.
In addition, I'm a big believer in complementary football, in this case, how a premiere WR helps the running game (among other things). They added one of the best in the NFL in Davante Adams. There's no question that the deep threat ability and one-on-one ability to win contested balls impacts the boxes that Jacobs had to face.
BTW, bw, I love discussions like this. I don't think Jacobs all of a sudden became a much better player. He's a very good to great player.
Saquon basically did in his rookie season what Jacobs did this year. Had a lot more through the receiving game (Saquon is a better receiver), but they both went a little over 2000 scrimmage yards, Saquon had 3 more scores for 15 TDs total, and what Saquon did this year with the lack of complementary pieces as opposed to the Raiders, 1650 scrimmage yards and 10 scores, rushing for 4.4 yards/attempt, I don't believe if you put Jacobs here you're getting the 2022 version of Jacobs with the Raiders. You're getting the 2019-2021 version, hopefully. And he's not going to come at a cheaper cost than Jacobs.
Saquon is the better player. Interesting footnote on Jacobs, he has 160 career receptions for 1152 yards and zero receiving scores. No analysis there, just very interesting.
Saquon is the more dynamic player in space. They are a wash as a pass blocker.
Now here is the counter. Jacobs' durability. He's played 60 games in 4 seasons, Saquon 60 games in 5. But when it comes to ACLs, to me that doesn't mean a player is not durable. To me, Saquon is durable. He played hurt this year with the shoulder, and did an admirable job, even though at times you can see it affected his efficacy. The week off in week 18 I think really helped him. But the ACL injury is such a freak thing, it happens.
All this said, I think the number for Saquon is no higher than 14. Maybe you go 14.5 if pressed, I wouldn't lose him over $500K, and the other option is you tag him. You can exclusive franchise tag him, but given the contract demands, and you know how much I love Saquon, I'd be in favor of the non-exclusive tag for Saquon, I do believe that a team will offer him and forgo the two firsts in his case, and I think that's a net win for the Giants, and gives them protection for DJ.
But as I've said, Saquon is pretty important to DJ's running game. So you have to draft a guy and then go cheap at the position if you lose him, you don't pay the same money for Jacobs, I don't think that is the strongest path forward. I would hate for the Giants to lose him, but if the number is $15M plus, I think that's the way forward.
The problem with that plan is it's your only negotiating leverage for DJ. So that plan is predicated on working out an extension with DJ BEFORE going down that road. And if you can't, you use that non-exclusive tag on DJ, not Saquon, and you have to be willing to let Saquon walk for nothing. Or you can sign and trade, I think that's harder to do.
No matter what you do, Jacobs is evidence that you have to get that x-factor, #1 receiver on this team, and you need to improve the line.
But Saquon is a better player than Jacobs.
I will say this, I don't think the Titans regret paying Derrick Henry. The offense does revolve around Henry in Nashville, but he's remained a dominant player. But they haven't had the playoff success with that model, even though they reached the Conference Championship Game in 2019. First round exits the next couple of seasons, and fell just short of making the playoffs this year.
I only mention Henry, and he's not the only example, of players that signed a 2nd contract that has continued to provide elite production. You have to have a special guy to do that, and Saquon qualifies. But it's fair to say that when it comes to postseason success, the model that works most often is elite QB production on offense, not through the running game.
But then there's the rub with DJ. I think he needs that strong running game to complement what he does. Having a mediocre running game to complement him, I don't believe DJ can make a Super Bowl run under that kind of offensive team dynamic. I believe he needs a dynamic running game, and better receivers, and a better line.
Tall order for Schoen, critical decision point with both players this offseason. But again, if you move off of Saquon, the play is to go cheap at the position. Got to get a good RB in the draft though.
is more "Arena League" in that offenses are now pass heavy, and not run dependent. This is a result of all the changes in the rules that have crippled pass coverage.
I'm not saying you don't need a running game...you do. But the days where you ran the ball more than 50% of the time...or more, is pretty much over. You can get to a certain point (see the Titans) with a great running back only, but you won't win too many playoff games.
The value right now is with great WR's and great Pass Rushers (to stop the passing game). That's where the money needs to go. You can't over-allocate money to Barkley, because the position itself is depreciated.
All this said, I think the number for Saquon is no higher than 14. Maybe you go 14.5 if pressed, I wouldn't lose him over $500K, and the other option is you tag him. You can exclusive franchise tag him, but given the contract demands, and you know how much I love Saquon, I'd be in favor of the non-exclusive tag for Saquon, I do believe that a team will offer him and forgo the two firsts in his case, and I think that's a net win for the Giants, and gives them protection for DJ.
I struggle with your view that some team offers up 2 first round picks for Saquon.
Not sure how fast I could say "yes" if someone did.
RE: RE: RE: Josh Jacobs has more touches than Barkley
including 120 more carries. And what better time to pay him than after his career year!
You can just say I wouldn’t play Barkley and leave it at that. All the other stuff added isn’t necessary and contradicts many of the reasons why you wouldn’t sign Barkley.
I'm assuming this is meant for me.
Aces brought up Jacobs as a possible proxy for Barkley. I said I wouldn't pay Jacobs, either.
But if a team wants really wants to spend money for a RB it looks like Jacobs would be the better investment.
I think you're funny bw. I don't really believe you actually believe that. I think you are saying that because of your anti-Barkley in the draft stance 4 years ago.
Jacobs has been very consistent until this year in terms of production. Seasons, in scrimmage yards, rushing yards, rushing yards/attempt and TDs prior to 2022:
So what changed in 2022 for Jacobs? Several things. Based on this (and I am not a member, but this is at least some evidence that Football Outsiders (probably the best site for advanced data and analysis), that the Raiders had the best run blocking offensive line in the NFL in 2022.
In addition, I'm a big believer in complementary football, in this case, how a premiere WR helps the running game (among other things). They added one of the best in the NFL in Davante Adams. There's no question that the deep threat ability and one-on-one ability to win contested balls impacts the boxes that Jacobs had to face.
BTW, bw, I love discussions like this. I don't think Jacobs all of a sudden became a much better player. He's a very good to great player.
Saquon basically did in his rookie season what Jacobs did this year. Had a lot more through the receiving game (Saquon is a better receiver), but they both went a little over 2000 scrimmage yards, Saquon had 3 more scores for 15 TDs total, and what Saquon did this year with the lack of complementary pieces as opposed to the Raiders, 1650 scrimmage yards and 10 scores, rushing for 4.4 yards/attempt, I don't believe if you put Jacobs here you're getting the 2022 version of Jacobs with the Raiders. You're getting the 2019-2021 version, hopefully. And he's not going to come at a cheaper cost than Jacobs.
Saquon is the better player. Interesting footnote on Jacobs, he has 160 career receptions for 1152 yards and zero receiving scores. No analysis there, just very interesting.
Saquon is the more dynamic player in space. They are a wash as a pass blocker.
Now here is the counter. Jacobs' durability. He's played 60 games in 4 seasons, Saquon 60 games in 5. But when it comes to ACLs, to me that doesn't mean a player is not durable. To me, Saquon is durable. He played hurt this year with the shoulder, and did an admirable job, even though at times you can see it affected his efficacy. The week off in week 18 I think really helped him. But the ACL injury is such a freak thing, it happens.
All this said, I think the number for Saquon is no higher than 14. Maybe you go 14.5 if pressed, I wouldn't lose him over $500K, and the other option is you tag him. You can exclusive franchise tag him, but given the contract demands, and you know how much I love Saquon, I'd be in favor of the non-exclusive tag for Saquon, I do believe that a team will offer him and forgo the two firsts in his case, and I think that's a net win for the Giants, and gives them protection for DJ.
But as I've said, Saquon is pretty important to DJ's running game. So you have to draft a guy and then go cheap at the position if you lose him, you don't pay the same money for Jacobs, I don't think that is the strongest path forward. I would hate for the Giants to lose him, but if the number is $15M plus, I think that's the way forward.
The problem with that plan is it's your only negotiating leverage for DJ. So that plan is predicated on working out an extension with DJ BEFORE going down that road. And if you can't, you use that non-exclusive tag on DJ, not Saquon, and you have to be willing to let Saquon walk for nothing. Or you can sign and trade, I think that's harder to do.
No matter what you do, Jacobs is evidence that you have to get that x-factor, #1 receiver on this team, and you need to improve the line.
But Saquon is a better player than Jacobs.
I will say this, I don't think the Titans regret paying Derrick Henry. The offense does revolve around Henry in Nashville, but he's remained a dominant player. But they haven't had the playoff success with that model, even though they reached the Conference Championship Game in 2019. First round exits the next couple of seasons, and fell just short of making the playoffs this year.
I only mention Henry, and he's not the only example, of players that signed a 2nd contract that has continued to provide elite production. You have to have a special guy to do that, and Saquon qualifies. But it's fair to say that when it comes to postseason success, the model that works most often is elite QB production on offense, not through the running game.
But then there's the rub with DJ. I think he needs that strong running game to complement what he does. Having a mediocre running game to complement him, I don't believe DJ can make a Super Bowl run under that kind of offensive team dynamic. I believe he needs a dynamic running game, and better receivers, and a better line.
Tall order for Schoen, critical decision point with both players this offseason. But again, if you move off of Saquon, the play is to go cheap at the position. Got to get a good RB in the draft though.
He does have receiving scores. This is wrong. I remember atleast two of them.
All this said, I think the number for Saquon is no higher than 14. Maybe you go 14.5 if pressed, I wouldn't lose him over $500K, and the other option is you tag him. You can exclusive franchise tag him, but given the contract demands, and you know how much I love Saquon, I'd be in favor of the non-exclusive tag for Saquon, I do believe that a team will offer him and forgo the two firsts in his case, and I think that's a net win for the Giants, and gives them protection for DJ.
I struggle with your view that some team offers up 2 first round picks for Saquon.
Not sure how fast I could say "yes" if someone did.
It only takes one team. I understand and get your perspective. It would take a team to view Saquon as special, have a plan for him, and a team that de-values their picks, as the Rams have done in recent seasons. Perhaps it's not a good comparison because the Rams really traded those high picks for more premium positions, but the Rams traded a lot of picks for players and they won a Super Bowl, and it's a copycat league. It's not a shoe-in, but a team like the Cardinals could see him as a player that can elevate the entire offense and that could help alleviate some of the negative aspects of Kyler Murray's game, where they otherwise have some strong pieces on both sides of the ball and could see themselves as a contender by adding a player of Saquon's caliber and skill set, not just as a runner, but as a receiver.
That's where specific team evaluations would come in, because you can see Saquon in a different type of offense where he becomes a slot weapon as much as a RB, and a specific role like that, a team like that could view him as a receiver/RB hybrid that could add a dimension to the offense that few players can.
I also think this is an aspect of Saquon's game that was very much under-utilized in 2022 and think Daboll, despite using Saquon in other creative ways, like as a wildcat, for example, could have added more to the offense by having him run more routes to get him in the intermediate level of the field where his size and elusiveness in space could be utilized.
Thanks for feedback. I get the whole special-thing but would
suggest if that were really the case than Daboll should be implementing his offense around that special because we only have to tag or sign him and not have to give up 2 first round picks for SB.
Thanks for the reply. I get the points you raise about the circumstances for Jacob.
But, again, I said I wouldn't sign either SB or Jacobs to a big second contract.
I have been a Penn State fan for over 30 years. I am very fond of SB and know his story very well. So, I am not anti-Barkley. I just don't like the concept of drafting a RB that high and I don't like the big second contract for the RB.
I wouldn't have liked the idea of drafting Jacobs #2 in the 2018 draft if Gettleman declared him "touched by the hand of God..."
Look, SB had a terrific year. Jacobs had a terrific year.
But right now, after watching each RB play in the NFL, if I was one of those teams willing to target a RB with a high second contract, I would choose Jacobs. He's younger, looks more durable and runs with a style I prefer - one cut, north-south. So, it's really a style preference and hedging that Jacobs might hold up better.
RE: Thanks for feedback. I get the whole special-thing but would
suggest if that were really the case than Daboll should be implementing his offense around that special because we only have to tag or sign him and not have to give up 2 first round picks for SB.
What's good for the goose.
Or maybe he is less special than we all think.
I do believe he's special. I also think that to some degree, after the Texans game, he was managed a bit, probably in part to the shoulder. But the bigger reason to explain why Daboll didn't use him this way is very likely how they designed this offense to maximize DJ's ability, not Saquon, and that predicated having Saquon in the backfield the majority of the time for him to run play-action roll-outs and zone read concepts.
Thanks for the reply. I get the points you raise about the circumstances for Jacob.
But, again, I said I wouldn't sign either SB or Jacobs to a big second contract.
I have been a Penn State fan for over 30 years. I am very fond of SB and know his story very well. So, I am not anti-Barkley. I just don't like the concept of drafting a RB that high and I don't like the big second contract for the RB.
I wouldn't have liked the idea of drafting Jacobs #2 in the 2018 draft if Gettleman declared him "touched by the hand of God..."
Look, SB had a terrific year. Jacobs had a terrific year.
But right now, after watching each RB play in the NFL, if I was one of those teams willing to target a RB with a high second contract, I would choose Jacobs. He's younger, looks more durable and runs with a style I prefer - one cut, north-south. So, it's really a style preference and hedging that Jacobs might hold up better.
Fair enough, I think we both agree that if Saquon leaves in free agency, you have to go cheap at the position and just get a 2nd round guy or later, probably a lot more RBBC.
And still, he isn’t t worth that $$
I’d rather put the money towards Love, Lawrence, McKinney and Thomas.
Quote:
Save the franchise tag for positions with higher value/lower supply.
Here is all the proof you need not to move forward without SB:
Cincinnati: Mixon and S.Perine
Kansas City: Pacheco, Edwards-Helaire, McKinnon
Philly: Miles Sanders, Gainwell, Scott
49ers: They used a luxury investment in CMC, but they have a very diverse running game using Mitchell, Samuel, etc. And Shanahan is a savant developing a running game, like his dad.
But let's keep SB because he's a got added value by being a good guy, face of the franchise, sells jerseys, etc.
I’m not sure what your “proof” is here? Three teams have what will be the 3top vote getters for league MVP at QB and the 4th team has the RB with the highest contract for a RB in the sport. If your “proof” is it’s better to have an MVP caliber QB, we can agree on that.
I have no interest in signing Barkley to an expensive extension. But this post of yours is asinine to be honest with you
I’d rather put the money towards Love, Lawrence, McKinney and Thomas.
They’re talents aren’t comparable. Shep was never a great talent. He’s a dime a dozen wr in the league. He had a penchant for getting open on third downs and was a good player but has no trait that jumps off the screen especially YAC ability. Saquon when healthy is a top back in this league. I
Don’t support paying him $16 mil but those 2 and their importance to the team couldn’t be more polar opposites.
Quote:
But now I’d rather move on. Why does he have some immense value for NYG? The truth is he doesn’t. There has been more hype than substance with him in his years here and it’s not his fault, he just got hurt. I view him the same way as Shep. Good guys, very good/great talents, never realized potential here because they got hurt too much.
I’d rather put the money towards Love, Lawrence, McKinney and Thomas.
They’re talents aren’t comparable. Shep was never a great talent. He’s a dime a dozen wr in the league. He had a penchant for getting open on third downs and was a good player but has no trait that jumps off the screen especially YAC ability. Saquon when healthy is a top back in this league. I
Don’t support paying him $16 mil but those 2 and their importance to the team couldn’t be more polar opposites.
Yep. I meant one was a very good talent (Shep), Barkley was a great talent. Barkley was so dynamic that in an alternate universe where he stayed healthy we’re talking about this past season as pedestrian for him rather than one of his better seasons.
You can just say I wouldn’t play Barkley and leave it at that. All the other stuff added isn’t necessary and contradicts many of the reasons why you wouldn’t sign Barkley.
"I'm not looking to reset a market. I'm realistic. Having two years of injuries doesn't help. But I think I was able to show the caliber of player I am."
You can just say I wouldn’t play Barkley and leave it at that. All the other stuff added isn’t necessary and contradicts many of the reasons why you wouldn’t sign Barkley.
I'm assuming this is meant for me.
Aces brought up Jacobs as a possible proxy for Barkley. I said I wouldn't pay Jacobs, either.
But if a team wants really wants to spend money for a RB it looks like Jacobs would be the better investment.
If NYG's value for him is 12M, SB has a big decision to make, otherwise he's facing a tag and another year of no longterm security.
The front office has to be realistic. They meed good players at every position. I'd offer 13 and let that be my walk away number. The bears would probably trade for him. What rounds exactly? Who knows. But I'd rather have running back by committee than dump a boatload of cash on one guy. Heck, draft a rd every year in the 3rd round is fine by me.
Quote:
Word is Giants offer is the 12M ballpark, Schoen volunteers they're not close, SB says he's not looking to reset the market, which is a nice soundbyte but reality is he very likely views himself at CMC's level.
If NYG's value for him is 12M, SB has a big decision to make, otherwise he's facing a tag and another year of no longterm security.
The front office has to be realistic. They meed good players at every position. I'd offer 13 and let that be my walk away number. The bears would probably trade for him. What rounds exactly? Who knows. But I'd rather have running back by committee than dump a boatload of cash on one guy. Heck, draft a rd every year in the 3rd round is fine by me.
The Bears don't need Barkley they have Herbert.
Quote:
Word is Giants offer is the 12M ballpark, Schoen volunteers they're not close, SB says he's not looking to reset the market, which is a nice soundbyte but reality is he very likely views himself at CMC's level.
If NYG's value for him is 12M, SB has a big decision to make, otherwise he's facing a tag and another year of no longterm security.
The front office has to be realistic. They meed good players at every position. I'd offer 13 and let that be my walk away number. The bears would probably trade for him. What rounds exactly? Who knows. But I'd rather have running back by committee than dump a boatload of cash on one guy. Heck, draft a rd every year in the 3rd round is fine by me.
The problem is running back by committee is you have three below average guys all getting touches, rather than a very good or truly great back getting the majority of touches.
Heck, the Giants didn’t even do running back by committee this year. What makes you think they’ll do it next year? If they chose to, they could have given Breida and Brightwell more touches. They didn’t. They fed Barkley. Clearly they know the importance of a great running back.
I said this in the other thread on Barkley - the Giants have stunk at running back in the past few years outside of Barkley. Now fans seek to want to go back to those days.
Breida had 54 carries all years, Brightwell has 31 I think. Suddenly we add a rookie running back and we expect the offense to hum along with a rookie, and two guys who the coaching staff didn’t put on the field consistently this season?
Spend the money on the offensively line and linebackers.
Oh... and receivers.
The FT has to be used on Jones. He is either a trade asset if he wants too much or the Giants have him for at least one more year without a long term commitment to prove more to the team with better receivers.
Quote:
In comment 16012501 JonC said:
Quote:
Word is Giants offer is the 12M ballpark, Schoen volunteers they're not close, SB says he's not looking to reset the market, which is a nice soundbyte but reality is he very likely views himself at CMC's level.
If NYG's value for him is 12M, SB has a big decision to make, otherwise he's facing a tag and another year of no longterm security.
The front office has to be realistic. They meed good players at every position. I'd offer 13 and let that be my walk away number. The bears would probably trade for him. What rounds exactly? Who knows. But I'd rather have running back by committee than dump a boatload of cash on one guy. Heck, draft a rd every year in the 3rd round is fine by me.
The problem is running back by committee is you have three below average guys all getting touches, rather than a very good or truly great back getting the majority of touches.
Heck, the Giants didn’t even do running back by committee this year. What makes you think they’ll do it next year? If they chose to, they could have given Breida and Brightwell more touches. They didn’t. They fed Barkley. Clearly they know the importance of a great running back.
I said this in the other thread on Barkley - the Giants have stunk at running back in the past few years outside of Barkley. Now fans seek to want to go back to those days.
Breida had 54 carries all years, Brightwell has 31 I think. Suddenly we add a rookie running back and we expect the offense to hum along with a rookie, and two guys who the coaching staff didn’t put on the field consistently this season?
Giants fans have an uncanny desire to jettison their best players. I mean look at the responses. Some don’t want him back for $10 mil 1 year. Can you imagine? 2 mil more than he made this year. How many games do the giants win without him this year? 5? I don’t want to break the bank for him but some of the responses are comical.
The thing is, if he doesn’t sign with us for $10-12/yr, who is going to pay him more, with all of the other quality FA backs out there?
Even if Saquon is the best rb on the market, is he so much better than everyone else that he will draw a bidding war for more money?
I just don’t see any other team doing what we won’t do.
Quote:
And only teams that just need that final player to put them over the top on offense. The Bills and Lions come to mind.
I love Saquon, but a high dollar commitment over four or five years makes little sense. I would either do a "tag, tender and trade" or let him walk and get the compensatory pick.
You only need 1.
1 does not a market make. It takes 2.
Seriously though, I get not wanting to pay a RB. But I cannot imagine what this offense would look like without Saquon. Just the attention he warrants from the opposing defense makes a difference.
We're not close enough to truly competing to spend so much on Barkley. That includes anything above 10 mil.
If you're sold on Jones, pay him and tag SB. If you're not, move on from both and tank for drafting a QB next year. Err, I mean accept that our record may not be so good.
Quote:
In comment 16012472 The Mike said:
Quote:
And only teams that just need that final player to put them over the top on offense. The Bills and Lions come to mind.
I love Saquon, but a high dollar commitment over four or five years makes little sense. I would either do a "tag, tender and trade" or let him walk and get the compensatory pick.
You only need 1.
1 does not a market make. It takes 2.
I know you're trying to be cute and act like the smartest guy in the room, but wrong....it just takes 1 team. 1 team needs to view him as a CMC type and offer him a contract.
RB list that I've seen in decades.
Kareem Hunt has tread on the tires playing behind Chubb, Can catch, only 27, probably can get him for 6-7 mil a year. I’d take that in a heartbeat over Barkley.
The ONLY other potential team we landed on was the Eagles. Howie loves troll so I wouldn't be shocked by this.
This. I’m fine with a separation. RBs can be had later. They don’t have to be Saquon to be effective.
Quote:
Not only is $16M too much, but I'm not sure I even want to spend the $10M tag on a RB. And I do love SB.
This. I’m fine with a separation. RBs can be had later. They don’t have to be Saquon to be effective.
This This.
The ONLY other potential team we landed on was the Eagles. Howie loves troll so I wouldn't be shocked by this.
Quote:
and we can't think of any team who is going to be willing to pay him other than us.
The ONLY other potential team we landed on was the Eagles. Howie loves troll so I wouldn't be shocked by this.
Baltimore and Buffalo are the two that come to mind immediately. Miami if they want an Upgrade from Mostert.
I don't do much reading to get inside the mind of other teams' fans, but at first blush, Chicago Bears make a good deal of sense to me.
Additionally, and not relevant at all, I can kinda picture Saquon in a Bears uniform.
However doing the same to Jones + Saquon + Leo is bad roster/cap management.
Keep churning the roster, top and bottom.
The ONLY other potential team we landed on was the Eagles. Howie loves troll so I wouldn't be shocked by this.
You can't think of any team that would pay SB big money? Explain why these teams would not:
1. Bears
2. Bills
3. Patriots
4. Ravens
5. Cardinals
6. Eagles
7. Redskins
There are more, but lets start here.
$115M of space and 3 years of their rookie QB contract left.
their team isn't in good shape, but it's a nice position to be in, factoring in that they have the #1 OA and don't need a QB.
They can likely turn that pick into a really nice stream of current and future picks.
Quote:
Not only is $16M too much, but I'm not sure I even want to spend the $10M tag on a RB. And I do love SB.
The thing is, if he doesn’t sign with us for $10-12/yr, who is going to pay him more, with all of the other quality FA backs out there?
Even if Saquon is the best rb on the market, is he so much better than everyone else that he will draw a bidding war for more money?
I just don’t see any other team doing what we won’t do.
Of course someone will. Plenty of teams have cap room and almost every team in the league is looking to add playmakers. We’ve gotten to watch Barkley perform most of his career behind a bad OL and with crap at WR and nothing but questions at QB. He’s going to be a very effective player for someone.
Go with Breida, Brightwell and draft a RB like other teams....in the 4th or 5th round.....
Sign Boston Scott to round it out.
You fundamentally don't understand the kind of person Barkley is. He's the exact opposite personality and character of the type of player that would do that.
Quote:
including 120 more carries. And what better time to pay him than after his career year!
You can just say I wouldn’t play Barkley and leave it at that. All the other stuff added isn’t necessary and contradicts many of the reasons why you wouldn’t sign Barkley.
I'm assuming this is meant for me.
Aces brought up Jacobs as a possible proxy for Barkley. I said I wouldn't pay Jacobs, either.
But if a team wants really wants to spend money for a RB it looks like Jacobs would be the better investment.
I think you're funny bw. I don't really believe you actually believe that. I think you are saying that because of your anti-Barkley in the draft stance 4 years ago.
Jacobs has been very consistent until this year in terms of production. Seasons, in scrimmage yards, rushing yards, rushing yards/attempt and TDs prior to 2022:
2019: 1316, 7, 1150, 4.8
2020: 1303, 12, 1065, 3.9
2021: 1220, 9, 872, 4.0
Now in 2022: 2053, 12, 1653, 4.9
So what changed in 2022 for Jacobs? Several things. Based on this (and I am not a member, but this is at least some evidence that Football Outsiders (probably the best site for advanced data and analysis), that the Raiders had the best run blocking offensive line in the NFL in 2022.
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/nfl/basic-offensive-line
In addition, I'm a big believer in complementary football, in this case, how a premiere WR helps the running game (among other things). They added one of the best in the NFL in Davante Adams. There's no question that the deep threat ability and one-on-one ability to win contested balls impacts the boxes that Jacobs had to face.
BTW, bw, I love discussions like this. I don't think Jacobs all of a sudden became a much better player. He's a very good to great player.
Saquon basically did in his rookie season what Jacobs did this year. Had a lot more through the receiving game (Saquon is a better receiver), but they both went a little over 2000 scrimmage yards, Saquon had 3 more scores for 15 TDs total, and what Saquon did this year with the lack of complementary pieces as opposed to the Raiders, 1650 scrimmage yards and 10 scores, rushing for 4.4 yards/attempt, I don't believe if you put Jacobs here you're getting the 2022 version of Jacobs with the Raiders. You're getting the 2019-2021 version, hopefully. And he's not going to come at a cheaper cost than Jacobs.
Saquon is the better player. Interesting footnote on Jacobs, he has 160 career receptions for 1152 yards and zero receiving scores. No analysis there, just very interesting.
Saquon is the more dynamic player in space. They are a wash as a pass blocker.
Now here is the counter. Jacobs' durability. He's played 60 games in 4 seasons, Saquon 60 games in 5. But when it comes to ACLs, to me that doesn't mean a player is not durable. To me, Saquon is durable. He played hurt this year with the shoulder, and did an admirable job, even though at times you can see it affected his efficacy. The week off in week 18 I think really helped him. But the ACL injury is such a freak thing, it happens.
All this said, I think the number for Saquon is no higher than 14. Maybe you go 14.5 if pressed, I wouldn't lose him over $500K, and the other option is you tag him. You can exclusive franchise tag him, but given the contract demands, and you know how much I love Saquon, I'd be in favor of the non-exclusive tag for Saquon, I do believe that a team will offer him and forgo the two firsts in his case, and I think that's a net win for the Giants, and gives them protection for DJ.
But as I've said, Saquon is pretty important to DJ's running game. So you have to draft a guy and then go cheap at the position if you lose him, you don't pay the same money for Jacobs, I don't think that is the strongest path forward. I would hate for the Giants to lose him, but if the number is $15M plus, I think that's the way forward.
The problem with that plan is it's your only negotiating leverage for DJ. So that plan is predicated on working out an extension with DJ BEFORE going down that road. And if you can't, you use that non-exclusive tag on DJ, not Saquon, and you have to be willing to let Saquon walk for nothing. Or you can sign and trade, I think that's harder to do.
No matter what you do, Jacobs is evidence that you have to get that x-factor, #1 receiver on this team, and you need to improve the line.
But Saquon is a better player than Jacobs.
I will say this, I don't think the Titans regret paying Derrick Henry. The offense does revolve around Henry in Nashville, but he's remained a dominant player. But they haven't had the playoff success with that model, even though they reached the Conference Championship Game in 2019. First round exits the next couple of seasons, and fell just short of making the playoffs this year.
I only mention Henry, and he's not the only example, of players that signed a 2nd contract that has continued to provide elite production. You have to have a special guy to do that, and Saquon qualifies. But it's fair to say that when it comes to postseason success, the model that works most often is elite QB production on offense, not through the running game.
But then there's the rub with DJ. I think he needs that strong running game to complement what he does. Having a mediocre running game to complement him, I don't believe DJ can make a Super Bowl run under that kind of offensive team dynamic. I believe he needs a dynamic running game, and better receivers, and a better line.
Tall order for Schoen, critical decision point with both players this offseason. But again, if you move off of Saquon, the play is to go cheap at the position. Got to get a good RB in the draft though.
I'm not saying you don't need a running game...you do. But the days where you ran the ball more than 50% of the time...or more, is pretty much over. You can get to a certain point (see the Titans) with a great running back only, but you won't win too many playoff games.
The value right now is with great WR's and great Pass Rushers (to stop the passing game). That's where the money needs to go. You can't over-allocate money to Barkley, because the position itself is depreciated.
I struggle with your view that some team offers up 2 first round picks for Saquon.
Not sure how fast I could say "yes" if someone did.
Quote:
In comment 16012830 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
including 120 more carries. And what better time to pay him than after his career year!
You can just say I wouldn’t play Barkley and leave it at that. All the other stuff added isn’t necessary and contradicts many of the reasons why you wouldn’t sign Barkley.
I'm assuming this is meant for me.
Aces brought up Jacobs as a possible proxy for Barkley. I said I wouldn't pay Jacobs, either.
But if a team wants really wants to spend money for a RB it looks like Jacobs would be the better investment.
I think you're funny bw. I don't really believe you actually believe that. I think you are saying that because of your anti-Barkley in the draft stance 4 years ago.
Jacobs has been very consistent until this year in terms of production. Seasons, in scrimmage yards, rushing yards, rushing yards/attempt and TDs prior to 2022:
2019: 1316, 7, 1150, 4.8
2020: 1303, 12, 1065, 3.9
2021: 1220, 9, 872, 4.0
Now in 2022: 2053, 12, 1653, 4.9
So what changed in 2022 for Jacobs? Several things. Based on this (and I am not a member, but this is at least some evidence that Football Outsiders (probably the best site for advanced data and analysis), that the Raiders had the best run blocking offensive line in the NFL in 2022.
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/nfl/basic-offensive-line
In addition, I'm a big believer in complementary football, in this case, how a premiere WR helps the running game (among other things). They added one of the best in the NFL in Davante Adams. There's no question that the deep threat ability and one-on-one ability to win contested balls impacts the boxes that Jacobs had to face.
BTW, bw, I love discussions like this. I don't think Jacobs all of a sudden became a much better player. He's a very good to great player.
Saquon basically did in his rookie season what Jacobs did this year. Had a lot more through the receiving game (Saquon is a better receiver), but they both went a little over 2000 scrimmage yards, Saquon had 3 more scores for 15 TDs total, and what Saquon did this year with the lack of complementary pieces as opposed to the Raiders, 1650 scrimmage yards and 10 scores, rushing for 4.4 yards/attempt, I don't believe if you put Jacobs here you're getting the 2022 version of Jacobs with the Raiders. You're getting the 2019-2021 version, hopefully. And he's not going to come at a cheaper cost than Jacobs.
Saquon is the better player. Interesting footnote on Jacobs, he has 160 career receptions for 1152 yards and zero receiving scores. No analysis there, just very interesting.
Saquon is the more dynamic player in space. They are a wash as a pass blocker.
Now here is the counter. Jacobs' durability. He's played 60 games in 4 seasons, Saquon 60 games in 5. But when it comes to ACLs, to me that doesn't mean a player is not durable. To me, Saquon is durable. He played hurt this year with the shoulder, and did an admirable job, even though at times you can see it affected his efficacy. The week off in week 18 I think really helped him. But the ACL injury is such a freak thing, it happens.
All this said, I think the number for Saquon is no higher than 14. Maybe you go 14.5 if pressed, I wouldn't lose him over $500K, and the other option is you tag him. You can exclusive franchise tag him, but given the contract demands, and you know how much I love Saquon, I'd be in favor of the non-exclusive tag for Saquon, I do believe that a team will offer him and forgo the two firsts in his case, and I think that's a net win for the Giants, and gives them protection for DJ.
But as I've said, Saquon is pretty important to DJ's running game. So you have to draft a guy and then go cheap at the position if you lose him, you don't pay the same money for Jacobs, I don't think that is the strongest path forward. I would hate for the Giants to lose him, but if the number is $15M plus, I think that's the way forward.
The problem with that plan is it's your only negotiating leverage for DJ. So that plan is predicated on working out an extension with DJ BEFORE going down that road. And if you can't, you use that non-exclusive tag on DJ, not Saquon, and you have to be willing to let Saquon walk for nothing. Or you can sign and trade, I think that's harder to do.
No matter what you do, Jacobs is evidence that you have to get that x-factor, #1 receiver on this team, and you need to improve the line.
But Saquon is a better player than Jacobs.
I will say this, I don't think the Titans regret paying Derrick Henry. The offense does revolve around Henry in Nashville, but he's remained a dominant player. But they haven't had the playoff success with that model, even though they reached the Conference Championship Game in 2019. First round exits the next couple of seasons, and fell just short of making the playoffs this year.
I only mention Henry, and he's not the only example, of players that signed a 2nd contract that has continued to provide elite production. You have to have a special guy to do that, and Saquon qualifies. But it's fair to say that when it comes to postseason success, the model that works most often is elite QB production on offense, not through the running game.
But then there's the rub with DJ. I think he needs that strong running game to complement what he does. Having a mediocre running game to complement him, I don't believe DJ can make a Super Bowl run under that kind of offensive team dynamic. I believe he needs a dynamic running game, and better receivers, and a better line.
Tall order for Schoen, critical decision point with both players this offseason. But again, if you move off of Saquon, the play is to go cheap at the position. Got to get a good RB in the draft though.
He does have receiving scores. This is wrong. I remember atleast two of them.
Quote:
All this said, I think the number for Saquon is no higher than 14. Maybe you go 14.5 if pressed, I wouldn't lose him over $500K, and the other option is you tag him. You can exclusive franchise tag him, but given the contract demands, and you know how much I love Saquon, I'd be in favor of the non-exclusive tag for Saquon, I do believe that a team will offer him and forgo the two firsts in his case, and I think that's a net win for the Giants, and gives them protection for DJ.
I struggle with your view that some team offers up 2 first round picks for Saquon.
Not sure how fast I could say "yes" if someone did.
It only takes one team. I understand and get your perspective. It would take a team to view Saquon as special, have a plan for him, and a team that de-values their picks, as the Rams have done in recent seasons. Perhaps it's not a good comparison because the Rams really traded those high picks for more premium positions, but the Rams traded a lot of picks for players and they won a Super Bowl, and it's a copycat league. It's not a shoe-in, but a team like the Cardinals could see him as a player that can elevate the entire offense and that could help alleviate some of the negative aspects of Kyler Murray's game, where they otherwise have some strong pieces on both sides of the ball and could see themselves as a contender by adding a player of Saquon's caliber and skill set, not just as a runner, but as a receiver.
That's where specific team evaluations would come in, because you can see Saquon in a different type of offense where he becomes a slot weapon as much as a RB, and a specific role like that, a team like that could view him as a receiver/RB hybrid that could add a dimension to the offense that few players can.
I also think this is an aspect of Saquon's game that was very much under-utilized in 2022 and think Daboll, despite using Saquon in other creative ways, like as a wildcat, for example, could have added more to the offense by having him run more routes to get him in the intermediate level of the field where his size and elusiveness in space could be utilized.
What's good for the goose.
Or maybe he is less special than we all think.
But, again, I said I wouldn't sign either SB or Jacobs to a big second contract.
I have been a Penn State fan for over 30 years. I am very fond of SB and know his story very well. So, I am not anti-Barkley. I just don't like the concept of drafting a RB that high and I don't like the big second contract for the RB.
I wouldn't have liked the idea of drafting Jacobs #2 in the 2018 draft if Gettleman declared him "touched by the hand of God..."
Look, SB had a terrific year. Jacobs had a terrific year.
But right now, after watching each RB play in the NFL, if I was one of those teams willing to target a RB with a high second contract, I would choose Jacobs. He's younger, looks more durable and runs with a style I prefer - one cut, north-south. So, it's really a style preference and hedging that Jacobs might hold up better.
What's good for the goose.
Or maybe he is less special than we all think.
I do believe he's special. I also think that to some degree, after the Texans game, he was managed a bit, probably in part to the shoulder. But the bigger reason to explain why Daboll didn't use him this way is very likely how they designed this offense to maximize DJ's ability, not Saquon, and that predicated having Saquon in the backfield the majority of the time for him to run play-action roll-outs and zone read concepts.
But, again, I said I wouldn't sign either SB or Jacobs to a big second contract.
I have been a Penn State fan for over 30 years. I am very fond of SB and know his story very well. So, I am not anti-Barkley. I just don't like the concept of drafting a RB that high and I don't like the big second contract for the RB.
I wouldn't have liked the idea of drafting Jacobs #2 in the 2018 draft if Gettleman declared him "touched by the hand of God..."
Look, SB had a terrific year. Jacobs had a terrific year.
But right now, after watching each RB play in the NFL, if I was one of those teams willing to target a RB with a high second contract, I would choose Jacobs. He's younger, looks more durable and runs with a style I prefer - one cut, north-south. So, it's really a style preference and hedging that Jacobs might hold up better.
Fair enough, I think we both agree that if Saquon leaves in free agency, you have to go cheap at the position and just get a 2nd round guy or later, probably a lot more RBBC.