This team has so many holes and some homegrown talent that need to be retained and won’t be cheap (Lawrence, Jones, McKinney, Thomas). Leonard Williams carries a massive cap hit and the team has needs at WR, TE, IOL, DL depth, LB and CB. Barkley reportedly turned down $12 million AAV (apologize if that rumor was debunked). Barkley was the heart and soul of the offense last year but given his injury history and the track record of finding productive, cheap labor later in the draft (Pierce in Houston, Allegier in Atlanta, etc) I think dedicating a large portion of the cap to a RB is not sound team building in a salary cap league
If you mean, is there some limit to what you will pay? Of course. You can't manage a team in the cap era if you are always unwilling to let players you like go at any price.
What is the number? Of course, depends how the deal is structured, whether they have the tag available (Jones negotiations) and whether they think they can use it without messing up the culture. As both teams and players have learned, the structure of a deal matters at least as much as the announced AAV, so I wouldn't put a number out. But the McCaffrey deal, three years later, that is, with the cap having gone up, doesn't seem a crazy starting point. That was $64M over 4 years, $30M guaranteed at signing. Of course, the Giants will have to manage their dealing around the Golladay dead money and the need to sign other young stars, so timing of the cap hit will be an issue for both Barkley and Jones.
Stop over thinking
Jesus Christ phone.
Anyway: either a premium player at another position AND a decent replacement running back; or a nice contract extension for one of our other more valuable players AND a decent replacement running back.
I just don't think we're at a point roster-wise to spend a lot of money on Barkley at the potential expense of stocking up in multiple other spots.
Exactly... Paying him more does not upgrade the team.
Quote:
tag Barkley. It's not that complicated. Then negotiate a long term contract with Barkley.
this
Or just tag Barkley two years in a row. Cheaper than a long term deal and that takes you through his seventh season. He would probably hold out in 2024 though on that second tag, but it’s like the Bell situation years ago with Pittsburgh. Not much leverage on his side. He should take the Chubb deal, 3 years, about $12M per.
Quote:
But, expect a drop in play from Jones if you do.
I don't think so Sean.
I did a break down of when the Giants had Jones and No Barkley and Barkley with No Jones a little while back.
It was something like this:
With Jones and no Barkley, The Giants were around 8 wins and 19 losses..
With Barkley and no Jones the Giants didn't win a game.
I sometimes think we underestimate Jones and over estimate Barkley.
Whatever the Giants brass thinks is best I am good with.
Lol really? Does anything from 2021 count in your equation? Mike Glennon and Jake Fromm. We would have been better off starting Barkley at QB.
When Barkley was banged up/ineffective this year mid season, the offense stalled big time and we weren't winning games. Nothing Sean said is off the mark. He is right. Taking away Jones' best weapon would have a negative impact on him and the whole offense.
IF your RB is your main/only weapon, you're not anywhere near ready to compete with the big dogs.
The team might be better served tagging him, and praying some foolish team signs him and gives up a couple of # 1's, or trades at least one.
Don't overthink it.
100% agree.
For ne, it depends more on the term than the money.
Serious question for you.
You and I debated even drafting Barkley in 2018, and we were on very different sides then.
It appears to me that you have changed your mind.
Is that correct?
If so, what led you to a different conclusion?
Christian McCaffrey #8
Derrick Henry- 45
Josh Jacobs- 45
Dalvin Cook- 41
Jonathan Taylor- 41
Miles Sanders - 53
Nick Chubb- 35
Kenneth Walker - 41
Joe Mixon- 48
Next up and comers
Travis Etienne- 25
Breece Hall- 36
Najee Harris - 24
The guys you listed that were taken late got some yards for 2 very bad teams for 1 season, we have no real idea how they will respond in difficult situations for playoff teams
How many times are you going to post this?
And how many times do people have to repost the counter examples that you conveniently exclude?
Besides even in your list, there are only 2 in the top 20.
The majority in your list are in the 40s. That is a far cry from #2! In terms of Draft value that is 2600 vs between 450 and 500... Is Barkley worth 5 or 6 high second round choices?
I’m still wrong? Ok then. Why can’t we have two nice things on offense? Apparently teams don’t pay the running back in the quarterback? Yeah that’s bullshit. So we’re gonna save some money and let Barkley go and who the fuck are we paying that money to? where is this guy? And is he worth it? The FA wide receivers suck.
Don’t tell me you want to save money and let Barkley go just because of stupid made up nonsense about RBs not worth the money. Please offer me something better than that. Please explain to me why we’re gonna let a known commodity just leave “because running backs aren’t worth i it.” Please give me more than that.
You guys treat these contracts like the fucking plague. 3 years. Not 10.
I’m still wrong? Ok then. Why can’t we have two nice things on offense? Apparently teams don’t pay the running back in the quarterback? Yeah that’s bullshit. So we’re gonna save some money and let Barkley go and who the fuck are we paying that money to? where is this guy? And is he worth it? The FA wide receivers suck.
Don’t tell me you want to save money and let Barkley go just because of stupid made up nonsense about RBs not worth the money. Please offer me something better than that. Please explain to me why we’re gonna let a known commodity just leave “because running backs aren’t worth i it.” Please give me more than that.
djm, this is a dumb question.
It isn't any one specific player. It is a matter of roster construction and where you choose to spend resources.
Maybe it is a OL, maybe a CB, a LB, some better DL rotation guys, more available money for a WR, or your favorite QB. If not this year, than next.
Look at all the FA the Giants need to sign
QB, at least 2 WR, probably 2 IOL, 2 ILB, 2 rotational DL, a CB. And that is for starter/players with significant snaps. The can save 6M releasing KG. That leave 60M, about 48M after the rookie pool.
Just how far is that 48M going to stretch? Can we sign all those players to the contracts they want? I know you don't want to believe it, but the cap actually matters.
Christian McCaffrey #8
Derrick Henry- 45
Josh Jacobs- 45
Dalvin Cook- 41
Jonathan Taylor- 41
Miles Sanders - 53
Nick Chubb- 35
Kenneth Walker - 41
Joe Mixon- 48
Next up and comers
Travis Etienne- 25
Breece Hall- 36
Najee Harris - 24
The guys you listed that were taken late got some yards for 2 very bad teams for 1 season, we have no real idea how they will respond in difficult situations for playoff teams
That list says to me you find your RB in the 2nd round.
Acquire as much draft capital as possible.
I’m still wrong? Ok then. Why can’t we have two nice things on offense? Apparently teams don’t pay the running back in the quarterback? Yeah that’s bullshit. So we’re gonna save some money and let Barkley go and who the fuck are we paying that money to? where is this guy? And is he worth it? The FA wide receivers suck.
Don’t tell me you want to save money and let Barkley go just because of stupid made up nonsense about RBs not worth the money. Please offer me something better than that. Please explain to me why we’re gonna let a known commodity just leave “because running backs aren’t worth i it.” Please give me more than that.
A+ work
Quote:
Who are we paying from the Barkley savings? Where is this guy? Some of you want to spend that money on another free agent running back, a vet FA running back, no less. So you want to downgrade at running back and spend probably $10 million on that FA downgrade and then do what, exactly? Where is the rest of that money going to that four or five extra million? No? I’m wrong? OK fine do you want to draft a running back and spend that 15 or so million where? Who is getting that money? What free agent wide receiver are we paying that money to?
I’m still wrong? Ok then. Why can’t we have two nice things on offense? Apparently teams don’t pay the running back in the quarterback? Yeah that’s bullshit. So we’re gonna save some money and let Barkley go and who the fuck are we paying that money to? where is this guy? And is he worth it? The FA wide receivers suck.
Don’t tell me you want to save money and let Barkley go just because of stupid made up nonsense about RBs not worth the money. Please offer me something better than that. Please explain to me why we’re gonna let a known commodity just leave “because running backs aren’t worth i it.” Please give me more than that.
A+ work
Quite the grading system you put in place here.
I think the Giants have to let Barkley walk to be honest.
The guy is the key to our current offense. His value to us is more than a RB, and would be very hard to replace (and certainly not for $12-$14M).
For those of you who love Barkley, do you think he is better than Sanders?
But Sanders put up nearly identical numbers as Barkley.
They did it because they have a better OL. Having a better OL has also had a positive impact on the passing game, their back RB numbers, and Hurt's numbers running.
The way to replace the production is to improve the OL.
Improving the WR won't hurt either.
The point is, the money is more effective when used to bolster other parts of the team.
For those of you who love Barkley, do you think he is better than Sanders?
But Sanders put up nearly identical numbers as Barkley.
They did it because they have a better OL. Having a better OL has also had a positive impact on the passing game, their back RB numbers, and Hurt's numbers running.
The way to replace the production is to improve the OL.
Improving the WR won't hurt either.
The point is, the money is more effective when used to bolster other parts of the team.
There was a thread going on last week with GBN guys posting adamantly that the Eagles did not have a dominant line at all, and their prodcutivity was comparable to that of the NYG's OL.
The externality is that they need that tag in their pocket until they work things out with DJ.
It would be great if they can work things out with DJ in advance of the tag deadline, but that will require either some come-to-jesus on Jones' part or the organization substantially giving in to what he's asking for (which I suspect many of us would consider an overpay).
My baseline expectation is that the tag will need to be used on Jones and that Barkley will be allowed to walk.
When I see Jason Kelce, it's what I wish we had anchoring our line no matter who is behind center at QB or split out wide at WR.
When I see Jason Kelce, it's what I wish we had anchoring our line no matter who is behind center at QB or split out wide at WR.
So why do you keep posting about GBN and their line being comparable to ours? I truly don’t understand it.
Much like this thread about whether the team should let Barkley walk.
Quote:
Look at the Eagles...
For those of you who love Barkley, do you think he is better than Sanders?
But Sanders put up nearly identical numbers as Barkley.
They did it because they have a better OL. Having a better OL has also had a positive impact on the passing game, their back RB numbers, and Hurt's numbers running.
The way to replace the production is to improve the OL.
Improving the WR won't hurt either.
The point is, the money is more effective when used to bolster other parts of the team.
There was a thread going on last week with GBN guys posting adamantly that the Eagles did not have a dominant line at all, and their prodcutivity was comparable to that of the NYG's OL.
Yes, I saw that.... I rolled my eyes!
He was excellent this year, is always fun to watch, he became a solid pass blocker, has great ball security, a great guy to root for and was the driving force for a number of wins that wouldn’t happen with an average rb.
In short, he’s a guy you build with…even though he’s a Jets fan
That was true this season. The issue is that betting on a running back to replicate that for even 2-3 more years goes against mountains of prior evidence. The list of RBs who have maintained their level of play into their second contracts is EXTREMELY short. The fact that we ran him so hard this year is EXACTLY THE REASON they shouldn't bank on being able to do it into the future.
You're worried about how do we replace him if we let him walk. The issue is we likely will have to replace him even if we don't.
Use the savings elsewhere.