First, I'll admit that this thread is speculative. Since we don't have the details of what is happening behind closed doors, we are left with rumors circulated by media or other sources. Here's what's been said (correctly or incorrectly).
1. SB refused around a 12.5M AAV offer at the time of the bye.
2. Schoen's post-season comments have shown a bit of a cooling off on SB as opposed to the stronger language used during the season.
3. Negotiations right now are proceeding with SB only (not DJ), leading some to speculate that the Giants have a specific number in mind regarding SB, and that if they can't get at or below it, they'll walk away. In other words, they'll use the franchise tag as a negotiating tool for DJ only, not Barkley. This might even mean that they know that SB is unwilling to play under the tag. He told them that he would hold out rather than risk a big future payday by playing for only one season for $10M.
4. There is a general principle in the NFL that you don't pay big money to RBs on second contracts, as opposed to QBs. They simply aren't durable enough. This is especially true for SB.
5. The 14-16M spent on SB could be used to help other parts of the offense (OL or WR). Some believe that spending the money on these positions is more conducive to success rather than spending it on a RB. Basically, the theory is that any 4th round or later cheap RB can be successful behind a dominant offensive line.
6. There is a SIGNIFICANT element to SB that lies beyond his abilities as a RB. He is a captain and a leader on the team. Letting him walk will definitely have a big negative impact on the lockerroom and the team as a whole. The giants would be losing A LOT more than just a RB.
Given these speculative/factual points, what would you do if SB refuses anything below 14M? Point number 6 above is HUGELY important and cannot be minimized.
Do you sign SB for 14-16M or let him walk? It's quite possible that tagging is unlikely to be the path the Giants will employ with him. He doesn't want it and they need it for Jones.
What do you do if you're the GM?
Wont convince me otherwise so don’t even try. Not to mention we don’t even know where that highly paid wide receiver is coming from…. Also not to mention Daniel Jones is probably not going to be paid a super elite QB salary, or at least it won’t be that type in 2-3 years. Because inflation. It’s real.
Also, Barkley is going to sign what likely amounts to be a three-year deal. Shit Joannes might even do something similar with a shorter big deal.
You have good team leading pillars right in front of you. Players that carried an otherwise ordinary offensive roster to playoff contention. Bark being a main catalyst. If any team was ever primed to sign their own star RB it’s this one. This isn’t the 95-1996 Giants debating over whether to re-sign Hampton. The same
Hampton who simply didn’t possess the long term staying power that Barkley clearly shows and displays just by his work ethic alone. This isn’t a team on the decline. And again where the hell is this grass is greener alternative reality player we’re missing out on? And this guy is a better contributor than Barkley? He’s going to help us more in 23-24? And we’re definitely gonna get hm? And we can’t get both? Why? Prove all of that. Or, just re-sign your own fucking star power like EVERY good team does.
There's something to be said for staying loyal to guys who put in 100% and had success, but I'm not sure it's a black-and-white issue. Barkley had a great year, and if he were a cyborg like Adrian Peterson I'd re-sign him in a heartbeat, but it's fair to debate whether he can keep it up even over the next few years, given his injury history and how his numbers fell off over the last half of the year.
You could also argue that the RB position is just different from a position like QB. No, you probably won't find a RB as talented as Barkley in free agency or the draft, but can you put together a group of RBs for cheaper that can provide an almost equal amount of production when combined? I think other teams have proven it's possible. Plus, when you don't tie your run game to 1 RB, you're not in a pickle if one of your RBs goes down.
It all depends on how Schoen and Daboll want the roster structured. I wouldn't be surprised if both Jones and Barkley are back, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they go a different route at RB.
A comp pick for losing him as a free agent and saving cap money would not be bad either.
Also not signing Love to a big contract. He is a good player but not special at any thing. He is not an impact player or a player at a critical position.
As for drafting receivers. We gave up 238 yards rushing and a boat load of sacks and pressures to the eagles. I don't see how drafting a receiver and cornerback high are fixing that problem.
we have to draft to win in the trenches.
Get the best players, figure out the puzzle. This roster is a work in progress, maybe 20 current players will be here in 2024, for example. Don't worry as much about winning now when discussing the draft, the draft isn't so much about 2023 as it is for the future.
As GM I would do what would net the most in return. Tag and trade if you have too. Maybe to a team like the Bengals in exchange for Huggins if they can’t sign him and Mixon is on the way out. Would give us a bonafide #1 WR which is going to be tough and take time to develop going via draft. Just get the most you can from him, it is not wise to pay him big money with his injury history.
Agree. It would be absolute malpractice to sign him. Besides Henry, what other 2nd contract RBs have worked out? I'm not even sure the Henry signing was smart as they were unable to resign Brown, a massive loss
What I do think I know though is that you win games in the NFL with impact players who make impact plays. KC for example has not been the best team in the league the past several years because they have the fewest 'holes' in their roster or that they win games in the trenches. They have the best QB in the league throwing to a literal track team of receivers. And while every team differs to some degree every team that won ten or more games this year has a boatload of impact players.
And to call Saquon just a RB who can easily be replaced is being disingenuous. Fact is RBs who can get you 4 yards a carry are literally a dime a dozen. However RB who can get you 40 yards in a heartbeat are really and he's one of those. And right now he's the Giants one true impact threat on offense and its just hard how one sees the team getting better by letting that one current threat walk so you can afford a couple of JAGs at non-impact positions.
The other thing here is that you aren't paying Barkley for what he did this year or last or whatever. Its what he can do for you in the future. And if the Giants ever do find a couple or three receivers who can actually stretch the field, force opponents to back off and defend the run with 5-6 in the box rather than the 9-10 we consistently saw this year, then things should really open up for a guy likely Barkley who doesn't need blocking so much as a little bit of space, and you'll see a bunch of opposing DCs losing sleep figuring out which they are going to try and shut down. And you're not going to get that with however many JAGs you have at RB!
-RBs have little longevity
-The franchise tag will cost us 10-11 million
-Franchise tag is limited to 1 year and then another year
-If he gets hurt next year, we don't have him for more than 1 year franchised
-If he plays well next year we can roll the tag over one more time
-If he is a pill and sandbags on the tag, we can unload him in 1 year
-If he is on a longterm contract, even at 12 million a year, we are stuck with him if he gets hurt or declines in production
-Unlike Jones, who is young and at a position that has more longevity, the QB franchise tag $$ is a lot higher at 38-40mill plus
If I am Schoen I tell both Jones and Saquon that there is combined money he can spend on these 2 plus the others in the budget. Jones can offer some back to Saquon for a longer term deal and give us a discount, or he can take Lion's share and stiff Saquon et al. Saquon being in the worst positional value, will get stuck with franchise tag, possibly be upset. If he bags on us next year, his value again goes down for trades or salary.
Saquon's peeps should know he is kind of over a barrel and should take 12 mill a year for longer deal and be happy he ever saw that
exactly. Saquon needs some security within reason. He can be on a franchise tag 2 times(and dumped either year) and get LESS MONEY by wanting too much money.
Uh yeah, all of us would be ecstatic about getting 2 first round picks. Unfortunately, there is no GM in the league willing to give up 2 first round picks for an RB who will be entering their age 26 season. There is likely no GM that would be willing to give up 1 first round pick for Barkley.
I'd let him walk. Nice player but unfortunately I don't see him eventually becoming a "gold jacket guy". He's not worth 8 figures.
10 years ago (2013), Adrian Peterson was the highest paid RB in the NFL at a $13.9M cap number. Chris (CJ2K) Johnson had a cap hit of $12M. Three other backs had cap hits between $8-$10M. Here's the kicker...the salary cap in 2013? $123M.
One of those three RBs was Marshawn Lynch. Who was the Super Bowl champ that season? You guessed it...the Seahawks.
Marshawn accounted for 6.9% of the Seahawks cap that year. Even at a $14M AAV, and let's assume all $14M was against the cap next year (which obviously doesn't have to be the case, it could be lower than that in a well-structured deal), Saquon's cap hit would account for 6.2% of the cap.
Now, before you ask, yes, Russell Wilson was on his rookie deal, so not exactly apples to apples. But I see hidden value here. Saquon has demonstrated he can be a 2K scrimmage yard before and double-digit TDs. With some improvement up front, it's a realistic performance benchmark. His rookie year he had 91 receptions.
You would pay north of $20M AAV for a WR that gave you that kind of production.
I've said before that $14M AAV is probably my limit for Saquon...but I think...particularly if they bring back OBJ (more on this below), I think he signs that deal.
Now, where can you save money to make up for paying your RB? Let's assume they sign a WR like OBJ or maybe Jakobi Meyers...then draft a strong receiver on a rookie deal...you've re-made your WR corp to a much more formidable unit without having to pay premium WR dollars. You can get OBJ for probably no more than $13M over 2 years, perhaps part of that will be incentive-laden. Meyer's deal will likely be between $12.5-$16M AAV.
This is reasonable, and if it's well structured, you still have plenty of room to sign other free agents and your draft class.
Yes, you can go cheap at the position, and it's not a terrible way to go...the points about replacement value is well-taken. But you're not going to get the package that Saquon offers in another RB out of the draft. It's not gonna happen. Could you have a committee backfield that can be passable? Absolutely. But the upside is going to be more limited, you're probably not going to get the holistic player that Saquon is as a runner, receiver, blocking ability at the position with a rookie plus Brightwell and Breida (as an example, I understand the latter is also a free agent).
This is doable. I'm in favor of a Saquon reunion.
As for the tag, you definitely DO NOT tag Saquon or anyone else) without an extension worked out with DJ. You lose all your negotiating leverage at that point, and DJ's deal is going to be more prohibitive with respect to other moves. If you have to overpay Saquon to get him to stay, you lose $1-$2M in additional money AAV. If you have to do the same with DJ, it's at least double that, up to $10M more.
yuck.
People talk about losing Barkley's production like if he isn't here, the Giants wont gain any rushing yards from RBs at all...
There are plenty of cheap RBs that will give 85 - 90% of his production. The rest, you get either with other RBs or increase WR production. Spend the resource improving the offensive line, and the team will have no problems replacing his production.
As for production, what would you be willing to pay for a stat line like this over a 17 game season:
ATT YDS AVG TD LNG REC TGTS YDS AVG TD
236 926 3.923728814 10 27 68 97 343 3.536082474 0
Those are SBs stats from the last 7 games of the regular season, projected over 17 games.
Clearly SB wears done and so does his production. And yet DJ was able to more than make up for the loss of production from SB.
When you sign him, which RB are you getting, the RB from the first 9 games, or the one from the last 7. Or more of the same, half a year of really good production and after he gets dinged, 1/2 a year of below average.
Nah, I'll pass (pun intended)
Yds 926
Y/R 3.92
TD 10
Lng 27
Rec 68
Tgt 97
Yds 343
Y/C 3.54
TD 0
Pro Bowl is a popularity contest for starters. If he was a 2x All Pro then I am listening.
Down the stretch from Dec 4 into the playoffs.. Saquon rushed for 434 yards.. Jones rushed for 359 yards.
During joint tenure of Jones and Barkley, when Barkley was out and Jones played, the Giants won 8 of 19 games or something like that..
When Barkley played without Jones, the Giants won ZERO games...
So I don't get your point except to shit on Jones when you can.
Barkley was used as a decoy a lot and when he wasn’t he had some huge runs. He touches the ball twice as much as any WR on the team and will do so even with a top flight number 1 receiver.
How much are you paying a great #2 receiver. Probably around 15 mill or more.
I don’t want to think positional value as much as impact value.
Draft a number 1 receiver and consider Barkley your number 2 option.
Excactly
p.s.--If Barkley left and a RB was BPA, I'd be all for taking one in the 1st round. You have him for four years plus the option year plus the franchise tag. That's six years you control his rights at a bargain rate if he delivers on the 1st grade you gave him (I'm thinking Bijan Robinson and more realistically Jahmyr Gibbs).
Quote:
but pay a zero time Pro Bowl QB $35-40 million per year. Makes sense...why pay for production? Let's overpay for hypotheticals and feel good stories. If the Giants lose Wink and SB, gonna be funny to see this forum turn on the great Daniel Jones.
Pro Bowl is a popularity contest for starters. If he was a 2x All Pro then I am listening.
Down the stretch from Dec 4 into the playoffs.. Saquon rushed for 434 yards.. Jones rushed for 359 yards.
During joint tenure of Jones and Barkley, when Barkley was out and Jones played, the Giants won 8 of 19 games or something like that..
When Barkley played without Jones, the Giants won ZERO games...
So I don't get your point except to shit on Jones when you can.
That had a lot more to do with Jake freaking Fromm and Mike Glennon not being at all passable QBs than it has to do with Saquon.
But sure, Saquon is really helped by DJ never throwing it beyond 20 yards. [/sarcasm]
You have to save the tag for Jones, which if we need to use it on him, we'd have to reach a long-term deal with Barkley. That seems unlikely given that he apparently wants $14M-$16M. We can't tag Jones and pay that to Barkley. Doing so would eliminate most of our cap space and is a poor use of resources. [end quote]
But even if the Giants reach a long-term deal with Jones, I probably wouldn't tag Barkley. He might not be willing to play on the tag, especially given his injury history. He knows this is likely his only chance to make a lot of money as a FA. Even if he does play on the tag, he'll likely be bitter about having to do so.
Agree with all of this.
My reservation with Barkley is that I can’t see the Giants being a legit contender in 23 with the very strong squads the Eagles and Cowboys will be putting out there. So my assessment of Barkley really is about 2024. Will he be special enough to warrant big spend when the Giants enter their window? I have my doubts.