|
|
|
| Quote: |
| After several days of meetings at the combine, #Giants officials and Daniel Jones’ agents from Athletes First are expected to leave Indianapolis on Sunday with no contract resolution in sight, per sources. Clock continuing to tick towards Tuesday’s franchise tag deadline. |
of course they're leaving
doesn't seem like news to me
I do think if we tag Jones, the likely outcome at this point, Barkley is gone.
The Giants hold all of the cards here.
I do think if we tag Jones, the likely outcome at this point, Barkley is gone.
The Giants hold all of the cards here.
Giants only hold one card. It’s an ace but that’s all they have. If they use the tag, Jones can force them to let Barkley go and paralyze them in free agency. Jones still controls the deck.
Huh? “If we won’t agree”? Are you Jones’ agent?
Take a look at the skill position FAs, it’s barren. Barkley will be getting paid as a FA.
He WILL definitely receive big offers. You’re fooling yourself.
How many teams want a stud RB under 27 with HOF potential?? Plenty.
Its the RB. Not the fucking punter.
Quote:
if he hits FA. How many teams are out there that have the cap space and are willing to commit $15M or so of it to a RB with an injury history and a fair number of miles? Maybe some, but I wouldn't be surprised if he tested FA and came back and took the Giants' offer.
Take a look at the skill position FAs, it’s barren. Barkley will be getting paid as a FA.
Let another team make that short sighted mistake.
Quote:
Doesn't mean anything without direct knowledge but could very well be true.
I do think if we tag Jones, the likely outcome at this point, Barkley is gone.
The Giants hold all of the cards here.
_______________
Giants only hold one card. It’s an ace but that’s all they have. If they use the tag, Jones can force them to let Barkley go and paralyze them in free agency. Jones still controls the deck.
The Giants have 2 Aces. They have tag this year, 32 million and the tag next year, 38 million. That’s two powerful aces. And Jones has to accept them.
No Daniel Jones doesn’t control the deck.
Let the negotiations play out without all this hand wringing
Draft Stetson Bennet and spend the money and draft picks to build the roster.
Let Jones play some where else. He's worn out his welcome as far as I am concerned.
Quote:
Doesn't mean anything without direct knowledge but could very well be true.
I do think if we tag Jones, the likely outcome at this point, Barkley is gone.
The Giants hold all of the cards here.
_______________
Giants only hold one card. It’s an ace but that’s all they have. If they use the tag, Jones can force them to let Barkley go and paralyze them in free agency. Jones still controls the deck.
I disagree. They can tag him, non exclusive and let him go find a deal out there. If he does, we can match or we can take the compensation or work a sign and deal.
Jones being tagged only effects Barkley, my least overall concern this off season. Deals can be signed that are cap friendly elsewhere.
So much is going to happen across the league in a few days here.
Quote:
if he hits FA. How many teams are out there that have the cap space and are willing to commit $15M or so of it to a RB with an injury history and a fair number of miles? Maybe some, but I wouldn't be surprised if he tested FA and came back and took the Giants' offer.
He WILL definitely receive big offers. You’re fooling yourself.
How many teams want a stud RB under 27 with HOF potential?? Plenty.
Its the RB. Not the fucking punter.
What was the last big free agent running back contract? I honestly can’t remember.
All the big RB contracts in recent times have been franchises resigning their own. Zeke, CMC, Henry, etc.
Saquon may get a bigger offer than what the Giants are offering, but I don’t think he’s getting top end money. I could be wrong.
Quote:
In comment 16051376 BigBlueNH said:
Quote:
if he hits FA. How many teams are out there that have the cap space and are willing to commit $15M or so of it to a RB with an injury history and a fair number of miles? Maybe some, but I wouldn't be surprised if he tested FA and came back and took the Giants' offer.
Take a look at the skill position FAs, it’s barren. Barkley will be getting paid as a FA.
Let another team make that short sighted mistake.
And the Giants would also be possibly making a short sighted mistake by thinking they can replace their best offensive weapon with a mid to late round pick…because hey you can find a RB at low cost. Not that I want them to overpay for Saquon, but I ahidder to think about what this offense looks like w/o a threat like Saquon.
Draft Stetson Bennet and spend the money and draft picks to build the roster.
Let Jones play some where else. He's worn out his welcome as far as I am concerned.
Why take this personally and why make assumptions about what’s happening based on reports that may not be accurate?
Quote:
In comment 16051377 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
In comment 16051376 BigBlueNH said:
Quote:
if he hits FA. How many teams are out there that have the cap space and are willing to commit $15M or so of it to a RB with an injury history and a fair number of miles? Maybe some, but I wouldn't be surprised if he tested FA and came back and took the Giants' offer.
Take a look at the skill position FAs, it’s barren. Barkley will be getting paid as a FA.
Let another team make that short sighted mistake.
And the Giants would also be possibly making a short sighted mistake by thinking they can replace their best offensive weapon with a mid to late round pick…because hey you can find a RB at low cost. Not that I want them to overpay for Saquon, but I ahidder to think about what this offense looks like w/o a threat like Saquon.
To be quite honest he wasnt their best weapon in the second half, it was Jones. He faded a bit after the big Houston game- a game that should be looked at with a somewhat skeptical eye as EVERY back had huge games against Houston and Barkley's wasn't that HUGE..
You mistake who Barkley would be replaced. Yes a mid round back would be added but most likely a committee with various talents would replace Barkley..
Quote:
Quarterbacks have long careers and he will make plenty of money. But 45 million is rediculous. 15 touchdowns!
Draft Stetson Bennet and spend the money and draft picks to build the roster.
Let Jones play some where else. He's worn out his welcome as far as I am concerned.
Why take this personally and why make assumptions about what’s happening based on reports that may not be accurate?
And Stetson Bennett is not the QB for this offense.
Quote:
Quarterbacks have long careers and he will make plenty of money. But 45 million is rediculous. 15 touchdowns!
Draft Stetson Bennet and spend the money and draft picks to build the roster.
Let Jones play some where else. He's worn out his welcome as far as I am concerned.
Why take this personally and why make assumptions about what’s happening based on reports that may not be accurate?
Because it’s BBI? 😎
That seems like an odd take considering what it was like the second half.
I think Barkley is a very good back but, teams across the league use multiple backs in place of a bell cow back.
People have little to no idea how much SB’s shoulder could have hindered him, because that’s essentially WHEN his play began to suffer compared to pre-injury. And yes, that is a viable excuse.
I don't see JS doing a deal that he can't get out of in the next 2-3 years. If it goes NEFT and a team offers a deal then JS will evaluate that versus moves he can make with the extra picks.
The talent gap is the biggest issue and I am more worried about the OL and front 7. Giants are not winning another SB till these units improve significantly.
Don't come in here and expect me to give up the house
This is going to come right doen to the wire.
But I do think a team WOULD pay 2 #1s for DJ maybe even starting with the Jets. They are in the same building and know the quality of this kids ability and character
This could be the other factor at play here. Agents are saying their is significant interest in my client and other teams will try to sign him. Other teams also may be willing to give the two 1's (if the Jets they could be late picks because they have a ton of pieces on that team just not the QB) and offer a bigger contract than you are offering right now.
Who is going to flinch. How bad do they want to keep DJ?
Quote:
As for Barkley, I think Jones needs Barkley next season a lot more than the other way around if that plays out. It may help fast forward a roster and talent pivot to come on offense for 2024 but this offense will be ugly as hell next year with no Barkley.
That seems like an odd take considering what it was like the second half.
I think Barkley is a very good back but, teams across the league use multiple backs in place of a bell cow back.
Odd take? You’re not replacing the threat Barkley provides on offense with a bunch of street FAs, Matt Breida and a mid round draft pick.
Jones best games came with Barkley playing whether he was limited or not, his threat and deployment on the field opened up what he can do in running and better pass options. Defenses had to compensate for his ability to get outside as a runner or pass option.
Quote:
In comment 16051418 Sammo85 said:
Quote:
As for Barkley, I think Jones needs Barkley next season a lot more than the other way around if that plays out. It may help fast forward a roster and talent pivot to come on offense for 2024 but this offense will be ugly as hell next year with no Barkley.
That seems like an odd take considering what it was like the second half.
I think Barkley is a very good back but, teams across the league use multiple backs in place of a bell cow back.
Odd take? You’re not replacing the threat Barkley provides on offense with a bunch of street FAs, Matt Breida and a mid round draft pick.
Jones best games came with Barkley playing whether he was limited or not, his threat and deployment on the field opened up what he can do in running and better pass options. Defenses had to compensate for his ability to get outside as a runner or pass option.
The attitudes at times, seem to indicate that there are a bunch of backs, cheaper backs, that could bring anywhere near the threat, that SB presents
This is going to come right doen to the wire.
But I do think a team WOULD pay 2 #1s for DJ maybe even starting with the Jets. They are in the same building and know the quality of this kids ability and character
This could be the other factor at play here. Agents are saying their is significant interest in my client and other teams will try to sign him. Other teams also may be willing to give the two 1's (if the Jets they could be late picks because they have a ton of pieces on that team just not the QB) and offer a bigger contract than you are offering right now.
Who is going to flinch. How bad do they want to keep DJ?
You are on crack if you think a GM is spending 2 1st rd picks on Daniel jones
Quote:
In comment 16051424 jvm52106 said:
Quote:
In comment 16051418 Sammo85 said:
Quote:
As for Barkley, I think Jones needs Barkley next season a lot more than the other way around if that plays out. It may help fast forward a roster and talent pivot to come on offense for 2024 but this offense will be ugly as hell next year with no Barkley.
That seems like an odd take considering what it was like the second half.
I think Barkley is a very good back but, teams across the league use multiple backs in place of a bell cow back.
Odd take? You’re not replacing the threat Barkley provides on offense with a bunch of street FAs, Matt Breida and a mid round draft pick.
Jones best games came with Barkley playing whether he was limited or not, his threat and deployment on the field opened up what he can do in running and better pass options. Defenses had to compensate for his ability to get outside as a runner or pass option.
The attitudes at times, seem to indicate that there are a bunch of backs, cheaper backs, that could bring anywhere near the threat, that SB presents
If you’re letting Barkley go, and there is an argument for doing so if again much like Jones the money and guaranteed ask over long term is frankly stupid and unreasonable. However from get go the offense is going to change it’s going to take a couple years to retool and Jones to gel with the playmaking spots and OL.
Quote:
Or DJ?
This is going to come right doen to the wire.
But I do think a team WOULD pay 2 #1s for DJ maybe even starting with the Jets. They are in the same building and know the quality of this kids ability and character
This could be the other factor at play here. Agents are saying their is significant interest in my client and other teams will try to sign him. Other teams also may be willing to give the two 1's (if the Jets they could be late picks because they have a ton of pieces on that team just not the QB) and offer a bigger contract than you are offering right now.
Who is going to flinch. How bad do they want to keep DJ?
You are on crack if you think a GM is spending 2 1st rd picks on Daniel jones
If his number is approaching 40M + and his agents are syaing that is his value there stands a pretty good chance at least one QB desperate teams thinks so too. 40M+ is most definitely QB you can win a SuperBowl with territory.
Teams have given up more than two late 1s if they feel a QB is the big missing piece.
You may not see Jones that way doesn't mean other GMs who do this for a living see it much differently than you do.
How much is Garoppolo worth then? Don’t tell me $25M with his playoff resume and his career record as a starter.
The Giants will be fine if they let Barkley walk.
Ugly?
So, if we upgrade the OL, add more WR skill, get healthy at TE, and modernize at RB with RBBC, the offense will have a pullback in 2022 because of the loss of Barkley?
The future of this offense is Jones and better surrounding parts. Not Barkley.
I'm continually amazed how many posters think a high-priced, bell cow RB is still a winning formula in today's NFL.
Giants have so many needs the question is whether it is easier to replace Jones than to try and patch together OLs and WRs who are unproven or very limited for the next several years.
Hope that reason prevails and the team can work something out with this kid, but if not go build the rest of the team and draft a young QB to develop. I think that the coaching staff proved last year that they can coach up a QB by scheming to his strengths.
Players want their team mates to get paid, but they want to keep the good guys too. This has a chance of falling back on Jones and making it easier for the Giants to draft a QB and a RB in this years draft,
Then another "show-Me"year for Jones while a Rookie is waiting.
We will see!
I’m not sure why you find it odd. It’s not as black and white as just saying QB vs. RB. One guy wants $45M or more per year and the other guy isn’t close to that. I’m not defending either side but wondering why some don’t want to pay Jones that much is the odd thing.
Quote:
As for Barkley, I think Jones needs Barkley next season a lot more than the other way around if that plays out. It may help fast forward a roster and talent pivot to come on offense for 2024 but this offense will be ugly as hell next year with no Barkley.
Ugly?
So, if we upgrade the OL, add more WR skill, get healthy at TE, and modernize at RB with RBBC, the offense will have a pullback in 2022 because of the loss of Barkley?
The future of this offense is Jones and better surrounding parts. Not Barkley.
I'm continually amazed how many posters think a high-priced, bell cow RB is still a winning formula in today's NFL.
You’re surprised? Do you think Warner and co., would have been as effective without the all-around play of Faulk? Or AP in Minny? Payton in Chicago? Sanders carrying Detroit to the playoffs on his back? Jimmy Brown for Cleveland? All these teams, save for perhaps Detroit, had supportive talent on both sides of the ball and still would have been struggling to make the playoffs, imv..These are just a few examples off the top of my head of first round backs being difference-makers.
It would be easier and more pudent, imo, to keep Barkley than it would be to upgrade the OL, get healthier at TE, add more WR skill and modernize at RB all in one fell swoop..
I’m offended
All depends on how much Dabs likes him
I wish the game was still more "smashed-mouth", but it isn't. And that's mostly because rules encouraging more passing, the evolution of the passing game from high school through college, and the shrinking supply of quality OLs.
You’re surprised? Do you think Warner and co., would have been as effective without the all-around play of Faulk? Or AP in Minny? Payton in Chicago? Sanders carrying Detroit to the playoffs on his back? Jimmy Brown for Cleveland? All these teams, save for perhaps Detroit, had supportive talent on both sides of the ball and still would have been struggling to make the playoffs, imv..These are just a few examples off the top of my head of first round backs being difference-makers.
It would be easier and more pudent, imo, to keep Barkley than it would be to upgrade the OL, get healthier at TE, add more WR skill and modernize at RB all in one fell swoop.. [/quote]
The Vikings had only one playoff win with Peterson. They had only 4 winning seasons in the 10 years he was there. Everyone else played a generation ago or longer.
You’re surprised? Do you think Warner and co., would have been as effective without the all-around play of Faulk? Or AP in Minny? Payton in Chicago? Sanders carrying Detroit to the playoffs on his back? Jimmy Brown for Cleveland? All these teams, save for perhaps Detroit, had supportive talent on both sides of the ball and still would have been struggling to make the playoffs, imv..These are just a few examples off the top of my head of first round backs being difference-makers.
It would be easier and more pudent, imo, to keep Barkley than it would be to upgrade the OL, get healthier at TE, add more WR skill and modernize at RB all in one fell swoop..
The Vikings had only one playoff win with Peterson. They had only 4 winning seasons in the 10 years he was there. Everyone else played a generation ago or longer. [/quote]
Wtf does “played a generation ago” mean? Does it matter WHEN greatness prevailed? Lawd..
where it comes or where it goes
dream on dream on
dream it util your dreams come true
Aerosmith
I wish the game was still more "smashed-mouth", but it isn't. And that's mostly because rules encouraging more passing, the evolution of the passing game from high school through college, and the shrinking supply of quality OLs.
BS. Effectiveness is effectiveness, regardless of what style of ball you play. Each person cited was effective enough to make their teams contenders..Without them, they were pretenders, in the main
Quote:
Quarterbacks have long careers and he will make plenty of money. But 45 million is rediculous. 15 touchdowns!
Draft Stetson Bennet and spend the money and draft picks to build the roster.
Let Jones play some where else. He's worn out his welcome as far as I am concerned.
Why take this personally and why make assumptions about what’s happening based on reports that may not be accurate?
Way too much hand wringing based on the information we have and the sources that it is coming from.
Add to that the fact that we don't know exactly how the Giants feel about DJ.
Quote:
In comment 16051418 Sammo85 said:
Quote:
As for Barkley, I think Jones needs Barkley next season a lot more than the other way around if that plays out. It may help fast forward a roster and talent pivot to come on offense for 2024 but this offense will be ugly as hell next year with no Barkley.
Ugly?
So, if we upgrade the OL, add more WR skill, get healthy at TE, and modernize at RB with RBBC, the offense will have a pullback in 2022 because of the loss of Barkley?
The future of this offense is Jones and better surrounding parts. Not Barkley.
I'm continually amazed how many posters think a high-priced, bell cow RB is still a winning formula in today's NFL.
You’re surprised? Do you think Warner and co., would have been as effective without the all-around play of Faulk? Or AP in Minny? Payton in Chicago? Sanders carrying Detroit to the playoffs on his back? Jimmy Brown for Cleveland? All these teams, save for perhaps Detroit, had supportive talent on both sides of the ball and still would have been struggling to make the playoffs, imv..These are just a few examples off the top of my head of first round backs being difference-makers.
It would be easier and more pudent, imo, to keep Barkley than it would be to upgrade the OL, get healthier at TE, add more WR skill and modernize at RB all in one fell swoop..
You're rattling off names from a different generation. Meaningless to this discussion unfortunately. And AP, Vikings made the playoffs 4 times in those 10 years. Won a game in the playoffs just once.
Even the chiefs took their medicine recently. Many thought the Clyde Edwards Helaire pick was strange at the time, a luxury pick for a team picking 32nd. They revamped their O Line and won the superbowl with a 7th rounder in Pacheco and a journeyman in Mckinnon years later.
Quote:
In comment 16051396 kelly said:
Quote:
Quarterbacks have long careers and he will make plenty of money. But 45 million is rediculous. 15 touchdowns!
Draft Stetson Bennet and spend the money and draft picks to build the roster.
Let Jones play some where else. He's worn out his welcome as far as I am concerned.
Why take this personally and why make assumptions about what’s happening based on reports that may not be accurate?
UConn, spot-on.
Way too much hand wringing based on the information we have and the sources that it is coming from.
Add to that the fact that we don't know exactly how the Giants feel about DJ.
To me, Garafolo is the best out there, perhaps by a mile. Watched the podcast with him and Schmeelk and in the 10 minutes or so he was on, he said absolutely nothing. That is, nothing more than we have opined without the sources he has..
This time of year and draft time has by far the most speculative BS out there, yet there are people who buy into the “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” stuff..The smoke/fire stuff is the same repetitive bullshit we hear ad. auseam
Quote:
In comment 16051466 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 16051418 Sammo85 said:
Quote:
As for Barkley, I think Jones needs Barkley next season a lot more than the other way around if that plays out. It may help fast forward a roster and talent pivot to come on offense for 2024 but this offense will be ugly as hell next year with no Barkley.
Ugly?
So, if we upgrade the OL, add more WR skill, get healthy at TE, and modernize at RB with RBBC, the offense will have a pullback in 2022 because of the loss of Barkley?
The future of this offense is Jones and better surrounding parts. Not Barkley.
I'm continually amazed how many posters think a high-priced, bell cow RB is still a winning formula in today's NFL.
You’re surprised? Do you think Warner and co., would have been as effective without the all-around play of Faulk? Or AP in Minny? Payton in Chicago? Sanders carrying Detroit to the playoffs on his back? Jimmy Brown for Cleveland? All these teams, save for perhaps Detroit, had supportive talent on both sides of the ball and still would have been struggling to make the playoffs, imv..These are just a few examples off the top of my head of first round backs being difference-makers.
It would be easier and more pudent, imo, to keep Barkley than it would be to upgrade the OL, get healthier at TE, add more WR skill and modernize at RB all in one fell swoop..
You're rattling off names from a different generation. Meaningless to this discussion unfortunately. And AP, Vikings made the playoffs 4 times in those 10 years. Won a game in the playoffs just once.
Even the chiefs took their medicine recently. Many thought the Clyde Edwards Helaire pick was strange at the time, a luxury pick for a team picking 32nd. They revamped their O Line and won the superbowl with a 7th rounder in Pacheco and a journeyman in Mckinnon years later.
Oh please. If I had Mahomes, I too would be fine with a lower round back as well who obviously benefits greatly from Mahomes’ presence
True, but without Barkley, there’s no playoffs, not even close, despite losing to the Cowboys and Eagles..
Of course we’re not going deep without additions as you stated. But at least we made the playoffs despite all those holes that need fortifying
Quote:
As for Barkley, I think Jones needs Barkley next season a lot more than the other way around if that plays out. It may help fast forward a roster and talent pivot to come on offense for 2024 but this offense will be ugly as hell next year with no Barkley.
Ugly?
So, if we upgrade the OL, add more WR skill, get healthy at TE, and modernize at RB with RBBC, the offense will have a pullback in 2022 because of the loss of Barkley?
The future of this offense is Jones and better surrounding parts. Not Barkley.
I'm continually amazed how many posters think a high-priced, bell cow RB is still a winning formula in today's NFL.
And you’re living in delusional territory thinking that we can fix all those areas elsewhere in one off-season. It will take at minimum two. Barkley staying here buys you time to use the draft and develop process properly.
Quote:
In comment 16051418 Sammo85 said:
Quote:
As for Barkley, I think Jones needs Barkley next season a lot more than the other way around if that plays out. It may help fast forward a roster and talent pivot to come on offense for 2024 but this offense will be ugly as hell next year with no Barkley.
Ugly?
So, if we upgrade the OL, add more WR skill, get healthy at TE, and modernize at RB with RBBC, the offense will have a pullback in 2022 because of the loss of Barkley?
The future of this offense is Jones and better surrounding parts. Not Barkley.
I'm continually amazed how many posters think a high-priced, bell cow RB is still a winning formula in today's NFL.
And you’re living in delusional territory thinking that we can fix all those areas elsewhere in one off-season. It will take at minimum two. Barkley staying here buys you time to use the draft and develop process properly.
Per usual, you stated this more succinctly that I did/could
Quote:
Those examples you cite are when the game was played much differently than today's game.
I wish the game was still more "smashed-mouth", but it isn't. And that's mostly because rules encouraging more passing, the evolution of the passing game from high school through college, and the shrinking supply of quality OLs.
BS. Effectiveness is effectiveness, regardless of what style of ball you play. Each person cited was effective enough to make their teams contenders..Without them, they were pretenders, in the main
No, it's reality. If you want to keep swimming against the current than your thinking will fall further and further behind...
Quote:
In comment 16051496 bw in dc said:
Quote:
Those examples you cite are when the game was played much differently than today's game.
I wish the game was still more "smashed-mouth", but it isn't. And that's mostly because rules encouraging more passing, the evolution of the passing game from high school through college, and the shrinking supply of quality OLs.
BS. Effectiveness is effectiveness, regardless of what style of ball you play. Each person cited was effective enough to make their teams contenders..Without them, they were pretenders, in the main
No, it's reality. If you want to keep swimming against the current than your thinking will fall further and further behind...
Reality? To? Lol
Quote:
In comment 16051482 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
In comment 16051466 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 16051418 Sammo85 said:
Quote:
As for Barkley, I think Jones needs Barkley next season a lot more than the other way around if that plays out. It may help fast forward a roster and talent pivot to come on offense for 2024 but this offense will be ugly as hell next year with no Barkley.
Ugly?
So, if we upgrade the OL, add more WR skill, get healthy at TE, and modernize at RB with RBBC, the offense will have a pullback in 2022 because of the loss of Barkley?
The future of this offense is Jones and better surrounding parts. Not Barkley.
I'm continually amazed how many posters think a high-priced, bell cow RB is still a winning formula in today's NFL.
You’re surprised? Do you think Warner and co., would have been as effective without the all-around play of Faulk? Or AP in Minny? Payton in Chicago? Sanders carrying Detroit to the playoffs on his back? Jimmy Brown for Cleveland? All these teams, save for perhaps Detroit, had supportive talent on both sides of the ball and still would have been struggling to make the playoffs, imv..These are just a few examples off the top of my head of first round backs being difference-makers.
It would be easier and more pudent, imo, to keep Barkley than it would be to upgrade the OL, get healthier at TE, add more WR skill and modernize at RB all in one fell swoop..
You're rattling off names from a different generation. Meaningless to this discussion unfortunately. And AP, Vikings made the playoffs 4 times in those 10 years. Won a game in the playoffs just once.
Even the chiefs took their medicine recently. Many thought the Clyde Edwards Helaire pick was strange at the time, a luxury pick for a team picking 32nd. They revamped their O Line and won the superbowl with a 7th rounder in Pacheco and a journeyman in Mckinnon years later.
Oh please. If I had Mahomes, I too would be fine with a lower round back as well who obviously benefits greatly from Mahomes’ presence
There ya go! You're making a good point. Its a passing league.
What about the rest of the final 4 this year. Eagles ran 3 rb's, sometimes 4 a game. a 2nd rounder, a 5th rounder and a 6th rounder...again with a good Oline. Bengals basically had a 50/50 split at the end of the year with a 2nd rounder (who they already may have to cut cause of his 2nd contract) and a 4th round journeyman, Perine. The niners traded* for a top RB because the last time sunk too much into him. And for the past 5 years niners have ran 6th rounders and journeyman into the NFC championship and Superbowl.
We can stop citing guys that played 20 plus years ago because the game has changed and roster building has changed.
All depends on how much Dabs likes him
Also depends on how much Raiders, Falcons, and Panthers……with picks 7,8,9 like him. All have more draft leverage to make a play for Richardson than Giants. That’s assuming Colts, Seahawks, Texans with their top 5 pick and/or multiple first round picks don’t consider Richardson to be one of the top 3 QBs available.
If you think they're so terrible, you should see the athletes who don't use them.
And not as necessary. The game has changed a great deal lately favoring passing attacks. Thats why RB's don't make the big money they used to in comparison with other positions
Quote:
Isn’t as good as Faulk, Peterson, Sanders or Jim Brown.
And not as necessary. The game has changed a great deal lately favoring passing attacks. Thats why RB's don't make the big money they used to in comparison with other positions
I typed a whole paragraph above, but this ^^^ is putting it more concisely lol. +1
I don't see any team trading two #1's for Jones AND paying him $40M-$45M a year. I said yesterday the Jets might because they have an excellent defense and are somewhat desperate having wasted two top five picks in the last five years on QBs. But I don't think even they would do so, especially since they could just sign Carr and keep their picks. Carr isn't nearly as mobile as Jones, but that extra mobility isn't worth one, let alone, two #1's.
I do agree that using the NEFT on Jones means Barkley is likely gone.
No interest in Bennett, and I doubt the Giants do either.
The Giants not picking up Jones's fifth year option was the right decision, at least partially because the difference between that and the NEFT is only about $10M. We can easily absorb that difference given our cap space, especially since we'll get even more if Barkley leaves or we restructure Leo, or both.
I'd be really surprised if Jones is not the QB for the Giants in 2023.
Quote:
In comment 16051418 Sammo85 said:
Quote:
As for Barkley, I think Jones needs Barkley next season a lot more than the other way around if that plays out. It may help fast forward a roster and talent pivot to come on offense for 2024 but this offense will be ugly as hell next year with no Barkley.
Ugly?
So, if we upgrade the OL, add more WR skill, get healthy at TE, and modernize at RB with RBBC, the offense will have a pullback in 2022 because of the loss of Barkley?
The future of this offense is Jones and better surrounding parts. Not Barkley.
I'm continually amazed how many posters think a high-priced, bell cow RB is still a winning formula in today's NFL.
You’re surprised? Do you think Warner and co., would have been as effective without the all-around play of Faulk? Or AP in Minny? Payton in Chicago? Sanders carrying Detroit to the playoffs on his back? Jimmy Brown for Cleveland? All these teams, save for perhaps Detroit, had supportive talent on both sides of the ball and still would have been struggling to make the playoffs, imv..These are just a few examples off the top of my head of first round backs being difference-makers.
It would be easier and more pudent, imo, to keep Barkley than it would be to upgrade the OL, get healthier at TE, add more WR skill and modernize at RB all in one fell swoop..
Quote:
In comment 16051503 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
In comment 16051496 bw in dc said:
Quote:
Those examples you cite are when the game was played much differently than today's game.
I wish the game was still more "smashed-mouth", but it isn't. And that's mostly because rules encouraging more passing, the evolution of the passing game from high school through college, and the shrinking supply of quality OLs.
BS. Effectiveness is effectiveness, regardless of what style of ball you play. Each person cited was effective enough to make their teams contenders..Without them, they were pretenders, in the main
No, it's reality. If you want to keep swimming against the current than your thinking will fall further and further behind...
Reality? To? Lol
The players that you would need in order to pull off that antiquated style simply do not exist or develop in the quantity or with the frequency that a team would need in order to successfully replicate a style of play that was much more common when those necessary players (most specifically, the OL) did exist more commonly. And none of that acknowledges the rule changes that the NFL has put into place with the sole intent of benefitting NFL passing games.
BW is right about swimming upstream. It's very difficult to win in the NFL based on nostalgia when the rules themselves as well as the evolving player archetypes make it extremely inefficient to do so unless you are taking advantage of the few significant advantages that the cap rules plus established wage scales in order to build your roster.
TL;DR, if you're going to build your team in a way that it reduces your reliance on the passing game, you need to reduce your spend on the passing game. If you're going to follow the blueprint set forth by those championship-caliber teams who were built around elite RBs, you need to also look at what percentage of their overall salary table was allocated to the QB and WR, and try to replicate that roster/cap construction accordingly.
Paying a QB like DJ $40-$45M AAV does not compute with building a smashmouth RB-centric offense, IMO.
And you’re living in delusional territory thinking that we can fix all those areas elsewhere in one off-season. It will take at minimum two. Barkley staying here buys you time to use the draft and develop process properly.
Keeping Barkley doesn't buy time. It slows time because that money could be better spent on more critical positions.
Your approach is backwards. Adding a high-priced RB like Barkley is a luxury item for teams that have the infrastructure already in place and are looking for one more piece to challenge for a SB.
So is paying DJ within $3M AAV of Mahomes the solution? Is $3M variance in AAV enough to bridge the gap in QB talent? Now add Barkley at, say, $12M AAV (which would be very favorable for the Giants) - now, with the $3M windfall the Giants have for being microscopically cheaper at QB, plus the additional spend at RB (Barkley @ $12M would be twice what KC spent on all their RBs combined in 2022), the Giants would be at a -$3M deficit compared to the KC roster before we get into the rest of the offense.
DJ needs more than $3M worth of help to bridge the gap between he and Mahomes, IMO. If DJ had Kelce, that would certainly help significantly, but shouldn't Barkley be your Kelce in this scenario? And we know that Barkley isn't enough for DJ to be on Mahomes' level, we've seen that even in DJ's best season. We can probably all agree that DJ needs at least one true alpha in the passing game also, and we can only speculate as to whether that alone is enough.
That alpha WR is likely to cost ~$20M. Maybe you can make it work, because of Barkley, with a lower tier WR1, but that's still probably around $16M. Now subtract the variance in RB cost, and DJ would need to be at least $10M cheaper than Mahomes just to even have a chance at leveling the playing field.
So when DJ asks for $45M AAV, it means either running back this offense pretty much as/is, and relying solely on a draft pick to provide that needed offensive lift (not exactly a 100% likelihood at #25 overall - we could get lucky and get a Justin Jefferson type, or we could get a Jalan Reagor or Kadarius Toney clone), or letting Barkley walk and going with a cheaper RBBC in order to fund the additional toys DJ needs in order to make any contract for him worthwhile. If you're not giving DJ any upgrades at all, why bother paying him even a small fortune? Something on the offense needs to be upgraded in order to justify keeping DJ. Paying DJ what he's currently asking, and keeping Barkley at what we expect he's asking will leave very little left to improve the offense unless it comes at the expense of the defense.
And is DJ the expensive QB you really want for a team that gets top-heavy with offensive spending on the cap and has to cover up for what could end up being a leaky defense once so many resources are shifted to the offensive side of the ball? And if he is, wouldn't you still rather give him the pieces he'd need to be able to strike quickly more frequently so that the Giants can successfully keep up with their own weaknesses on defense that would potentially result from that roster construction?
IMO, DJ and Barkley can only both be kept if their combined AAV lands at or below $50M. Once their combined cap costs exceed that level, it will come with a detrimental impact on Schoen's ability to fix the other holes on the roster, some of which are necessary in order for DJ to achieve anything close to approaching what his new contract will be worth.
If DJ asks for and receives $45M AAV, that's probably the end of Barkley's time with the Giants, strictly as a function of cap management, IMO.
And the schedule. but yes, keep thinking its 1986. Just look around the league. Or the superbowl!
Quote:
And you’re living in delusional territory thinking that we can fix all those areas elsewhere in one off-season. It will take at minimum two. Barkley staying here buys you time to use the draft and develop process properly.
Keeping Barkley doesn't buy time. It slows time because that money could be better spent on more critical positions.
Your approach is backwards. Adding a high-priced RB like Barkley is a luxury item for teams that have the infrastructure already in place and are looking for one more piece to challenge for a SB.
Sorry but we will need to part ways amicably here in this debate and simply agree that we do not agree. There is too much “infrastructure” that has to be brought in to meet your expectations. We are not in a bargaining position with cap space or draft capital to build around Jones solely this off-season. Folks need to temper their expectations for a hard offensive regression next year if Barkley isn’t here.
And that 1 rb we rely on shockingly...slowed down.
See you on another thread, hopefully lne on college players as that’s where I can mostly learn from you.. 😎
If two games didn’t bounce the Giants way and they were 7-9-1 would Barkley be looked at as a need to sign to a long term deal?
DJ and SB are core players currently on this offense. Can they be replaced? Not seeing it this off-season but of course they can. Every player is replaceable at some point, but some are not in specific time frames.
Is Henry replaceable with a late round RB on the Titans? Not right now he isn't.
The Superbowl is won with many different styles of play. Things change and comeback around eventually.