I caught former Bills, Panthers and Colts GM Bill Polian on NFL Radio this morning. The initial subject was what the Bengals should do with Joe Mixon; pay him or sign someone else such as Elliott. Polian talked about the value of a RB that could pass block for Burrow, saying Mixon was poor at it while Elliot was still a good to excellent pass blocker. Polian thought Mixon is the better runner.
Polian went on to say that he has always been somewhat of a contrarian and he doesn’t totally buy into “the RB marker is devalued”. He said he would absolutely draft a RB early in the second round or even trade up to the end of the first round for a special back to get the 5th year option.
A key point was the risk of signing a RB to a long term deal second contract because they will fall off a cliff (see below) during that contract and the team is often stuck with a lot of dead money if they have to move on.
He then talked about how RBs often have a cliff that their capabilities fall off. He said it’s around 26 to 27 for most RBs. Right at the end of their first contract, particularly if they’re on a 5th option.
He talked a little bit about McCaffery. Said he was one of the special backs, but pointed out he is more of a receiving threat now, that he is in a rotation and that he missed significant time due to injury over two seasons, implying he has less wear on him due to time missed.
Polian finally got around to Barkley. He implied the Giants have a tough decision to make. While he didn’t bring up his earlier points about 5th years options and the RB cliff specifically, I got the impression Polian would think signing Barkley to a long term deal would be a mistake.
I was a big fan of drafting Barkley in 2018 and really like him as a player and a person. But based on Polian’s comments, letting Barkley play on a tag this year and next seems to be the best “business decision”.
I expect Mara’s thumb will be placed on the scale and the Giants will sign Barkley to a 3 year deal close to the original offer.
But he has had insane ability and although he isn’t peak, it’s still 90%
A small drop off over 3 yrs still make him way more than capable. Especially if we can rotate him a bit more.
We have the $$$ , might not be optimal situation but more than doable.
FWIW, I do not see Mara getting in Schoen's way. I am sure that Schoen has told Mara of his plans...
I would have no problem with that if McKinney does his part on the field.
One of the reasons I'm pretty bullish on the Giants these days. Let your people do the job you hired them to do. Let's hope the trend continues
As for Barkley still think a 3 year deal is not the end of the world but he needs to be used as a receiving option a lot more or then it's a bad investment
Also, a three year deal often can be structured to be escapable with little pain after year two.
I hope SB is a career NYG. But you can’t overpay.
I don't know why people are so afraid of the next few years with this guy. Everyone comes with a risk. Barkley is NOT falling off any fucking cliff when he hits 1400-1600 rushes. Sorry I just don't buy that for a second. He's too good. He's at 1000 now. Do the math.
Marshall Faulk nearly hit 1K rushing in his 9th season.
LaDainian Tomlinson over 1K rushing in his 8th season.
+Adrian Peterson
+Curtis Martin
+Edgerrin James
Saquan just completed his 5th season.
I know I'm listing all-time elite RB's, but there is precedent to give Barkley a 3-year deal. With a robust OLine, Barkley could still be very valuable to us in the '25 season.
After that.. probably not.
If the logic is they’re done after 4 years, it’s a loophole that needs to be fixed.
I don't know why people are so afraid of the next few years with this guy. Everyone comes with a risk. Barkley is NOT falling off any fucking cliff when he hits 1400-1600 rushes. Sorry I just don't buy that for a second. He's too good. He's at 1000 now. Do the math.
100% this. Signing Barkley to a three year deal, even guaranteed, isn't bad business.
He might get injured again, but he's sure as hell not going to fall off a cliff in the next three years.
If the logic is they’re done after 4 years, it’s a loophole that needs to be fixed.
I think it’ll happen organically due to one or both of the reasons below:
1. Spending a 1st on a RB is a big investment not just in fully guaranteed money depending on where in the first the player was taken, but it keeps you from adding another more expensive position on the cheap.
2. When teams try and cut small cap saving corners and go into the season with a mid round rookie and a JAG that’s never gotten more than 100 carries I’d wager it will backfire more often than not. That team will then be looking to upgrade RB the next season, guaranteed.
Also, a three year deal often can be structured to be escapable with little pain after year two.
I hope SB is a career NYG. But you can’t overpay.
I think it’s a different situation with CMC. High ankle sprains and hamstring injuries are not great, but not as career threatening as tearing knee ligaments like Saquon did. I think the fact that CMC’s injuries were of the soft tissue variety is why Polian views him as having a potentially longer shelf life.
I can see why the Giants do not want to give him another top tier multi-year contract again.
Yes and he would have to report by week 10 I believe to accrue an NFL season.
If the logic is they’re done after 4 years, it’s a loophole that needs to be fixed.
agreed - and I hope Barkley retires here, he’s terrific
It’s probably both. IMO the Giants want to tie Barkley to Jones with an out for each after year 2 and I understand why that doesn’t fly with Barkley. So we wait.
I think they very much want Barkley back and in a way, need him back. Saying he has no leverage doesn’t compute. Rolling with a rookie and 2 JAGs behind an average at best OL is a decent risk, one that may not be worth the small savings by not paying a running back for a few years.
Gun to head, I think both sides meet in the middle. From what I've read, Saquon envisions himself as having a Strahan like post NFL career & he can best maximize that being a Giant.
If the logic is they’re done after 4 years, it’s a loophole that needs to be fixed.
Barkley made $38 million on his rookie contract... let's not feel too bad for him.
If the logic is they’re done after 4 years, it’s a loophole that needs to be fixed.
Schoen offered him a longer term deal in the middle of last season. And then had to tag him when he refused it guaranteeing Saquon $10 million.
Quite a nice curb to get kicked to.
Also, a three year deal often can be structured to be escapable with little pain after year two.
I hope SB is a career NYG. But you can’t overpay.
Polian's point on the shelf life issue w/r/t CMC's injuries feels a little bit like "it's a feature, not a bug!" The injuries are a big part of why teams don't want to commit large dollars to the RB position - RBs get hurt.
As for CMC's injuries helping to preserve some tread on his tires, he has almost 1500 touches in his six seasons (including two seasons where he missed significant time), which means that his average touches per season (even having missed more than a full season in total games) is nearly 250. That's not exactly a light workload even with so many missed games to help make the average touches/season look more palatable.
There doesn't seem to be much benefit in milking the lifespan of a RB. Unfortunately for them, the most efficient use of a RB is to run them into the ground when they're young and cheap and then replace them with a new model at the end of their rookie deal. Ideally, you're always refilling the RB depth chart on your roster so that you have a stable of backs to provide a pipeline for backfilling the RB1 role.
Eventually, we'll see fewer and fewer top-notch athletes choosing to play RB, and that could create more scarcity than currently exists (there is currently no scarcity at all - it's actually a surplus market, IMO). That might make RBs more valuable beyond their first contract because there will be fewer viable options to replace them, but it's not going to happen during the careers of anyone playing RB in the NFL right now.
So now Barkley has three options
1) play under franchise
2) take a much lesser deal
3) or be a pain and hope a desperate team will trade for him and give him somewhat closer to the money that he turned down.
sounds like 2 is his best option, but to do that they have to realize as a all business people do, that sometimes you make a bad decision and the next worse decision you make is to sit and think you were entitled to the offer you already turned down. that ship has sailed and the quicker Barkley realizes it the better.
Any new deal for Saquon should be done at a team-friendly rate, short on length, or there should be no new deal at all.
Absolutely. My only caveat would be having the option to franchise him next year. right now, his franchise tag for 2023 is already a sunken cost. we did not use any of the cap savings to hit FA prospects that a long-term deal would have brought. Unless he actually signs a Miles Sanders type deal, I wouldn't sign him long term at this point.