Adam Schefter
@AdamSchefter
·
20s
An MRI showed that Giants’ RB Saquon Barkley suffered an “ordinary” ankle sprain that now is expected to sideline him three weeks, per source.
As good an outcome as can be. I expect him to be very gun-shy when he comes back though.
Agree - I'd like Giants to give him an extra week or two if they can afford it (unlikely). Ankle injuries that don't properly heal can derail an entire season.
As good an outcome as can be. I expect him to be very gun-shy when he comes back though.
Agree - I'd like Giants to give him an extra week or two if they can afford it (unlikely). Ankle injuries that don't properly heal can derail an entire season.
Ian Rapoport
@RapSheet
·
6m
#Giants RB Saquon Barkley has a sprained ankle, source said after tests today. He’ll be out Thursday and considered week-to-week. Link - ( New Window )
The Way He Slammed His Helmet Down On The Sideline
Breida can fill in just fine for Barkley and maybe a little bit better of a pass catcher, where the Giants will suffer are on the plays Barkley makes something oit of absokutely nothing
is that any significant length of absence (especially early in the season) basically pushes his individual incentives out of reach.
Do any of you worry that there is a risk of business decisions being made by Barkley once his bonuses are unachievable?
You're saying that Barkley would decide to mail it in this season if he can't earn $800k of incentives in order to get a better payday from someone next season?
That would be an interesting strategy in OppositeLand.
What does this do to the incentives in his contract?
is that any significant length of absence (especially early in the season) basically pushes his individual incentives out of reach.
Do any of you worry that there is a risk of business decisions being made by Barkley once his bonuses are unachievable?
You're saying that Barkley would decide to mail it in this season if he can't earn $800k of incentives in order to get a better payday from someone next season?
That would be an interesting strategy in OppositeLand.
it also seems antithetical to the character that Barkley has displayed. I believe he will ball out 100% until he shows otherwise...
is that any significant length of absence (especially early in the season) basically pushes his individual incentives out of reach.
Do any of you worry that there is a risk of business decisions being made by Barkley once his bonuses are unachievable?
You're saying that Barkley would decide to mail it in this season if he can't earn $800k of incentives in order to get a better payday from someone next season?
That would be an interesting strategy in OppositeLand.
No. The rehab on the ankle will simply take "longer than expected" and his return to "full strength" on the field will be shockingly extended... He will not enthusiastically return to the field so a lower ankle sprain can turn into an ACL injury and hurt his chances next year in free agency.
This was the fatal flaw in playing hard ball with the best offensive player on the team and seeing trivial performance thresholds as somehow keeping him engaged under the franchise tag. Gatorade is absolutely right in seeing the bigger problem here. And my guess is, this is exactly how it will play out now for the rest of the year.
RE: The Way He Slammed His Helmet Down On The Sideline
All of the incentives are just slightly north of his final season totals from last year (which allows them to be classified as not-likely-to-be-earned, from a cap perspective). To that end, I wouldn't call any of them "easy," per se.
Missing three games makes those incentives more difficult to reach. It doesn't make them impossible to reach, but it does make them harder, because they're not per-game averages, they're season totals - Barkley will presumably have fewer games than last year to accumulate greater volume stats than last year. And since all three of his bonus categories also include "+ Giants reach playoffs," the team's performance in his absence can also have a deleterious effect on his incentives, if they struggle while he's out.
I think Giants fans see at least a good game from
Our other guys and go why did we play this guy 13
Mill anyways. Typically happens when others step up especially in the rb spot.
is that any significant length of absence (especially early in the season) basically pushes his individual incentives out of reach.
Do any of you worry that there is a risk of business decisions being made by Barkley once his bonuses are unachievable?
Missing 3 games probably means he misses out on 1350 yards - one of the incentives (tied to also making the playoffs).
The other incentives - 65 receptions, 11 touchdowns- remain within reach. At this point, no I don’t think there is a risk of him making ‘business decisions’. If he misses more time and/or the other incentives are out of reach - I think he still plays to win since I believe he is that kind of competitor and teammate. The incentives all told are 909k, so less than 10% of his compensation.
I think Giants fans see at least a good game from
Our other guys and go why did we play this guy 13
Mill anyways. Typically happens when others step up especially in the rb spot.
That’s because most fans are idiots and don’t know what they are seeing
I'd like to see what Brightwell can do with some of the carries over
Those numbers are unlikely to influence his return or his effort level at all. That’s not a comment on Saquon, good or bad. It’s just an acknowledgment that, in the context of his career earnings and future opportunities, the numbers are inconsequential. And frankly, reaching those incentive triggers in a more diverse offense, against a tougher schedule, figured to be difficult anyway.
If Barkley makes any “business decisions,” they will involve his prospects for a big third contract, not his 2023 incentives. His hopes for a big payday still hinge on his value above replacement level, which he can best demonstrate in games. Obviously, we won’t help himself by rushing back, but I don’t see how that would help the Giants either. The interests of player and team appear reasonably (although not perfectly) aligned.
to what he can lose as a UFA if he doesn’t return and play well. Worst thing he can do is dog it, and that seems wildly uncharacteristic of him in the first place.
Those numbers are unlikely to influence his return or his effort level at all. That’s not a comment on Saquon, good or bad. It’s just an acknowledgment that, in the context of his career earnings and future opportunities, the numbers are inconsequential. And frankly, reaching those incentive triggers in a more diverse offense, against a tougher schedule, figured to be difficult anyway.
If Barkley makes any “business decisions,” they will involve his prospects for a big third contract, not his 2023 incentives. His hopes for a big payday still hinge on his value above replacement level, which he can best demonstrate in games. Obviously, we won’t help himself by rushing back, but I don’t see how that would help the Giants either. The interests of player and team appear reasonably (although not perfectly) aligned.
To clarify, because I did leave out some implied (though not especially well implied) context - I don't think missing three games, and potentially this year's bonuses will be a reason for Barkley to make business decisions. Rather, my concern is that the very nature of a RB on a one-year deal near the end of his highest earnings window is one that might lend itself to making business decisions to not endanger that 2024 payday. And that the performance incentive bonuses exist as a reward for not putting his next contract ahead of his current one. If those incentives are effectively removed from the equation, that puts the onus to perform this year squarely on SB's shoulders with no immediate individual benefit (especially because the Giants can tag Barkley again if they so choose).
I do agree with those who have noted that "business decisions" would run counter (no pun intended) to what we know about Barkley's personality and competitiveness, but I also recognize that Schoen must have felt that there was a good enough reason to insert performance bonuses into the revised contract, so I didn't think it was absurd to consider the possibility.
Won’t be able to face the GMEN at full strength. So they won’t really know if they are better than us if they win. And if they lose they will realize they suck.
I think that’s how the logic behind all that works, right?
Breida has a history of getting hurt when his touches rise.
Assuming he’s the clear RB2, the staff can either manage his workload to keep him fresh or ride him and deal with it if/when he breaks down. I think he’ll get the first opportunity, especially since Thursday is a homecoming/revenge game for him. Still, RB by committee makes sense when the team gets home and has some time to practice - counterintuitively with the old vet Breida as the speed back. He’s the one with the extra gear, assuming he still has it.
Is it too late to make any adjustments to his contract? Such as pro rating his incentives in particular? If they can make supplemental changes then I think that would change the concerns of both parties involved.
Is Barkleys blocking. Other backs might be able to get some chunk yardage, but I’m worried they may be horrific at blocking. And with how our line has performed my biggest concern is for DJ getting trucked.
Who thinks Barkley is going to do anything but play at a 100% effort is a fucking idiot. Try and understand, his character is thankfully not like your own.
Who thinks Barkley is going to do anything but play at a 100% effort is a fucking idiot. Try and understand, his character is thankfully not like your own.
This is absolutely true. Saquon showed his character when he decided to return to the team and accept the $11 million and risk injury in a contract year. He could have held out until Week 10 and made "business decisions" but he chose not to
Who thinks Barkley is going to do anything but play at a 100% effort is a fucking idiot. Try and understand, his character is thankfully not like your own.
This is absolutely true. Saquon showed his character when he decided to return to the team and accept the $11 million and risk injury in a contract year. He could have held out until Week 10 and made "business decisions" but he chose not to
He also could have signed the tag immediately after the multi-year deadline passed, but instead he threatened to hold out. That threat only vanished when the contract was modified, and the only modification that actually changed the financial value of the contract was the insertion of the performance incentive bonuses.
It's fine if you want to suggest that those incentives are ultimately meaningless to Barkley, but the sequence of events leading up to him being a team player and signing his contract without a holdout might indicate that they were important to him at the time.
Does it change the way he approaches this season if those benchmarks become unachievable? Those of you who say it won't are probably correct, but I don't think it's a completely unfair question.
Who thinks Barkley is going to do anything but play at a 100% effort is a fucking idiot. Try and understand, his character is thankfully not like your own.
Barkley can still give 100% effort and make business decisions, too.
Instead of trying to get an extra yard on the sideline by taking on more contact, for example, he could simply step out. Franco Harris made a career out of doing that.
Frankly, I wouldn't fault him for making those decisions. At the end of the day, whether you care to accept it, football is a business and in order to maximize earnings you need to be available for as long as possible. Especially RBs.
Agree - I'd like Giants to give him an extra week or two if they can afford it (unlikely). Ankle injuries that don't properly heal can derail an entire season.
Quote:
As good an outcome as can be. I expect him to be very gun-shy when he comes back though.
Agree - I'd like Giants to give him an extra week or two if they can afford it (unlikely). Ankle injuries that don't properly heal can derail an entire season.
And in his case, his career with the GMen
they have a week and a half between games frpm thursday to monday night
Ian Rapoport
@RapSheet
·
6m
#Giants RB Saquon Barkley has a sprained ankle, source said after tests today. He’ll be out Thursday and considered week-to-week.
Link - ( New Window )
Do any of you worry that there is a risk of business decisions being made by Barkley once his bonuses are unachievable?
Do any of you worry that there is a risk of business decisions being made by Barkley once his bonuses are unachievable?
This is the operative question. I think it is a virtual certainty... Lamar Jackson 2.0.
Do any of you worry that there is a risk of business decisions being made by Barkley once his bonuses are unachievable?
You're saying that Barkley would decide to mail it in this season if he can't earn $800k of incentives in order to get a better payday from someone next season?
That would be an interesting strategy in OppositeLand.
Quote:
is that any significant length of absence (especially early in the season) basically pushes his individual incentives out of reach.
Do any of you worry that there is a risk of business decisions being made by Barkley once his bonuses are unachievable?
You're saying that Barkley would decide to mail it in this season if he can't earn $800k of incentives in order to get a better payday from someone next season?
That would be an interesting strategy in OppositeLand.
it also seems antithetical to the character that Barkley has displayed. I believe he will ball out 100% until he shows otherwise...
Quote:
is that any significant length of absence (especially early in the season) basically pushes his individual incentives out of reach.
Do any of you worry that there is a risk of business decisions being made by Barkley once his bonuses are unachievable?
You're saying that Barkley would decide to mail it in this season if he can't earn $800k of incentives in order to get a better payday from someone next season?
That would be an interesting strategy in OppositeLand.
No. The rehab on the ankle will simply take "longer than expected" and his return to "full strength" on the field will be shockingly extended... He will not enthusiastically return to the field so a lower ankle sprain can turn into an ACL injury and hurt his chances next year in free agency.
This was the fatal flaw in playing hard ball with the best offensive player on the team and seeing trivial performance thresholds as somehow keeping him engaged under the franchise tag. Gatorade is absolutely right in seeing the bigger problem here. And my guess is, this is exactly how it will play out now for the rest of the year.
Yes it was broadcast. His frustration was evident.
All of the incentives are just slightly north of his final season totals from last year (which allows them to be classified as not-likely-to-be-earned, from a cap perspective). To that end, I wouldn't call any of them "easy," per se.
Missing three games makes those incentives more difficult to reach. It doesn't make them impossible to reach, but it does make them harder, because they're not per-game averages, they're season totals - Barkley will presumably have fewer games than last year to accumulate greater volume stats than last year. And since all three of his bonus categories also include "+ Giants reach playoffs," the team's performance in his absence can also have a deleterious effect on his incentives, if they struggle while he's out.
Do any of you worry that there is a risk of business decisions being made by Barkley once his bonuses are unachievable?
Possibly.
But maybe he took some of the recommendations made here this summer and procured some insurance which would pay off due to injury.
Our other guys and go why did we play this guy 13
Mill anyways. Typically happens when others step up especially in the rb spot.
Do any of you worry that there is a risk of business decisions being made by Barkley once his bonuses are unachievable?
Don't worry. The NFL will file a grievance against the NFLPA for players making business decisions.
Do any of you worry that there is a risk of business decisions being made by Barkley once his bonuses are unachievable?
Missing 3 games probably means he misses out on 1350 yards - one of the incentives (tied to also making the playoffs).
The other incentives - 65 receptions, 11 touchdowns- remain within reach. At this point, no I don’t think there is a risk of him making ‘business decisions’. If he misses more time and/or the other incentives are out of reach - I think he still plays to win since I believe he is that kind of competitor and teammate. The incentives all told are 909k, so less than 10% of his compensation.
Our other guys and go why did we play this guy 13
Mill anyways. Typically happens when others step up especially in the rb spot.
That’s because most fans are idiots and don’t know what they are seeing
That one is going to loom large for Wildcards.
Have to figure Dallas/Philly have WC1 locked up until we see otherwise.
If Barkley makes any “business decisions,” they will involve his prospects for a big third contract, not his 2023 incentives. His hopes for a big payday still hinge on his value above replacement level, which he can best demonstrate in games. Obviously, we won’t help himself by rushing back, but I don’t see how that would help the Giants either. The interests of player and team appear reasonably (although not perfectly) aligned.
And I think he’ll do just fine
Quote:
is that any significant length of absence (especially early in the season) basically pushes his individual incentives out of reach.
Do any of you worry that there is a risk of business decisions being made by Barkley once his bonuses are unachievable?
This is the operative question. I think it is a virtual certainty... Lamar Jackson 2.0.
I disagree
This is how I see it too. You're comparing six figures with seven figures.
If Barkley makes any “business decisions,” they will involve his prospects for a big third contract, not his 2023 incentives. His hopes for a big payday still hinge on his value above replacement level, which he can best demonstrate in games. Obviously, we won’t help himself by rushing back, but I don’t see how that would help the Giants either. The interests of player and team appear reasonably (although not perfectly) aligned.
To clarify, because I did leave out some implied (though not especially well implied) context - I don't think missing three games, and potentially this year's bonuses will be a reason for Barkley to make business decisions. Rather, my concern is that the very nature of a RB on a one-year deal near the end of his highest earnings window is one that might lend itself to making business decisions to not endanger that 2024 payday. And that the performance incentive bonuses exist as a reward for not putting his next contract ahead of his current one. If those incentives are effectively removed from the equation, that puts the onus to perform this year squarely on SB's shoulders with no immediate individual benefit (especially because the Giants can tag Barkley again if they so choose).
I do agree with those who have noted that "business decisions" would run counter (no pun intended) to what we know about Barkley's personality and competitiveness, but I also recognize that Schoen must have felt that there was a good enough reason to insert performance bonuses into the revised contract, so I didn't think it was absurd to consider the possibility.
I think that’s how the logic behind all that works, right?
This is absolutely true. Saquon showed his character when he decided to return to the team and accept the $11 million and risk injury in a contract year. He could have held out until Week 10 and made "business decisions" but he chose not to
Quote:
Who thinks Barkley is going to do anything but play at a 100% effort is a fucking idiot. Try and understand, his character is thankfully not like your own.
This is absolutely true. Saquon showed his character when he decided to return to the team and accept the $11 million and risk injury in a contract year. He could have held out until Week 10 and made "business decisions" but he chose not to
He also could have signed the tag immediately after the multi-year deadline passed, but instead he threatened to hold out. That threat only vanished when the contract was modified, and the only modification that actually changed the financial value of the contract was the insertion of the performance incentive bonuses.
It's fine if you want to suggest that those incentives are ultimately meaningless to Barkley, but the sequence of events leading up to him being a team player and signing his contract without a holdout might indicate that they were important to him at the time.
Does it change the way he approaches this season if those benchmarks become unachievable? Those of you who say it won't are probably correct, but I don't think it's a completely unfair question.
Barkley can still give 100% effort and make business decisions, too.
Instead of trying to get an extra yard on the sideline by taking on more contact, for example, he could simply step out. Franco Harris made a career out of doing that.
Frankly, I wouldn't fault him for making those decisions. At the end of the day, whether you care to accept it, football is a business and in order to maximize earnings you need to be available for as long as possible. Especially RBs.