|
|
|
| Quote: |
| #5: Saquon Barkley Barkley's natural instincts and vision to create beyond the play's design make him special. He finishes like a 232-pound back should, with power and lean, but has the rare trait to make defenders miss as well. He's also detailed and controlled as a route runner, which makes him the best three-down back available, even with durability concerns (25 games missed in six seasons, three in 2023). More than just a running back, he is a weapon. Other teams might value him more than the Giants do. — Mueller #14: Xavier McKinney McKinney plays like a traditional free safety. He transitions without any hiccups and shows sudden burst to close once redirected. He has great range and the ball skills to make plays when he gets there. His speed helps him catch up with almost anyone. Youth, athletic ability and instincts are all on his side. He's my favorite among the available safeties. Will the Giants consider the franchise tag (projected at $16.3 million)? — Mueller |
So at this point, I would consider Franchising him again. I would not give him a multi-year deal. Too big a risk.
So at this point, I would consider Franchising him again. I would not give him a multi-year deal. Too big a risk.
At most, apply the Transition Tag so we can really see what Team Barkley is worth...
The FT is a colossal waste of time.
Notice he says “the best three-down back available”
Barkley is definitely middle of the pack when it comes to receiving, but the free agent RBs becoming available aren’t that great either.
Bring back Barkley to run behind the revamped line.
You may not like Barkley, but it serves no purpose to make up things about his game.
Quote:
Giants missed the boat on trading Barkley a couple of times.
So at this point, I would consider Franchising him again. I would not give him a multi-year deal. Too big a risk.
At most, apply the Transition Tag so we can really see what Team Barkley is worth...
The FT is a colossal waste of time.
I'm not sure how the Franchise Tag is "waste of time."
I'm not sure how the Franchise Tag is "waste of time."
Because no team is coughing up the compensation to pry Barkley away from the Giants. He's a 27-year-old RB with a rich injury history. And I don't want to pay Barkley a guaranteed $12M+.
The Transition Tag requires no compensation from a team who wants to sign a player. So, in theory, this should bring more teams in to see what his true market value is.
If he gets a deal that is way too high, you let him go. Thanks for the memories. But if he gets an offer that is much more reasonable, you consider matching it.
Aren't you curious to know what Barkley's real value is?
And to be on the record, I would just let Barkley go without any tags. But the TT is the smarter play...
You should have simply said that.
You should have simply said that.
You brought up the FT.
I gave you, IMV, the better alternative to establish Barkley's real market value if Schoen wants to stay in the Barkley sweepstakes.
You may not like Barkley, but it serves no purpose to make up things about his game.
I also feel like I'm watching a different back than this guy, but not because of his statements on the passing game. One of the big criticisms of Barkley is that he lacks vision in a cluttered field and he doesn't finish nearly as strongly as a 230lb+ back should. He's frequently tripped up and doesn't deliver punishing blows to defenders. If anything, he dances around contact instead of finishing strong. He's gotten somewhat better at it the last few seasons, but by and large, he still runs smaller and lighter than his actual size would indicate.
So at this point, I would consider Franchising him again. I would not give him a multi-year deal. Too big a risk.
Would you do 2 years at 8M a year? That's about 3.8M more than franchising him this year and calling it a career here. The RB market is saturated and not going to command big money, I believe. Thoughts?
Quote:
Giants missed the boat on trading Barkley a couple of times.
So at this point, I would consider Franchising him again. I would not give him a multi-year deal. Too big a risk.
Would you do 2 years at 8M a year? That's about 3.8M more than franchising him this year and calling it a career here. The RB market is saturated and not going to command big money, I believe. Thoughts?
Yes, but I doubt he would do that.
Whether the Giants keep him or let him go is fine with me. He's a good back, but not worth wrecking the cap for.
Quote:
is dangerous in space and he has had numerous big plays in the passing game for the Giants throughout his career, including last year.
You may not like Barkley, but it serves no purpose to make up things about his game.
I also feel like I'm watching a different back than this guy, but not because of his statements on the passing game. One of the big criticisms of Barkley is that he lacks vision in a cluttered field and he doesn't finish nearly as strongly as a 230lb+ back should. He's frequently tripped up and doesn't deliver punishing blows to defenders. If anything, he dances around contact instead of finishing strong. He's gotten somewhat better at it the last few seasons, but by and large, he still runs smaller and lighter than his actual size would indicate.
There is truth in much of what you write, but the pendulum has swung way too far the other way with fans. Look, I was the guy who took shit two years ago when I said they should trade him. But he's still a guy who the other team game plans for. He's never going to be the same player he was, but he is still very dangerous.
I suspect what will happen is he is going to walk, and we'll be left at the mercy of the compensatory pick formula (if we are active in free agency, we won't even get a comp pick for him).
Quote:
In comment 16403996 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
Giants missed the boat on trading Barkley a couple of times.
So at this point, I would consider Franchising him again. I would not give him a multi-year deal. Too big a risk.
Would you do 2 years at 8M a year? That's about 3.8M more than franchising him this year and calling it a career here. The RB market is saturated and not going to command big money, I believe. Thoughts?
Yes, but I doubt he would do that.
If so, then handshake the deal, wish him luck in securing a deal for more elsewhere with an opportunity to match if he can't find a better deal if he so desires. Either that or TT him. 12+M this year seems like a bigger risk. And open kimono, I want him back.
Quote:
In comment 16404092 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
is dangerous in space and he has had numerous big plays in the passing game for the Giants throughout his career, including last year.
You may not like Barkley, but it serves no purpose to make up things about his game.
I also feel like I'm watching a different back than this guy, but not because of his statements on the passing game. One of the big criticisms of Barkley is that he lacks vision in a cluttered field and he doesn't finish nearly as strongly as a 230lb+ back should. He's frequently tripped up and doesn't deliver punishing blows to defenders. If anything, he dances around contact instead of finishing strong. He's gotten somewhat better at it the last few seasons, but by and large, he still runs smaller and lighter than his actual size would indicate.
There is truth in much of what you write, but the pendulum has swung way too far the other way with fans. Look, I was the guy who took shit two years ago when I said they should trade him. But he's still a guy who the other team game plans for. He's never going to be the same player he was, but he is still very dangerous.
I suspect what will happen is he is going to walk, and we'll be left at the mercy of the compensatory pick formula (if we are active in free agency, we won't even get a comp pick for him).
Oh, for sure. To be perfectly clear, I like Barkley and I'd like to have him back if the price is right. He's a difference maker when he's healthy. I just don't think the person who wrote up the description actually watches Barkley all that much. The description of his running style matches what you'd expect to see of a 235lb back, not what you actually get with Barkley.
That said, I would be fine letting him test the waters and matching the offer if he gets something reasonable. Say in the 9-10m-ish/year for 3-4 years range.
So at this point, I would consider Franchising him again. I would not give him a multi-year deal. Too big a risk.
So you want to give Barkley a 20% salary increase over this year??? He had a sub par year. 3.9 yards per carry. Very few big plays. Very few big plays towards the end of last year.
On the open market Barkley is a $7mil maybe $8mil a year player. That’s the going rate in FA. I think the Barkley team knows this and wants the Giants to offer the deal they did last year before FA. He hasn’t approached his rookie year numbers, his yards per carry is going down year over year.
I’d take Barkley back on a similar deal that Sanders got in Carolina. 4 years about $14 mil guaranteed. If not let him see what FA is like, it only takes one team to make him rich I just don’t want that team to be the Giants. $12 mil tied up in a RB is crazy and the Tag allows no cap flexibility.
I personally don’t want him back. I feel like his best days are behind him and we can get similar production for less money by signing multiple FAs like what the Lions did with Montgomery.