Ian O'Connor
@Ian_OConnor
Saquon Barkley's CAA agent, Ed Berry, ex Kentucky football player, lived in New York City, works with Aaron Rodgers & understands the value of the NYC market. Barkley loves the Giants & John Mara loves him for the way he reps the franchise. Optimistic this gets done.
Unlimited salad and breadsticks (and excuses for not winning).
Bingo.
Wow. Just wow. I give up if true.
Is there a correlation with having Barkley on the team and losing, or you just want to move on for another reason?
I agree with this for the most part. It certainly is by no means a given that the Giants would invest the money they'd save by letting Barkley go towards acquisitions that improve the team meaningfully.
Dumping money into Barkley…
1 year 4 million.
Is there a correlation with having Barkley on the team and losing, or you just want to move on for another reason?
Almost nobody just wants him off the team. They (including myself) don't want to pay $12M - $13M per year for an oft injured RB on a team with so many more pressing needs.
Quote:
Another question for the ones that want him to leave...
Is there a correlation with having Barkley on the team and losing, or you just want to move on for another reason?
Almost nobody just wants him off the team. They (including myself) don't want to pay $12M - $13M per year for an oft injured RB on a team with so many more pressing needs.
No- I want him off the team, period. I don’t care if he was here for free. He and Jones represent losing and melancholy. We need hope. Those 2 guys don’t bring that.
Quote:
Another question for the ones that want him to leave...
Is there a correlation with having Barkley on the team and losing, or you just want to move on for another reason?
Almost nobody just wants him off the team. They (including myself) don't want to pay $12M - $13M per year for an oft injured RB on a team with so many more pressing needs.
Speak for yourself on that one. I've seen plenty of posters on this site state very clearly that they never liked the picked and want him gone, period.
It's certainly not "almost nobody".
My point is that his salary, even it if was at 12M a year does not hamper our salary cap in a major way at all...
And he's still a good player that other teams fear.
The drop off from him to RB2 is immense.
Is there a correlation with having Barkley on the team and losing, or you just want to move on for another reason?
This is right. If he will sign here for market value then fine. What is market value. I think it's less than $10m per but what do I know.
But that ship has sailed. In 2022 he was still on his rookie deal, last year he was on a FT with no bonus money.
Given where we are now, I see no reason to move on from Barkley as long as the terms are not outrageous. He's still an asset and this team has too many other needs to address at this point.
But the fact that Connor cites how Mara values him repping the franchise…come the fuck on.
This is probably why he wasn’t dealt last fall.
Quote:
Another question for the ones that want him to leave...
Is there a correlation with having Barkley on the team and losing, or you just want to move on for another reason?
Almost nobody just wants him off the team. They (including myself) don't want to pay $12M - $13M per year for an oft injured RB on a team with so many more pressing needs.
who in FA would you sign to fill the more pressing needs and for how much?
did more pressing needs get filled by 7m/year for glowinski? or 14m/year + 3rd round pick for waller? or 5m for campbell? the open market cost of those 3 in the prior 2 offseasons ended up double the AAV barkley is projected to get.
that isnt atypical of how FA usually works out.
He's only 55 btw
I'd much prefer a long term approach but this franchise just loves a fucking sugar high.
But the fact that Connor cites how Mara values him repping the franchise…come the fuck on.
This is probably why he wasn’t dealt last fall.
put mara aside, how did bbi like the way mckinney's recent tweets repped the franchise?
how did bbi like the way he handled himself during the bye 2 years ago?
does how he's handled himself factor into the decision to guaranteeing him what will likely end up even more than barkley?
For this Giants team, that assessment would be correct and would hold up over time.
Like it or not Barkley is one of their best players. If he plays a full season he's a 1200 yard rusher with 6-10 Tds throw in some receptions and a few more Tds. Hard to replace that.
If we all agree that this is a full re-boot and that's the way we go, then so be it. Should have traded him and not resigned Jones...but that's old news. Be prepared for another coaching change in 2025.
I'm holding fire until June - but if it's Jones, Barkley, a bunch of rookies and run it back mentality - it's playoffs or bust for this group. This is not a steady build strategy or approach. Schoen and Daboll better hope they win big and soon or the entire group gets swept out and deservedly so (no second HC for Schoen).
I remain convinced a QB is getting added here in draft until it doesn't happen.
Barkley would be a good RB for a passing team . He is a bad RB for a running team. But lets do it one more time. Lets also draft a 1st rd WR Jones will never throw to. That will finally unlock his vast potential. In year six.
Lets also fire the HC and GM at the end of the season and blame them for another losing season despite having a super talented QB .
Quote:
and continue to push an obviously declining SB out there as the feature cog on offense, demonstrates just how disconnected from reality (and making winning a priority) they are.
I'm holding fire until June - but if it's Jones, Barkley, a bunch of rookies and run it back mentality - it's playoffs or bust for this group. This is not a steady build strategy or approach. Schoen and Daboll better hope they win big and soon or the entire group gets swept out and deservedly so (no second HC for Schoen).
I remain convinced a QB is getting added here in draft until it doesn't happen.
I just don't see how they can't add a QB, and do it early. Hopium it's all fibs and they had one early, but as Terps laid out tends to run with how they operate.
Time for The Schoen Reign to change course and put his imprint on the product.
Enough already.
His face on a medium size Pepsi cup will be an extra bonus on free Pepsi day.
If we keep Barkley on a multi-year deal, I am closer to concluding that Schoen is not the true outsider we had hoped...
ok put their own players aside how are you spending money to win more games?
do you think they tried to spend money on waller (14m aav), glowinski (7m aav), campbell, etc. to try to win more games? how did that go?
spending money in FA is not synonymous with winning the nfl. people seem to want to pretend it is a nyg decision when it's more the law of gravity.
Enough already.
I think sometimes you have to break with the past and this view should not be discounted.
On the flip side, I do think a lot of Giants fans have swung too far to the negative with Barkley. He's still a guy who scares the other team. And he is still popular in the locker room.
Honestly, this comes down to money to me.
Quote:
Not defending X at all. But sorta sick of this ‘Well he represents the franchise so well’ shit. I want to win consistently again and have winning be the top priority.
ok put their own players aside how are you spending money to win more games?
do you think they tried to spend money on waller (14m aav), glowinski (7m aav), campbell, etc. to try to win more games? how did that go?
spending money in FA is not synonymous with winning the nfl. people seem to want to pretend it is a nyg decision when it's more the law of gravity.
Barkley is a FA. Spending money on him would be spending money in FA.
The frustration stems from not trading him for an asset that does matter: a draft pick.
Like it or not Barkley is one of their best players. If he plays a full season he's a 1200 yard rusher with 6-10 Tds throw in some receptions and a few more Tds. Hard to replace that.
If we all agree that this is a full re-boot and that's the way we go, then so be it. Should have traded him and not resigned Jones...but that's old news. Be prepared for another coaching change in 2025.
You don’t think people have turned the tv when the seasons over by Halloween every year except 2022?
And what do you do if he refuses to sign the tag?
I was really feeling positive this week with all the smoke surrounding the Giants looking to get a QB and the rumors that Barkley would not get the tag and would be allowed to hit the market, but with this report and Schoen's presser, seems like we're back at the same old bullsh*t.
I wouldn't be surprised actually if Schoen/Daboll get fired after 2024 and the next GM/coach go forward with Jones/Barkley again. As I've said, I have no idea what kind of vision ownership has for the team other than they love both of those guys and might make them Giants for life.
Barkley is a FA. Spending money on him would be spending money in FA.
The frustration stems from not trading him for an asset that does matter: a draft pick.
even if you have the extra draft pick you still have $ to spend on FA.
and yes, the money is going to get spent. with very rare exceptions all teams spend 95%+ of their cap or more every year because they have to average at least 90% over multiple seasons, and any team that enters a year around 90% increases from there with churn from injuries alone.
practically you can only roll over so much money and right now in 2025 the nyg project to have 95m available even with jones under contract. jumps up another $20m without him.
they project to have more than 130m free in 2026 even with jones at a 58m cap #!!!!
how many recent draft picks do you see being worth big extensions from 2020-2022?
there is an amount of $ they need to spend on veterans in UFA because there is no other alternative or meaningful opportunity cost to doing so.
If what Ian says is true I wonder if if this factored into Schoen's thinking.
brad speilberger projects his next contract at 3 years, 36.8m, 20m gtd.
he was willing to sign what was effectively a 2 year deal last year. which would have made this upcoming year his last gtd year.
it was a predictably bad decision to pass on that last year if they continue to still like him enough to consider tag/extension this year.
Quote:
$12M? No team is paying SB to that extreme.
brad speilberger projects his next contract at 3 years, 36.8m, 20m gtd.
And probably at least another 25-30 losses…
His supporters talk like he's a great Giant. He isn't. He's an incredibly forgettable Giant.
I don't understand the fear of change when we'd be changing from such a terrible product.
Agreed
It's not an awful decision to have Barkley on the roster for 2024. The awful decision would be to do that AND still not properly address the future at RB or create a productive committee to leverage away from him soon.
His supporters talk like he's a great Giant. He isn't. He's an incredibly forgettable Giant.
I don't understand the fear of change when we'd be changing from such a terrible product.
i dont understand why people cant grasp the concept of opporunity cost, and that for the cap dollars there are only rarely ANY positive ROI contracts produced from free agency.
what was the better use of cap space last year?
barkley or 3m more on glowinski/campbell?
Sentimentality means more to this organization than winning
They operate like a PR firm for their preferred players, not understanding that if they just won games the PR would take care of itself.
Does Okereke not provide any positive ROI?
Quote:
$12M? No team is paying SB to that extreme.
brad speilberger projects his next contract at 3 years, 36.8m, 20m gtd.
I'm confident Brad will be incorrect.
Does Okereke not provide any positive ROI?
there is no amazon prime where you can spend money in free agency and have good odds at getting positive ROI, yet FA money needs to get spent if you dont have players to extend from draft picks. there are no good options on free agency, it is "who can i overpay the least?".
okereke is the exception not the rule and among the top 20 most expensive players leaguewide in FA last year im pretty sure he is literally the only whose value was modeled by OTC to exceed his cost.
if it were easy to find more okerekes dont you think they would have done that instead of waller, glowinski, campbell?
Does Barkley being on the team or his contract negatively affect the team's roster or not?
There’s a cult following on this message board that essentially refuses to remember things.
There’s a cult following on this message board that essentially refuses to remember things.
It seems like the only thing you remember is 2022.
His supporters talk like he's a great Giant. He isn't. He's an incredibly forgettable Giant.
I don't understand the fear of change when we'd be changing from such a terrible product.
Again, I ask, were you alive during the 2022 Saquon Barkley season, when he was officially removed from the ACL?
Quote:
In 2022, Barkley was 4th in the NFL in rushing and 9th in rushing TDs. Instrumental all season long and the playoffs.
There’s a cult following on this message board that essentially refuses to remember things.
It seems like the only thing you remember is 2022.
No I actually remember 2018 and 2019 when it was evident he was one of the best playmakers in the entire sport.
Quote:
When people say he's the best player on the offense, they're forgetting that the offense sucks and needs to be intelligently rebuilt (i.e not built around putting the ball in Barkley's hands).
His supporters talk like he's a great Giant. He isn't. He's an incredibly forgettable Giant.
I don't understand the fear of change when we'd be changing from such a terrible product.
Again, I ask, were you alive during the 2022 Saquon Barkley season, when he was officially removed from the ACL?
The offense still sucked.
Quote:
In comment 16409475 JonC said:
Quote:
$12M? No team is paying SB to that extreme.
brad speilberger projects his next contract at 3 years, 36.8m, 20m gtd.
I'm confident Brad will be incorrect.
well that changes everything. hard to believe i took seriously a guy whose job is analyzing the salary cap for an organization employed by nfl teams and prior co-authored books w/ fitzgerald during his half decade at OTC.
Quote:
In comment 16409491 Go Terps said:
Quote:
When people say he's the best player on the offense, they're forgetting that the offense sucks and needs to be intelligently rebuilt (i.e not built around putting the ball in Barkley's hands).
His supporters talk like he's a great Giant. He isn't. He's an incredibly forgettable Giant.
I don't understand the fear of change when we'd be changing from such a terrible product.
Again, I ask, were you alive during the 2022 Saquon Barkley season, when he was officially removed from the ACL?
The offense still sucked.
And why was that?
Pouring $12-13 million into a RB headed toward the wrong side of his career isn’t a winning move.
Quote:
In comment 16409537 ryanmkeane said:
Quote:
In comment 16409491 Go Terps said:
Quote:
When people say he's the best player on the offense, they're forgetting that the offense sucks and needs to be intelligently rebuilt (i.e not built around putting the ball in Barkley's hands).
His supporters talk like he's a great Giant. He isn't. He's an incredibly forgettable Giant.
I don't understand the fear of change when we'd be changing from such a terrible product.
Again, I ask, were you alive during the 2022 Saquon Barkley season, when he was officially removed from the ACL?
The offense still sucked.
And why was that?
Because of you.
Quote:
When people say he's the best player on the offense, they're forgetting that the offense sucks and needs to be intelligently rebuilt (i.e not built around putting the ball in Barkley's hands).
His supporters talk like he's a great Giant. He isn't. He's an incredibly forgettable Giant.
I don't understand the fear of change when we'd be changing from such a terrible product.
Again, I ask, were you alive during the 2022 Saquon Barkley season, when he was officially removed from the ACL?
Do you remember that that team finished 16th in the NFL in scoring and 22nd in yards/play? Do you remember that the 2022 was outscored in the regular season, finished the season poorly, and only had a 9-7-1 record?
And do you remember that there's been a whole distributed and embarrassing season played since then?
The offense still sucked.
And why was that?
Because they couldn’t trust your boy to throw over 10 yards.
a contract has positive ROI if the player produces more than where they are paid.
by aav the 3x51m darren waller contract the giants traded for and are now paying out was the highest in nfl. is he the best TE in the NFL?
was mark glowinski the 18th best guard last year?
okere is the 9th highest paid off ball LB by aav and he played better than that last year - it is very rare that you can sign an expensive free agent and say that a year later. but hey your the expert not me, if im wrong about that im sure you have lots of examples of free agent signings that disprove that?
Quote:
Overrated, oft-injured, low-IQ player who even at his best had little impact on actually winning football games. He and Jones are the standard bearers for the worst era of Giants football I've seen.
Enough already.
I think sometimes you have to break with the past and this view should not be discounted.
On the flip side, I do think a lot of Giants fans have swung too far to the negative with Barkley. He's still a guy who scares the other team. And he is still popular in the locker room.
Honestly, this comes down to money to me.
His face on a medium size Pepsi cup will be an extra bonus on free Pepsi day.
If we keep Barkley on a multi-year deal, I am closer to concluding that Schoen is not the true outsider we had hoped...
And unfortunately none of it changes until they have new owners. Fingers crossed.
something that plays as a 3 year 30+ mil deal to him and a 2 year 16-18 mill deal to the giants is the only way I can see them coming together.
There’s a cult following on this message board that essentially refuses to remember things.
In 2023, he was 16th in rushing and an abysmal 3.9 ypc. He was 19th in TDs with 6.
He is always injured. I don't get the comments that he scares defenses. He doesn't scare anyone but Giants fans.
Quote:
A move only has positive ROI if the contract is below what somewhere on the internet projects it be and the player plays well?
a contract has positive ROI if the player produces more than where they are paid.
by aav the 3x51m darren waller contract the giants traded for and are now paying out was the highest in nfl. is he the best TE in the NFL?
was mark glowinski the 18th best guard last year?
okere is the 9th highest paid off ball LB by aav and he played better than that last year - it is very rare that you can sign an expensive free agent and say that a year later. but hey your the expert not me, if im wrong about that im sure you have lots of examples of free agent signings that disprove that?
lol, here you go again.
Football isn’t played with spreadsheets and PFF projections. Its not an individual stat sport like baseball. “Produces more than they are paid” seems like a pretty arbitrary grading system on if a move has positive ROI.
If you pay someone like the 10th best WR, they produce like the 20th but are instrumental in winning you a Super Bowl - does that free agent contract not have a positive ROI?
Slightly overpaying a Guard that plays like the 16th best guard instead of 12th but helps the Giants line hit an average threshold that doesn’t have a positive ROI?
If they pay Saqoun $13 milllion and he has a 2022 season but the Giants are 5-12, that has a positive ROI?
Smart, tough, dependable.
Neither of these guys is dependable, unless that means "they show up to the facility and work hard." When the bullets fly, too often they are watching from the sidelines.
These are not guys you build your team around.
Quote:
In 2022, Barkley was 4th in the NFL in rushing and 9th in rushing TDs. Instrumental all season long and the playoffs.
There’s a cult following on this message board that essentially refuses to remember things.
In 2023, he was 16th in rushing and an abysmal 3.9 ypc. He was 19th in TDs with 6.
He is always injured. I don't get the comments that he scares defenses. He doesn't scare anyone but Giants fans.
They say on every broadcast that the defensive game plan for the other team is to stop Barkley. They have to say that because nobody could say with a straight face that they need to stop Jones. Jones never started.
There’s a cult following on this message board that essentially refuses to remember things.
Tiki Barber rushed for 1860 yards in the past, I hear he's available.
There’s a cult following on this message board that essentially refuses to remember things.
Barkley hasn’t been the same since that 30+ rush game v Houston in 2022. He’s not a plus player anymore. Many posters and Mara are living in the past.
At this stage, I think Deonte Banks is a better player than Barkley and I don’t think it’s close.
All of that said, that is really in the past. Barkley's reputation is probably a bigger threat to defenses than the actual player at this point because he not the break away threat he once was. When it comes to handing out money, it's not about you did, it's about what you will do. So while I do believe there are some completely off based remarks towards Saquon who has been a model teammate and leader, the future of this team cannot be about the running back. It should come down to money, and likely not as much as Saquon deserves but that's the business of the game, unfortunately.
Barkley hasn’t been the same since that 30+ rush game v Houston in 2022. He’s not a plus player anymore. Many posters and Mara are living in the past.
Intrinsic value, my friend. That's what Barkley has to 1925 Giants Way.
At this stage, I think Deonte Banks is a better player than Barkley and I don’t think it’s close.
Feel the same way - when I think about the core of this team (if there even is one) the first names that come to mind are Thomas, Lawrence, Banks, Okereke, maybe Thibs. I don't consider Barkley or Jones to be part of any solution going forward - they should both be replaced with cheaper alternatives.
Smart, tough, dependable.
Neither of these guys is dependable, unless that means "they show up to the facility and work hard." When the bullets fly, too often they are watching from the sidelines.
These are not guys you build your team around.
Why spend $13 million a year on a 3 year deal?
Newsflash, The team does not get better by letting there best offensive player walk out the door. That makes no sense.
Barkley is only 27 so he's very much in his prime.
For the most part most players get hurt, just part of playing in a collision sport.
I still think a deal gets done, because both sides want to make that happen.
Just a matter of agreeing on a fair number.
Resigning Barkley leaves 1 less issue on this team to resolve.
The point is that Barkley is not worth what he likely wants on the open market. If he signs a 3 year deal worth $15M with $5M guaranteed, nobody here would complain about it. The problem is he won't sign for something like that. He will likely want money commensurate with the top RBs in the league, and the Giants simply can't afford that luxury given the state of the team and his injury history.
I feel like I have to repeat this like I do with Jones. Nobody here hates Saquon Barkley the person. Nobody.
The point is that Barkley is not worth what he likely wants on the open market. If he signs a 3 year deal worth $15M with $5M guaranteed, nobody here would complain about it. The problem is he won't sign for something like that. He will likely want money commensurate with the top RBs in the league, and the Giants simply can't afford that luxury given the state of the team and his injury history.
I feel like I have to repeat this like I do with Jones. Nobody here hates Saquon Barkley the person. Nobody.
I think you give people too much credit, although maybe I am not giving people enough. People hate other people for the slightest things especially when passion is involved, sports definitely brings out the passion.
Quote:
In comment 16409529 ryanmkeane said:
Quote:
In 2022, Barkley was 4th in the NFL in rushing and 9th in rushing TDs. Instrumental all season long and the playoffs.
There’s a cult following on this message board that essentially refuses to remember things.
In 2023, he was 16th in rushing and an abysmal 3.9 ypc. He was 19th in TDs with 6.
He is always injured. I don't get the comments that he scares defenses. He doesn't scare anyone but Giants fans.
They say on every broadcast that the defensive game plan for the other team is to stop Barkley. They have to say that because nobody could say with a straight face that they need to stop Jones. Jones never started.
That's the argument for Barkley is he is OUR best weapon. What is the comparison? Lol.
The point is that Barkley is not worth what he likely wants on the open market. If he signs a 3 year deal worth $15M with $5M guaranteed, nobody here would complain about it. The problem is he won't sign for something like that. He will likely want money commensurate with the top RBs in the league, and the Giants simply can't afford that luxury given the state of the team and his injury history.
I feel like I have to repeat this like I do with Jones. Nobody here hates Saquon Barkley the person. Nobody.
I agree but my only caveat is that Barkley is worth it if Jones is playing and healthy. That said that creates the problem of 2023, one I do not wish a chance to repeat in 2024.
I think Barkley is better and more useful than many think. But I agree that we need to focus on QB. But if Barkley is actually cheaper than I think and wants to come back, I’m good with it too.
Jones and Barkley will be forgotten five minutes after they're gone.
Quote:
In comment 16409484 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
In comment 16409475 JonC said:
Quote:
$12M? No team is paying SB to that extreme.
brad speilberger projects his next contract at 3 years, 36.8m, 20m gtd.
I'm confident Brad will be incorrect.
well that changes everything. hard to believe i took seriously a guy whose job is analyzing the salary cap for an organization employed by nfl teams and prior co-authored books w/ fitzgerald during his half decade at OTC.
So, Brad gets to be right and an NFL team is proven stupid. So what?
To the level of stinky garbage, the "pretender" corps of RB back-ups proved to be just that. Every Giants' opponent knew that just two players to worry about - Dex and Saquon.
Now you're talking about sending Saquon down-the-road, giving, McKinny $17M+ franchise tag, etc. etc., then pinning all the hopes on a rookie QB, when you just gave Dan Jones $40M. My advice, stand back, throw those rose colored glasses down and come back to reality.
Gotcha, thanks for your response Mike.
Jones and Barkley will be forgotten five minutes after they're gone.
I certainly have not seen any comments from you that indicate you have something personal against the players.
There have been posts from others who have expressed a desire to see players injured, serious injuries. I don't have a problem categorizing those as personal hate.
Quote:
In comment 16409530 ajr2456 said:
Quote:
A move only has positive ROI if the contract is below what somewhere on the internet projects it be and the player plays well?
a contract has positive ROI if the player produces more than where they are paid.
by aav the 3x51m darren waller contract the giants traded for and are now paying out was the highest in nfl. is he the best TE in the NFL?
was mark glowinski the 18th best guard last year?
okere is the 9th highest paid off ball LB by aav and he played better than that last year - it is very rare that you can sign an expensive free agent and say that a year later. but hey your the expert not me, if im wrong about that im sure you have lots of examples of free agent signings that disprove that?
lol, here you go again.
Football isn’t played with spreadsheets and PFF projections. Its not an individual stat sport like baseball. “Produces more than they are paid” seems like a pretty arbitrary grading system on if a move has positive ROI.
If you pay someone like the 10th best WR, they produce like the 20th but are instrumental in winning you a Super Bowl - does that free agent contract not have a positive ROI?
Slightly overpaying a Guard that plays like the 16th best guard instead of 12th but helps the Giants line hit an average threshold that doesn’t have a positive ROI?
If they pay Saqoun $13 milllion and he has a 2022 season but the Giants are 5-12, that has a positive ROI?
i have to say it's absolutely hilarious for a guy who likes to tout his profession as an agent to then say that "games arent played on spreadsheets and with numbers". what do you think your profession is if it isn't quantifying the cost/value of pro athletes?
however you want to calculate production vs what people are paid is up to you. you can accept or not accept validated sources (pff, otc) who have more credibility than anyone on BBI times 100, but as a concept individual value is literally what your profession is tasked to represent from the players side and nowhere more transparently than on a free agent market.
if you want to reduce down any individuals performance to whether a team wins or loses, is okereke a worse move than the bradberry who looked cooked, or the jawaan taylor contract that made him the 5th highest paid tackle in football even though he gave up as many sacks/pressures as neal/phillips combined? here's last years top 22 players from FA, by a rough count 7 of them played for playoff teams (including bradberry and taylor). were the other 15 including okereke failures because those teams didnt win? in your expert opinion what % of these are good contracts today?
+1. It's about time some people get over their pique at where Barkley was drafted.
Quote:
In comment 16409516 JonC said:
Quote:
In comment 16409484 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
In comment 16409475 JonC said:
Quote:
$12M? No team is paying SB to that extreme.
brad speilberger projects his next contract at 3 years, 36.8m, 20m gtd.
I'm confident Brad will be incorrect.
well that changes everything. hard to believe i took seriously a guy whose job is analyzing the salary cap for an organization employed by nfl teams and prior co-authored books w/ fitzgerald during his half decade at OTC.
So, Brad gets to be right and an NFL team is proven stupid. So what?
your confidence will have been wrong and whatever happens with barkley in the future will still be unwritten?
why do you suppose schoen said today that the tag at $12m gtd is still on the table? how does that in any way help him in a negotiation if it isnt pretty close to what barkleys market value is?
I cannot fathom the Giants bringing him back basedd on last years production. It would ne eye-poppingly stupid.
so i take it you see the comments schoen made today as idiotic?
"the tag still on the table"
"we still value him the same" (presumably as when they offered him extensions in that ballpark)
unless he was completely dishonest in their interest in negotiating with barkley, what purpose do those comments serve unless they are already self evident?
Quote:
I don't see a performance gap of $4-5M AAV between SB and other RBs on the market. At $12M AAV, it's an idiot negotiating against himself.
so i take it you see the comments schoen made today as idiotic?
"the tag still on the table"
"we still value him the same" (presumably as when they offered him extensions in that ballpark)
unless he was completely dishonest in their interest in negotiating with barkley, what purpose do those comments serve unless they are already self evident?
Yep, love the kid but the player on the field isn't worth that coinage.
Quote:
In comment 16409542 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
In comment 16409516 JonC said:
Quote:
In comment 16409484 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
In comment 16409475 JonC said:
Quote:
$12M? No team is paying SB to that extreme.
brad speilberger projects his next contract at 3 years, 36.8m, 20m gtd.
I'm confident Brad will be incorrect.
well that changes everything. hard to believe i took seriously a guy whose job is analyzing the salary cap for an organization employed by nfl teams and prior co-authored books w/ fitzgerald during his half decade at OTC.
So, Brad gets to be right and an NFL team is proven stupid. So what?
your confidence will have been wrong and whatever happens with barkley in the future will still be unwritten?
why do you suppose schoen said today that the tag at $12m gtd is still on the table? how does that in any way help him in a negotiation if it isnt pretty close to what barkleys market value is?
I’ll pass on getting involved in this pissing match, but I have to say anyone who cites someone’s “half decade” of experience at anything is on thin ice. What are you six years old ?
Quote:
In comment 16409832 JonC said:
Quote:
I don't see a performance gap of $4-5M AAV between SB and other RBs on the market. At $12M AAV, it's an idiot negotiating against himself.
so i take it you see the comments schoen made today as idiotic?
"the tag still on the table"
"we still value him the same" (presumably as when they offered him extensions in that ballpark)
unless he was completely dishonest in their interest in negotiating with barkley, what purpose do those comments serve unless they are already self evident?
Yep, love the kid but the player on the field isn't worth that coinage.
in free agency i think you are choosing from the best of non-ideal options. barkley may not be worth that coinage but it's hard to find who is at the high end (10m aav+) on the open market, even with the benefit of hindsight. a year later most FA deals look bad, really bad, or worse. a smaller percentage are tolerable and an even smaller percentage look good.
the 3 big signings in 2016 had diminishing rewards but in hindsight those were all reasonably good outcomes to the point where each of them retained trade value 3-4 years later.
Don't disagree on your other points. I'm just tired of watching NYG double down on crucial mistakes, and at the same time I'm not certain another NFL would do the same.
The problem is, Chris, what would you call "reasonable"? He "took" 10 mill last year for triple digit rushing yards and single digit total TDs.
Sign Zach Moss, draft another in mid rounds you likely save about 7-8 mill in cap space and have more horses (not ponies) for your running attack.
i have to say it's absolutely hilarious for a guy who likes to tout his profession as an agent to then say that "games arent played on spreadsheets and with numbers". what do you think your profession is if it isn't quantifying the cost/value of pro athletes?
however you want to calculate production vs what people are paid is up to you. you can accept or not accept validated sources (pff, otc) who have more credibility than anyone on BBI times 100, but as a concept individual value is literally what your profession is tasked to represent from the players side and nowhere more transparently than on a free agent market.
if you want to reduce down any individuals performance to whether a team wins or loses, is okereke a worse move than the bradberry who looked cooked, or the jawaan taylor contract that made him the 5th highest paid tackle in football even though he gave up as many sacks/pressures as neal/phillips combined? here's last years top 22 players from FA, by a rough count 7 of them played for playoff teams (including bradberry and taylor). were the other 15 including okereke failures because those teams didnt win? in your expert opinion what % of these are good contracts today?
I think I know way more about my profession than you do, and no NFL team is worried about “how is the ROI going to look on PFF” or what Brad Spielberger thinks when negotiating contracts. You seem to once again be arguing something that isn’t being argued. Negotiating contracts and the impact/role of the player on the team are not the same thing.
Of course quantifying the value of a player by dollars is done on spreadsheets, however the impact of a player isn’t only measured on a spreadsheet. The results on the field matter and individual players don’t play in a vacuum. That’s not even getting into the fact that it’s extremely difficult to quantify some positions by simply using data.
Saying you’re not getting a positive ROI from a player because they don’t meet some arbitrary production metric is leaving out a lot of different factors, one including their role in the scheme.
By OTC valuation metric Dexter Lawrence is underperforming his contract by $5 million. Are the Giants not getting a positive ROI from Dexter Lawrence?
Are the Dolphins not getting positive ROI from Hill’s contract because the OTC valuation is only $19 million?
Deebo Samuel was 36th in receiving yards and the 7th highest paid WR in the league. San Fran isn’t getting positive ROI from that contract? Metcalf doesn’t give Seattle positive ROI?
PFF has TJ Watt rated as the fifth best edge defender but he’s the second highest paid ED. Pittsburgh isn’t getting positive ROI from that deal?
Sometimes you pay higher for a play because what they can do in your system has more value than data and analytics can show. Judging if a contract was good and has a good return on investment solely based off production numbers compared to players in different schemes, roles and situations is limiting yourself. Data and analytics are only a piece of the puzzle, not the whole puzzle.
Quote:
of pre-outrage. If the deal is reasonable, there's no downside. He's not symbolic of anything. That is in your head. When healthy he can be an impact player. He's not healthy all the time anymore. That's why the contract can be reasonable.
The problem is, Chris, what would you call "reasonable"? He "took" 10 mill last year for triple digit rushing yards and single digit total TDs.
Sign Zach Moss, draft another in mid rounds you likely save about 7-8 mill in cap space and have more horses (not ponies) for your running attack.
We don't know yet. The market should set the rate. If he is too expensive, then fine, you move on. But if he realizes he is being naive about his wants, then he takes less to stay in NY. But getting outraged now over what you -think will happen- is dumb.
I’ll pass on getting involved in this pissing match, but I have to say anyone who cites someone’s “half decade” of experience at anything is on thin ice. What are you six years old ?
this is the only post in your activity history so you have an interesting way of "passing on getting involved".
having a specific job at what is probably the preeminent expert site for the salary cap for 5 years doesn't seem like a 6-year-old type of thing to say but if you think it's more mature to post his fuller resume it includes the more recent half decade at PFF and a quick hit as a legal intern with the minnesota vikings. would finding his LSAT score be more of a 6 year old thing to post or does that age things up?
It all lines up with Gettleman getting that generous send-off at the end of the 2021 season. It's like holding on to Barkley and Jones allows him to believe that whole period wasn't for nothing (ironically, Thomas and Lawrence are the ones who show that).
Quote:
i have to say it's absolutely hilarious for a guy who likes to tout his profession as an agent to then say that "games arent played on spreadsheets and with numbers". what do you think your profession is if it isn't quantifying the cost/value of pro athletes?
however you want to calculate production vs what people are paid is up to you. you can accept or not accept validated sources (pff, otc) who have more credibility than anyone on BBI times 100, but as a concept individual value is literally what your profession is tasked to represent from the players side and nowhere more transparently than on a free agent market.
if you want to reduce down any individuals performance to whether a team wins or loses, is okereke a worse move than the bradberry who looked cooked, or the jawaan taylor contract that made him the 5th highest paid tackle in football even though he gave up as many sacks/pressures as neal/phillips combined? here's last years top 22 players from FA, by a rough count 7 of them played for playoff teams (including bradberry and taylor). were the other 15 including okereke failures because those teams didnt win? in your expert opinion what % of these are good contracts today?
I think I know way more about my profession than you do, and no NFL team is worried about “how is the ROI going to look on PFF” or what Brad Spielberger thinks when negotiating contracts. You seem to once again be arguing something that isn’t being argued. Negotiating contracts and the impact/role of the player on the team are not the same thing.
Of course quantifying the value of a player by dollars is done on spreadsheets, however the impact of a player isn’t only measured on a spreadsheet. The results on the field matter and individual players don’t play in a vacuum. That’s not even getting into the fact that it’s extremely difficult to quantify some positions by simply using data.
Saying you’re not getting a positive ROI from a player because they don’t meet some arbitrary production metric is leaving out a lot of different factors, one including their role in the scheme.
By OTC valuation metric Dexter Lawrence is underperforming his contract by $5 million. Are the Giants not getting a positive ROI from Dexter Lawrence?
Are the Dolphins not getting positive ROI from Hill’s contract because the OTC valuation is only $19 million?
Deebo Samuel was 36th in receiving yards and the 7th highest paid WR in the league. San Fran isn’t getting positive ROI from that contract? Metcalf doesn’t give Seattle positive ROI?
PFF has TJ Watt rated as the fifth best edge defender but he’s the second highest paid ED. Pittsburgh isn’t getting positive ROI from that deal?
Sometimes you pay higher for a play because what they can do in your system has more value than data and analytics can show. Judging if a contract was good and has a good return on investment solely based off production numbers compared to players in different schemes, roles and situations is limiting yourself. Data and analytics are only a piece of the puzzle, not the whole puzzle.
strawman on top of strawman on top of strawman.
nobody cares what brad spielberger has to say, myself included, if he's wrong. do you find it in the slightest bit coincidental that his projection lines up exactly with the comments made by schoen today that the 12m tag is still on the table, and they still value him the way they did previously (which was right around 12m)? generally speaking with all the resources top publishers have not to mention all the publicly available data from sites that really only started in the last decade of this CBA, contract projections ahead of free agency have gotten pretty good. teams pay pff as an organization for a reason and even if what they are paying for is different than their publicly posted content as an organization they have credibility.
nowhere have i argued that you dont need to overpay to some extent in free agency or extensions if you want good players. 2nd contracts for starting level players are expensive bc there are fewer good players than $ available. so you are arguing a strawman pointing to dex or watt or deebo as slightly under water. we all know they are among the best of their positions providing a lot more value over replacement than can otherwise be found - which is why they got paid premiums without ever reaching UFA. the OTC value calculation is factoring in the value produced by players on rookie contracts which are always going to be artificially cheaper production.
good draft picks are where you get the bulk of your surplus value,
extensions of good draft picks are where you retain quality players at premium prices,
open free agency is where you generally pay premium prices for players who werent good enough to get extended or tagged/traded.
Where was any of this part of the argument? Was it ever said that PFF doesn’t do good stuff? How is saying that quantifying whether a contract is giving a good ROI has more to do with what data and valuations say a strawman? Data doesn’t tell the full story about what happens on the field, it’s why NFL teams don’t put much stock into PFFs individual player grades.
This literally is the point
You could sign the top free agent pass rusher, his sack numbers could drop making his contract look like it’s giving off a poor ROI but if what if adding that player to the group of 11 players on the field, increased someone else’s production? That contract is a poor ROI then? Absolutely not.
It’s also very interesting that experience matters, only when it’s something you agree with.
Giving Barkley something close to Franchise Tag value or even tagging him is a mistake. If another team wants to pay to that level then good for Saquon and goodbye. If the Giants want to do it then we just need to wait for the morons on this site to promote themselves in their usual self-aggrandizing manner and say "See, I told you he would get paid. And this is an A-grade deal for the Giants".
Just like what happened on here with Jones.
Giving Barkley something close to Franchise Tag value or even tagging him is a mistake. If another team wants to pay to that level then good for Saquon and goodbye. If the Giants want to do it then we just need to wait for the morons on this site to promote themselves in their usual self-aggrandizing manner and say "See, I told you he would get paid. And this is an A-grade deal for the Giants".
Just like what happened on here with Jones.
Again, what does that look like? I would value him at 6 mill per, AT THE HIGH END.
There is no scenario I can see in which Saq takes an almost 50% salary drop when there very well could be teams willing to take a flyer on his resurrgence.
Smart, tough, dependable.
Neither of these guys is dependable, unless that means "they show up to the facility and work hard." When the bullets fly, too often they are watching from the sidelines.
These are not guys you build your team around.
I keep bringing this up, Barkley has player 43 out of the last 51 games. He's played 13 or more games every season except for the season he tore up his knee. He is as dependable, and healthy, as just about any other back in the league. This "injury prone" thing was true after year 2, but not now.
Quote:
his annual pay way down from his expectations. And then also add a decent free agent and maybe even another draft pick to build out the RB unit and make it a true committee.
Giving Barkley something close to Franchise Tag value or even tagging him is a mistake. If another team wants to pay to that level then good for Saquon and goodbye. If the Giants want to do it then we just need to wait for the morons on this site to promote themselves in their usual self-aggrandizing manner and say "See, I told you he would get paid. And this is an A-grade deal for the Giants".
Just like what happened on here with Jones.
Again, what does that look like? I would value him at 6 mill per, AT THE HIGH END.
There is no scenario I can see in which Saq takes an almost 50% salary drop when there very well could be teams willing to take a flyer on his resurrgence.
Then let them. It has no bearing on what is best for the longer term future of the NY Giants.
is that not implied in a comment like this?
or was that comment meant only in it's literal interpretation that nfl teams arent grading their deals based on brad speilberger (which nobody alleged and, duh, no shit)?
as far as the rest of your post there are value degrees to all of this which is what is seemingly lost on you. the example you described was basically olivier vernon, and most people would say that scenario was a bust (i wouldnt) bc a top edge rusher in FA is probably a player who is a fringe pro bowler getting paid top of market like vernon did. but paying mark glowinski 7m to get benched game 2 year 2 is a contract that is a bust. that was their top acquisition in 2022. in 2023 they gave up a 3rd for waller they didnt have to give up for okereke and took on a contract with a higher AAV including a higher 2 year cash flow (unless they cut him). do you think if they had another 5 years younger player as good as okereke they would have spent less, saved the pick, and done that instead?
that has been my core point in discussions relating to free agency - there simply arent easy places to spend money well in FA unless you are looking back with hindsight, and its not even easy to do with hindsight. that's why barkleys value is projected where it is not just bc lolgiants but the market. not because it will definitely be a good use of money (nobody knows that without a crystal ball and if anyone smart was betting, they would probably bet against bc free agency more often leads to bad deals than good deals). i've not once argued that the giants have handled the barkley situation correctly (in fact ive argued the opposite since last july) but there is an irrational understanding of what his cost is projected to be and how easy it would be to redeploy that $ well elsewhere. which is why the nyg are still considering keeping him.
Quote:
Was it ever said that PFF doesn’t do good stuff?
is that not implied in a comment like this?
Quote:
I think I know way more about my profession than you do, and no NFL team is worried about “how is the ROI going to look on PFF” or what Brad Spielberger thinks when negotiating contracts.
or was that comment meant only in it's literal interpretation that nfl teams arent grading their deals based on brad speilberger (which nobody alleged and, duh, no shit)?
Stunning, really that that would be interpreted as “PFF doesn’t do anything good”.
And no, that situation would not be Vernon. Who got better because Vernon was on the team? The Giants were middle of the road in sacks his first.
You once again continue to change the argument though. The argument was that ROI can’t be quantified by just looking at valuations and production. By a metrics standpoint Saqoun probably provided a good ROI last season, but did the Giants actually get a good return on their investment?
Saqoun could put up 1200 yards next year is the ROI really that good? Or is better for the Giants to use that money on a player who may put up a lower ROI based just on metrics but makes his unit better plus adding a rookie that runs for 900 yards?
The metrics alone may say Saqoun at $13 million produces a good ROI, but spending that money somewhere where the metrics alone say they produced a worse ROI, or none at all at a position that has a bigger impact at winning may produce a higher ROI for the team as a whole.
They need to prove to themselves that Jones is not the guy and that contract was truly a mistake, and the only way to do that is get him a running game and a wideout and some new interior linemen.
It all lines up with Gettleman getting that generous send-off at the end of the 2021 season. It's like holding on to Barkley and Jones allows him to believe that whole period wasn't for nothing (ironically, Thomas and Lawrence are the ones who show that).
I still can't get over Reese getting fired midseason while that clown Gettleman was allowed to 'retire' & take photos with his family before the season finale. John Mara is such a tool.
Enough already.
No low IQ are fans like you.
being as miserable as you are, how do you deal with life day to day?
Barkley should be a Giant for life. You were one that wanted Manning gone as well.
Yeah, he seem like a good dude. He says the right things. But he isn't irreplaceable. We've mostly sucked with him here & he's on the back nine for a RB. Again, I'd bring him back @ the right price-ala not breaking the bank-but if he leaves, whatever.
People-are you reading this John Mara?-have got to stop these emotional connections with players who don't deserve it. I get emotional connections with the Elis, Strahans, Tucks, of the world...Saquon Barkey? GTFO. DJ? Even more GTFO.
The metrics alone may say Saqoun at $13 million produces a good ROI, but spending that money somewhere where the metrics alone say they produced a worse ROI, or none at all at a position that has a bigger impact at winning may produce a higher ROI for the team as a whole.
That is all possible but it doesn’t change my point - however we quantify the roi it is not as easy to spend that $13m as most imply (reread my posts prior to our back and forth). on the 23 cap they spent 13m on glowinski + Campbell, i don’t think they did that expecting to have them both benched. we all knew spending $14m on Waller could backfire if he got hurt, and he wasn’t just a free agent signing, he cost a 3rd rd pick on top. I’m not saying they would be right to extend Barkley now, that depends entirely on what the cost is - just that wherever else they put the $ is going to carry risk too.
Every team wants to and expects the free agents they sign to be the next okereke - the problem is most aren’t. The challenge is figuring out who that player is ahead of time. Most gms get that wrong so I think most pretend it’s a lot easier than it is.
Quote:
I’ll pass on getting involved in this pissing match, but I have to say anyone who cites someone’s “half decade” of experience at anything is on thin ice. What are you six years old ?
this is the only post in your activity history so you have an interesting way of "passing on getting involved".
having a specific job at what is probably the preeminent expert site for the salary cap for 5 years doesn't seem like a 6-year-old type of thing to say but if you think it's more mature to post his fuller resume it includes the more recent half decade at PFF and a quick hit as a legal intern with the minnesota vikings. would finding his LSAT score be more of a 6 year old thing to post or does that age things up?
Dude, find something more to do with your life. It really is a shame.
Quote:
In comment 16409857 CMc in 342 said:
Quote:
I’ll pass on getting involved in this pissing match, but I have to say anyone who cites someone’s “half decade” of experience at anything is on thin ice. What are you six years old ?
this is the only post in your activity history so you have an interesting way of "passing on getting involved".
having a specific job at what is probably the preeminent expert site for the salary cap for 5 years doesn't seem like a 6-year-old type of thing to say but if you think it's more mature to post his fuller resume it includes the more recent half decade at PFF and a quick hit as a legal intern with the minnesota vikings. would finding his LSAT score be more of a 6 year old thing to post or does that age things up?
Dude, find something more to do with your life. It really is a shame.
doing just fine but thanks for breaking your bbi sock puppet silence to check in.
He accounted for 26% of their offensive yards. It makes sense to draft another back, break them in slowly, and reduce SB's mileage in run game and increase it in passing game.
He accounted for 26% of their offensive yards. It makes sense to draft another back, break them in slowly, and reduce SB's mileage in run game and increase it in passing game.
people get real riled up about barkley's cost but the real sin is that since bradshaw in 07 the org hasnt drafted a single competent rb and then been forced to overpay mediocre or worse ones (jennings, vereen, etc). wilson, andre williams, andre brown, gallman, brightwell, jury obviously out on gray.
thinking its easy to find a pacheco is up there on the list of things bbi is underestimates in difficulty.
The Giants lost plenty of games with Rodney Hampton while in his prime. Dallas lost games when their roster decayed despite Emmitt Smith still playing at a high level.
I give up with some of you. Cut Barkley and extract your pound of flesh and everything will be all better. Sure it will. And when you pay that 11 million or so to a guard, or TE or DB in FA and don't move the needle, enjoy that.
Who we using that whopping 11 million on? This isn't a lot of money. You guys get that right?
The Giants lost plenty of games with Rodney Hampton while in his prime. Dallas lost games when their roster decayed despite Emmitt Smith still playing at a high level.
I give up with some of you. Cut Barkley and extract your pound of flesh and everything will be all better. Sure it will. And when you pay that 11 million or so to a guard, or TE or DB in FA and don't move the needle, enjoy that.
Who we using that whopping 11 million on? This isn't a lot of money. You guys get that right?
How about a better RB? Derrick Henry is a FA.
This is not an addition by subtraction thing. Cmon already. Barkley is a good player stop acting butt hurt because the Giants didn't draft Bradley Chubb or Darnold or Jackson and be objective for one moment. You telling me with some roster upgrades Barkley can't subsequently improve as a result? 2022 never happened I take it. HE wasn't the only worthwhile player to watch in 23 I take it. Those 1400 or so all purpose yards and 10 total TDs playing for the 1980 Saints offense was my imagination.
I want to hear a plan. Not hyperbole drama queen nonsense if we're letting Barkley walk.
Quote:
who are you giving that Barkley money to? Stop being so fucking dramatic and emotional. "HE represents melancholy." Uhh ok? HE can't just be a top 5 or so RB that is saddled with a losing roster? You can't LOSE games even if you have a good or great RB? The last 50 years of NFL football hasn't clearly debunked this myth?
The Giants lost plenty of games with Rodney Hampton while in his prime. Dallas lost games when their roster decayed despite Emmitt Smith still playing at a high level.
I give up with some of you. Cut Barkley and extract your pound of flesh and everything will be all better. Sure it will. And when you pay that 11 million or so to a guard, or TE or DB in FA and don't move the needle, enjoy that.
Who we using that whopping 11 million on? This isn't a lot of money. You guys get that right?
How about a better RB? Derrick Henry is a FA.
Really. You'd pivot off a RB with 1200 rushing attempts and spend the same money on a guy with 2000+ carries and a guy who clearly showed some signs of slowing down. I love Henry and I love stealing older players in FA more than anyone, I have even advocated for this strategy and been mocked here for it, but this is a beauty. By that I mean, NO.
Henry has 1. Maybe.
You want to pay for a RB? Fine...are you interested in the better player or in being a superfan?
Also, Henry would be a different back behind this OL and you know it.
I agree that it's not as easy to find a Pacheco as some make it seem, but it's definitely inexpensive to try. Using 7th round picks and UDFA to grab 2-3 RB prospects every year is bound to bear enough fruit over a couple of years to fill out an adequate RBBC depth chart beneath a decent mid-round RB.
When you have a RB like Barkley, you're probably less likely to keep trying to churn the RB depth chart as often because there aren't enough reps to justify the effort, and the UDFAs are more likely to seek opportunity with teams that don't have a bellcow RB at the top of the depth chart. But if you have carries to go around and can lure some good UDFA RB prospects, there's a real market inefficiency there to take advantage of, IMO.
I don't think it's easy to find a Pacheco. But I think it's easy to find 8-10 sleeper RB prospects over any 3-year period and keep shuffling through them until you hit on a few for a committee.
Am I missing a downside in that approach? It obviously relies on having a functional OL, but honestly so does having Barkley if you're going to maximize that expense anyway.
This is not an addition by subtraction thing. Cmon already. Barkley is a good player stop acting butt hurt because the Giants didn't draft Bradley Chubb or Darnold or Jackson and be objective for one moment. You telling me with some roster upgrades Barkley can't subsequently improve as a result? 2022 never happened I take it. HE wasn't the only worthwhile player to watch in 23 I take it. Those 1400 or so all purpose yards and 10 total TDs playing for the 1980 Saints offense was my imagination.
I want to hear a plan. Not hyperbole drama queen nonsense if we're letting Barkley walk.
"Better in '23" is the clue that you don't actually want a plan. You want simplistic short-term answers. With or without Barkley in 2023 (and now in 2024) the Giants have no shot at competing for a championship. None.
Many of us told you the Giants had no chance of winning 10 games in 2023 before the season even started. Is there a move that would have changed that? Probably not. Are there moves that would have begun to benefit the Giants in 2024 and beyond? Absolutely, and all of them involve acquiring as many good value players and draft picks as you can in the hopes of building a foundation that can actually compete.
If they had traded Barkley for a 3rd round pick in 2022, spent that money elsewhere they would be better off now, absolutely.
So now 2023 was a waste, and the same people are here telling us we need to run it back with the same basic cast of characters in 2024. Guess the outcome?
You want to pay for a RB? Fine...are you interested in the better player or in being a superfan?
The reason you don't draft a rb #2 is because he is dependant on the OL for performance. If the OL is not functioning no back can perform (sanders is the only one I can think of that did). Henry's OL was a much better line. IMO on the Giants Henry would be much worse since he is only a north/south guy, getting hit in the backfield would be even worse for him than Barkley. Plus the passing game would suffer, since Daboll likes to throw to backs. Look at the games when the Tenn OL was outplayed, Henry had like 5 games under 40 yds (or close). Sure give Henry a crease and he's a truck, but we don't have many of those.
My point is comparing raw stats in a vacuum is meaningless. Situations are different, surrounding cast is different, strategies are different, and use is different. IMO Barkley is a much better back, if they were on the same team and conditions were the same.
Quote:
Thinking its easy to find a Pacheco is up there on the list of things BBI is underestimates in difficulty.
I agree that it's not as easy to find a Pacheco as some make it seem, but it's definitely inexpensive to try. Using 7th round picks and UDFA to grab 2-3 RB prospects every year is bound to bear enough fruit over a couple of years to fill out an adequate RBBC depth chart beneath a decent mid-round RB.
When you have a RB like Barkley, you're probably less likely to keep trying to churn the RB depth chart as often because there aren't enough reps to justify the effort, and the UDFAs are more likely to seek opportunity with teams that don't have a bellcow RB at the top of the depth chart. But if you have carries to go around and can lure some good UDFA RB prospects, there's a real market inefficiency there to take advantage of, IMO.
I don't think it's easy to find a Pacheco. But I think it's easy to find 8-10 sleeper RB prospects over any 3-year period and keep shuffling through them until you hit on a few for a committee.
Am I missing a downside in that approach? It obviously relies on having a functional OL, but honestly so does having Barkley if you're going to maximize that expense anyway.
who said not to try? i dont think theres been a draft season where there hasnt been a rb i wanted to draft in the 3rd/4th/5th round range (2 years ago it happened to be kyren who was on the clock when they took belton/bellinger).
Eric on Li : mute : 4/30/2022 12:12 pm : link
with bellinger, spiller, and a few others.
100% agree draft rbs every year until someone hits. until then i dont mind keeping any productive player if the cost makes sense.
That's *a* reason, but not simply *the* reason.
An even bigger reason is that you are paying close to top of the league pricing scale for RBs right out of the gate and never get any cheap years out of the RB. The rookie wage scale is position-agnostic; you pay based on draft slot, not position.
If you take a rookie at a very expensive position (QB, Edge, OT, CB, WR, etc.), you are getting 4+ years of that player for well below market rate. If he hits, you have a massive bargain. If he misses, you're still not in a terrible place as long as that player represents halfway decent depth on that rookie contract.
If you take a rookie at a very inexpensive position (RB is near the bottom and trending downward), you're basically paying close to the 2nd contract rate for the entirety of that player's career (and you get very little leverage toward an early extension, which you'd likely want to do right after the 3rd season if you have a successful, healthy RB).
The cap/position economics are a much bigger reason for not taking a RB at #2 overall than the position's dependency on the OL, IMO.
Also, Henry would be a different back behind this OL and you know it.
Man we love to blame the OL to protect our sacred cows.
Henry is a better player than Barkley. That's as close to a fact borne out by years of proof as you can get. He's also more durable; sure he could hit a wall but Barkley has a propensity to get hurt, too.
If you had to pay a RB, you pay Henry over Barkley. Of course the smart move is too pay neither and replace Barkley with a Day 2/3 draft pick.
Quote:
In comment 16411446 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
Thinking its easy to find a Pacheco is up there on the list of things BBI is underestimates in difficulty.
I agree that it's not as easy to find a Pacheco as some make it seem, but it's definitely inexpensive to try. Using 7th round picks and UDFA to grab 2-3 RB prospects every year is bound to bear enough fruit over a couple of years to fill out an adequate RBBC depth chart beneath a decent mid-round RB.
When you have a RB like Barkley, you're probably less likely to keep trying to churn the RB depth chart as often because there aren't enough reps to justify the effort, and the UDFAs are more likely to seek opportunity with teams that don't have a bellcow RB at the top of the depth chart. But if you have carries to go around and can lure some good UDFA RB prospects, there's a real market inefficiency there to take advantage of, IMO.
I don't think it's easy to find a Pacheco. But I think it's easy to find 8-10 sleeper RB prospects over any 3-year period and keep shuffling through them until you hit on a few for a committee.
Am I missing a downside in that approach? It obviously relies on having a functional OL, but honestly so does having Barkley if you're going to maximize that expense anyway.
who said not to try? i dont think theres been a draft season where there hasnt been a rb i wanted to draft in the 3rd/4th/5th round range (2 years ago it happened to be kyren who was on the clock when they took belton/bellinger).
Quote:
Kyren Williams and Charlie Kolar are probably my 2 preferences here
Eric on Li : mute : 4/30/2022 12:12 pm : link
with bellinger, spiller, and a few others.
100% agree draft rbs every year until someone hits. until then i dont mind keeping any productive player if the cost makes sense.
Well that's just it - I think the Giants tend to view certain positions as "addressed" and others as "open" and I think they have a tendency to ignore positions that they consider to be addressed.
We saw it years ago with not pursuing Whitworth because they had already addressed OLT with Flowers. We've seen them not draft any QBs at all since drafting DJ. We've seen them not even look at RBs earlier than the 5th round since drafting Barkley (and that was only last year).
I think they rest on their laurels too much, which is a systemic issue in their roster construction over the past decade, IMO.
If we swapped Barkley out for Henry we aren't likely to see much of upgrade on offense. I won't sit here and proclaim that a certainty as we all know Henry is a fantastic player. He also did his thing 1000 miles away from the NYG offense. Different staff. Different OL. Different team. He's also got nearly double the mileage on those legs.
Quote:
I don't want to limit his potential I love the guy as a player. Point is why move off a younger RB. for an older one with 900 more carries.
Also, Henry would be a different back behind this OL and you know it.
Man we love to blame the OL to protect our sacred cows.
Henry is a better player than Barkley. That's as close to a fact borne out by years of proof as you can get. He's also more durable; sure he could hit a wall but Barkley has a propensity to get hurt, too.
If you had to pay a RB, you pay Henry over Barkley. Of course the smart move is too pay neither and replace Barkley with a Day 2/3 draft pick.
Sacred cows! Are you that stubborn and hell bent on being right or argumentative that you can't acknowledge that OL makes a difference and the NYG OL isn't that good? Even if it is THAT good, Barkley hasn't failed as player here. He's done his part. PLease sit here and convince us all that Henry makes things all better in 2024. Please. Sell me that.
Well that's just it - I think the Giants tend to view certain positions as "addressed" and others as "open" and I think they have a tendency to ignore positions that they consider to be addressed.
We saw it years ago with not pursuing Whitworth because they had already addressed OLT with Flowers. We've seen them not draft any QBs at all since drafting DJ. We've seen them not even look at RBs earlier than the 5th round since drafting Barkley (and that was only last year).
I think they rest on their laurels too much, which is a systemic issue in their roster construction over the past decade, IMO.
whitworth was 3 gms ago. im pretty sure this regime has used multiple top 30 visits on rbs both previous draft seasons - including rbs who went day 1/2. james cook, tyjae spears, keondre miller, i think even jahmyr gibbs last year?
So that's one pla. Let BArkley go and take that money saved and wait for it.....SPEND IT ON a RB with 2100 carries.
I love it. At least it's interesting.
I was thinking more use the money on a big time guard but even that is probably unrealistic. Not sure you're getting a younger guard who is considered "good" for that money. You'd have to sign an older player. Maybe that is worth it.
I guess improved blocking won't help. I wonder why Tiki went from good to great as 2000-03 turned into 04-06. I guess it was all Tiki and Coughlin. Not Snee. Not Ohara. Certainly not KMAC.
Quote:
In comment 16411459 djm said:
Quote:
I don't want to limit his potential I love the guy as a player. Point is why move off a younger RB. for an older one with 900 more carries.
Also, Henry would be a different back behind this OL and you know it.
Man we love to blame the OL to protect our sacred cows.
Henry is a better player than Barkley. That's as close to a fact borne out by years of proof as you can get. He's also more durable; sure he could hit a wall but Barkley has a propensity to get hurt, too.
If you had to pay a RB, you pay Henry over Barkley. Of course the smart move is too pay neither and replace Barkley with a Day 2/3 draft pick.
Sacred cows! Are you that stubborn and hell bent on being right or argumentative that you can't acknowledge that OL makes a difference and the NYG OL isn't that good? Even if it is THAT good, Barkley hasn't failed as player here. He's done his part. PLease sit here and convince us all that Henry makes things all better in 2024. Please. Sell me that.
He doesn't. Neither does Barkley. That's why you don't pay either.
Barkley's done his part in contributing to the worst era of Giants football in a couple generations. Now he can go.
If the OL is good, everyone else on offense has an easier go. It's football dude.
But wait, I forgot, our OL is fine.
The Giants not being good at building a credible RB unit is absolutely a function of the clowns they had making free agent acquisitions/roster decisions in previous years. And GM hesitancy in using up draft picks on other RBs since Barkley was drafted because they didn't want to spread carries and snaps to other guys with their "golden-child" available.
Both of which are simply self-inflicted wounds with the thinking of the NYG Front Office/Coaching, and not factors to support that it is difficult to find productive RBs.
Good players never play for bad teams.
Bye.
If the OL is good, everyone else on offense has an easier go. It's football dude.
But wait, I forgot, our OL is fine.
So take the money you would have given Barkley and give it to an FA offensive lineman. Sound good?
So take the money you would have given Barkley and give it to an FA offensive lineman. Sound good?
Exactly.
I'd rather the team fail trying to fix the OL than fail by signing Barkley due to the most dangerous emotion that has swirled in the halls of 1925 Giants Way for way too long - sentimentality.
I took this exact same approach with Julius Randal on the Knicks the year before thibs arrived. Randal posted a bunch of “empty stats” the year prior. The team was horrible. Many calls for Randal to be traded or dumped. a losing player after all, he posted a bunch of empty stats, his team only won 20 or so games. New coach came in and turned Randle into an All-Star and the Knicks have been winning ever since.
This is just how I’m wired. I’m a believer in talent. I believe you work with that talent and get the most out of it. You don’t give up on it because of melancholy or whatever the fuck that means.
But because the OL is a problem, we'd be better off spending the money there than Barkley, right?
Quote:
I don’t have to defend or prop Barkley up. He’s been a good player. When healthy he’s a productive running back.
But because the OL is a problem, we'd be better off spending the money there than Barkley, right?
Didn't say that. I am done spinning around on this. I said my peace. You did yeoman work so you've got that going for you. Let's sign Henry instead. I am sure our running game will improve dramatically and he won't hit the wall anytime soon.
You offered nothing but platitudes and rallying cry nonsense. Fits right in here.
Yep because obviously that is EXACTLY what I said. Except we all know I didn't say that. Not once. Offer more.
Win the debate. Accomplish nothing. Just win the debate. Hey, have at it. You guys win.
Quote:
In comment 16411652 djm said:
Quote:
I don’t have to defend or prop Barkley up. He’s been a good player. When healthy he’s a productive running back.
But because the OL is a problem, we'd be better off spending the money there than Barkley, right?
Didn't say that. I am done spinning around on this. I said my peace. You did yeoman work so you've got that going for you. Let's sign Henry instead. I am sure our running game will improve dramatically and he won't hit the wall anytime soon.
You offered nothing but platitudes and rallying cry nonsense. Fits right in here.
I don't want to sign Henry instead. I want to put the money Basket would all for into the offensive line. Surely you agree with that, based on what you've said about the state of the OL. Am I wrong?
But you know what? On second thought, I think we should ignore the OL, it's fine as is. Just Let Barkley walk, sign DERRICK HENRY INSTEAD, and watch this offense grow into something special, overnight.
Yeoman's work.
But you know what? On second thought, I think we should ignore the OL, it's fine as is. Just Let Barkley walk, sign DERRICK HENRY INSTEAD, and watch this offense grow into something special, overnight.
Yeoman's work.
Did you see above where I said I don't want to sign Henry?
Stay with me here, I don't know for sure if that guard exists for that cost. I know Barkley is worth the money because I have seen him do it here. I'd like to think we can have both.
Moving on. Peace.
The OL is more important than the RB. I have learned that painful lesson. I just don't understand and believe we can't have both. Other teams do. We just freed up money from LW. May not even keep McKinney. DJ's deal is cuttable in one year. We are very cap clean here now and the years to come. We can't pay one guard and Barkley? WHy? LEt me see that play out first. Again, call me crazy but I think Barkley shines with a better OL, lol, even typing that out as if it is actually needed makes me laugh. How on earth someone wouldn't get that I will never know. You do get it. You just don't want to.
Is the OL one player away from being good, or is it a catastrophe that keeps Barkley from being all that he can be? I'm just trying to get this straight.
OK, no vet RB? Fine. We draft one. When? When is acceptable to draft a RB these days? BBI told me round 1, early is flat out sacrilege. Round 2? Maybe? So we draft a RB in round 2 and hope this guy is an NFL player.
It's risky. We have a good player here. 10-12 million for good players is not that much anymore. It's good value. We just paid 7-8 million for Parris fucking Campbell. We just paid 10 for Waller. Yet this place loses its mind because a workhorse RB gets the same money. It's weird.
Is the OL one player away from being good, or is it a catastrophe that keeps Barkley from being all that he can be? I'm just trying to get this straight.
What point are you trying to make now. Just make it.
Why did Tiki improve so much in 2004-05? Why did Eli's stats go from pretty solid to MVP caliber in 2011? Why did Rodney Hampton go from a good RB on a bad team to a good RB on a good team from 92-93? Context. Dynamics. Things can change.
IN a vacuum, Barkley can play at a high level. Even here in this mess of a team he's played at a pretty high level and at times a very high level. He's rushed for 5211 yards despite things being very messy here. Simple enough?
Quote:
Why not two guards and a swing tackle?
Is the OL one player away from being good, or is it a catastrophe that keeps Barkley from being all that he can be? I'm just trying to get this straight.
What point are you trying to make now. Just make it.
My point is why would you spend money on Barkley (or any other RB) when the OL is so bad? Why wouldn't you spend the Barkley money on the OL?
You've suggested spending on both Barkley and one guard. If the OL is only one guard away from being good enough to justify paying Barkley, is the OL actually a problem?
And I don't want to pay Henry. I brought him up to make the point that you aren't actually interested in getting better at RB; you're interested in keeping a player you like.
As the Giants have descended into garbage I've learned there's a segment of fans that don't really care about wins and losses.
I understood what he was saying.
I understood what he was saying.
That's fair. I want both.
It's risky. We have a good player here. 10-12 million for good players is not that much anymore. It's good value. We just paid 7-8 million for Parris fucking Campbell. We just paid 10 for Waller. Yet this place loses its mind because a workhorse RB gets the same money. It's weird.
Maybe they should stop doing dumb shit like that across the board. They should stop pretending they are 2-3 players away from being a contender, because they are not - so act accordingly.
I'm aware that Whitworth was multiple GMs ago, but when I see similar behavior with positions being ignored because they're deemed to be addressed, it is something that I consider worth keeping an eye on. Gettleman seemed to treat OC similarly as an addressed position with Halapio. I don't know if we can say that the same is going on with Schoen, but I don't think we can definitively say that it isn't.
Your point about the visits is definitely a very valid counter, and I agree that it's too short of a sample in just two drafts with this regime to say that the same problems from past GMs are still happening. But they haven't quite stopped happening just yet, IMO, so I consider it an open question until it has demonstrably stopped or the sample size grows enough to determine that it's still going on.
Let SB walk, spend the $$$ on OL in free agency and draft a couple of mid-late round 22 year olds with fresh legs. Maybe add a cheap vet to provide some stability while the rookies learn to block, etc. That’s the smart move.
Quote:
if the Giants let Barkley go, shit, if they traded him down the stretch of 22 for an amazing 3rd round pick, and then used that 12 million or so in 23 on lets say a guard, are we really any better in 23? Really? You're telling me we sign some B- 28 year old guard in FA last spring, he stays healthy (big IF as we know) --the Giants go 10-7 in 23? WHo is the RB?
This is not an addition by subtraction thing. Cmon already. Barkley is a good player stop acting butt hurt because the Giants didn't draft Bradley Chubb or Darnold or Jackson and be objective for one moment. You telling me with some roster upgrades Barkley can't subsequently improve as a result? 2022 never happened I take it. HE wasn't the only worthwhile player to watch in 23 I take it. Those 1400 or so all purpose yards and 10 total TDs playing for the 1980 Saints offense was my imagination.
I want to hear a plan. Not hyperbole drama queen nonsense if we're letting Barkley walk.
"Better in '23" is the clue that you don't actually want a plan. You want simplistic short-term answers. With or without Barkley in 2023 (and now in 2024) the Giants have no shot at competing for a championship. None.
Many of us told you the Giants had no chance of winning 10 games in 2023 before the season even started. Is there a move that would have changed that? Probably not. Are there moves that would have begun to benefit the Giants in 2024 and beyond? Absolutely, and all of them involve acquiring as many good value players and draft picks as you can in the hopes of building a foundation that can actually compete.
If they had traded Barkley for a 3rd round pick in 2022, spent that money elsewhere they would be better off now, absolutely.
So now 2023 was a waste, and the same people are here telling us we need to run it back with the same basic cast of characters in 2024. Guess the outcome?
I don't know how you reached that conclusion. No one said that.
We're talking about one good player on a bad team. I want that player back.
Quote:
It's risky. We have a good player here. 10-12 million for good players is not that much anymore. It's good value. We just paid 7-8 million for Parris fucking Campbell. We just paid 10 for Waller. Yet this place loses its mind because a workhorse RB gets the same money. It's weird.
Maybe they should stop doing dumb shit like that across the board. They should stop pretending they are 2-3 players away from being a contender, because they are not - so act accordingly.
Sorry this is ...i don't even know what word to use. SO we can't keep or sign a good player who could play another 3 years because we suck?
OK. We can move on. Sign bad players then.
Barkley is a winning player despite losing a lot here in NY. Sometimes I will relent. Not now. I'll die on this hill. He's an elite talent. To be fair he's gotten hurt a lot but he's now 3 years removed from the brutal knee. I can live with missing 2-3 games like last season and maybe he doesn't step on someone's foot in 2024.
Don't dump the baby out with the bathwater. You need OL without or without Barkley. You ain't signing 2 high priced guards and we all know that. Good luck even finding one in FA but it's not crazy to think we can find one. Draft another one.
Sorry this is ...i don't even know what word to use. SO we can't keep or sign a good player who could play another 3 years because we suck?
OK. We can move on. Sign bad players then.
Because that's what I said. Good god.
So now you want Barkley back for 3 years, presumably at $10+ million per year. And you don't think that money could be better spend elsewhere and an adequate replacement can be found for Barkley at significant savings?
You should have stuck with the dramatic "bye" you offered three hours ago.
Quote:
if you don't think one single upgrade along the OL and everyone else holding firm would help Barkley and anyone else on offense, you're a fucking moron.
If the OL is good, everyone else on offense has an easier go. It's football dude.
But wait, I forgot, our OL is fine.
So take the money you would have given Barkley and give it to an FA offensive lineman. Sound good?
Cap went up $30m we can get our interior OL. I loved the center last year. Just wish he was bigger. Them Dt’s are not getting smaller
Barkley is a winning player despite losing a lot here in NY. Sometimes I will relent. Not now. I'll die on this hill. He's an elite talent. To be fair he's gotten hurt a lot but he's now 3 years removed from the brutal knee. I can live with missing 2-3 games like last season and maybe he doesn't step on someone's foot in 2024.
Don't dump the baby out with the bathwater. You need OL without or without Barkley. You ain't signing 2 high priced guards and we all know that. Good luck even finding one in FA but it's not crazy to think we can find one. Draft another one.
Honestly djm, you have died on this hill/thread about 8 times already. It's like looking at the Gettysburg battlefield the day after at this point.
Quote:
Whitworth was 3 GMs ago. I'm pretty sure this regime has used multiple top 30 visits on RBs both previous draft seasons - including RBs who went day 1/2. James Cook, Tyjae Spears, Keondre Miller, I think even Jahmyr Gibbs last year?
I'm aware that Whitworth was multiple GMs ago, but when I see similar behavior with positions being ignored because they're deemed to be addressed, it is something that I consider worth keeping an eye on. Gettleman seemed to treat OC similarly as an addressed position with Halapio. I don't know if we can say that the same is going on with Schoen, but I don't think we can definitively say that it isn't.
Your point about the visits is definitely a very valid counter, and I agree that it's too short of a sample in just two drafts with this regime to say that the same problems from past GMs are still happening. But they haven't quite stopped happening just yet, IMO, so I consider it an open question until it has demonstrably stopped or the sample size grows enough to determine that it's still going on.
wasnt paying nate solder a pretty big tell that the organization was using their resources very differently than the year prior when they passed on an older whitworth at lower $? each of those 3 different regimes has had different priorities with resource allocation and there are lots of examples that would prove so. the linkage is bad overall results.
specific to the RB position, each of them took shots at rbs in the draft. david wilson in 12, michael cox 13, andre williams in 14, paul perkins 16, wayne gallman 17, barkley 18, gary brigthwell 21, eric gray 23. all of them i think picked higher than the chiefs picked pacheco.
the core problem as it is on repeat in many of these conversations around each different position is that finding talent is hard even if you invest resources. every team is spending 10's of millions looking for the same things. fans expectations exceed the reality of the bust rates leaguewide.
a few other points on barkley specifically - in his full sample of 32 games under this regime (incl playoffs) the team's record is 16-15-1 and he leads the team with 22 tds. in many of those wins i can think of plays he made from their first win in ten, to the gb game in london, to him closing out the washington game in 22, to the tds vs minny in the playoffs, to the catch in the arizona comeback, to the 2 td catches vs wash this year. there are probably others im forgetting too but the bottom line is in a league where many games are won/lost on 1 play he was the difference in a bunch of wins for this coach and this gm forgetting whatever other history he's had.
this year he was on field for 5 wins with 2 different backup qbs, with 2 of those 5 wins against playoff teams (GB, PHI). Very close to 2 more against LAR, BUF. i bring that up because the "tear it down to the studs" crew dismisses the fact that doing that puts a rookie QB in the position bryce young was in last year, and i dont think that's ideal. there is a price where barkley doesnt make sense but there is also a price where he does make sense. anyone as productive as he is will likely cost similar in FA and neither he nor a FA should stop them from still trying to do better to find a quality future alternative in the draft.
None except Mara and his inability to make the hard choices.
they picked eric gray #172 last year and forget barkley, hs 2.8 ypc couldnt beat out breida (whose was 2.7). like most rookies he had pass pro issues all preseason. in the 3 games barkley didnt play the highest rushing total either put up was 30 yards. gray got 12 carries vs miami he put up 25 yards.
nyg have 6 picks higher than that this year, are you using one of them to hope to get a better outcome than gray?
what if the highest 3 picks get traded for a QB and now the rest of your draft is picks #70, #108, #140, #185?
this years RB class is generally considered weaker than last year's too.
They should be able to get 1 of the 2-5 ranked backs between 80-110. Paying Saqoun because you’re scared you could draft Eric Gray instead of Kyren Williams or Pacheco isn’t a good way to run a team. And if you’re concerned about missing out on one in the draft, sign a cheaper vet.
They don’t need to get 100% of Barkley’s production from the backfield next year, they’d be fine with 75% of it. Swfit’s market value is around $5 million, same with Singletary and Moss. Maybe Rico Dowdle for $2-3 million is budding good back that has been buried on the depth chart.
thinking the probability of outcomes is in any way similar between finding a steal like pacheco or a typical rookie year like gray just had is quite the naive false equivalence. i dont think most teams are banking on finding starter level players at any position in the mid-rounds of the draft 2 months ahead of the draft no less.
if any player were younger and better than another player and on the same open market why would they get paid less?
i have never and do not endorse paying barkley something crazy, but if they stay disciplined to the market rate it should be in accordance with the rest of the market. if not then you let him walk and angle for the comp pick.
You don't think there are certain instances where a player's brand name gets him a little bit of a surcharge benefit?
He also has a higher career YPC, and only 12 less touchdowns in 18 less games. Swift at $5-7 million is a better use of cap dollars than Barkley at $13 million.
He also has a higher career YPC, and only 12 less touchdowns in 18 less games. Swift at $5-7 million is a better use of cap dollars than Barkley at $13 million.
Other GMs know the disparity in OL and QB play from the Eagles and Giants, and its effects on production. Do you think the Texans want Swift and the cost savings over Barkley? I don’t.
And I’d rather just pass on swift entirely at $7m. He’s likely going to look like Miles Sanders unless he goes somewhere with a plus OL. Ohh and he will go back to being injured all the time again.
Quote:
if any player were younger and better than another player and on the same open market why would they get paid less?
You don't think there are certain instances where a player's brand name gets him a little bit of a surcharge benefit?
of course - bad deals happen all the time. but it's not a foregone conclusion. like i said he could end up getting a bigger deal than wherever they peg his value, in that case then they have to let him walk.
The lions were ranked 22nd last year when he averaged 5.5 ypc.
Quote:
And the reason he would be getting paid less is that he only has one season of RB1 production, that seems pretty obvious.
He also has a higher career YPC, and only 12 less touchdowns in 18 less games. Swift at $5-7 million is a better use of cap dollars than Barkley at $13 million.
Other GMs know the disparity in OL and QB play from the Eagles and Giants, and its effects on production. Do you think the Texans want Swift and the cost savings over Barkley? I don’t.
And I’d rather just pass on swift entirely at $7m. He’s likely going to look like Miles Sanders unless he goes somewhere with a plus OL. Ohh and he will go back to being injured all the time again.
totally agree about swift at that $. it is exactly like sanders. there's a reason detroit moved on so cheaply (and then went and spent a 1st on gibbs and added montgomery for more $ than swift).
moss is the most appealing name for me, only big negative is that last year he had a bunch of injuries in high usage.
The lions were ranked 22nd last year when he averaged 5.5 ypc.
$7m is a lot for 120 carries, which is what he handled every year until Philly. If you want to bet on him repeating Philly, my guess is you’ll regret it. If it’s $7m for Swift or a mid round pick and a more reasonable vet, I’m going the later route.
But if they want someone more productive, I think $7 million is worth the risk to see if he repeats his Philly year, as long as it’s a 1 year deal or a second year that has limited guarantees.
Quote:
Provide the same security for a rookie QB?
they picked eric gray #172 last year and forget barkley, hs 2.8 ypc couldnt beat out breida (whose was 2.7). like most rookies he had pass pro issues all preseason. in the 3 games barkley didnt play the highest rushing total either put up was 30 yards. gray got 12 carries vs miami he put up 25 yards.
nyg have 6 picks higher than that this year, are you using one of them to hope to get a better outcome than gray?
what if the highest 3 picks get traded for a QB and now the rest of your draft is picks #70, #108, #140, #185?
this years RB class is generally considered weaker than last year's too.
Yeah, Gray must be a bust. What an opportunity he was given and obviously blew it.
Just keep signing Barkley until he is dead. No one else can run the ball for the Giants.
If we did, we wouldn’t need Barkley at all.