Than last year? I’d say no
How are we gonna score points?
We traded Taylor for Lock, Barkley for Singletary and Waller for blockers.
Upgraded the OL hopefully, 100% the right direction. Hopefully the right OL coach and players
We have no playmakers on O
On D we got Burns, a good get. Lost Robinson. Lost McKinney and Adoree.
What would you do to improve the roster with somewhat limited money and picks? I would sign Adoree back, the CB market is thin and we could probably get him relatively cheap. I go QB at 6 if one is there with 2nd option WR. If we go QB in 2nd I get a WR.
What move didn’t you like? While I love Burns as a player, giving up picks and paying too $$ doesn’t seem to make sense for the Giants. It seems a lot like the Leonard Williams situation, good player but paid top $$ to get him and gave up picks. I would have rather a trade for a top WR. I love Williams and I love Burns, just not the right time imo.
Losing Waller means nothing bc he provided nothing last year. On the defense DL and 2nd CB are question marks but if there is progression could be just as good as last year
But we've learned that nothing matters on offense unless you fix the OL.
We've also learned that who is in the secondary won't matter as much unless you can rush the passer.
The biggest problem the Giants have remaining is they don't have a QB.
I expect improvement in the running game. Barkley averaged 3.9 ypc. That's not good.
Either way, there is still the draft, and never underestimate a team with improved play at the LOS.
I will say, I think we’ve given Bricillo enough talent to have at least a serviceable line, which should help. Adding another pass rusher is also big.
Get a QB and some competition in the secondary and at WR and I’ll feel better.
(2) He will get hurt again and Giants fans will say it was the right move to let him go.
Yes, they will be a better team, and they still have the draft and FA to go. The OL is improved with 4 new OL, 2 who should be starting. Waller was out much of the year. The Giants added 2 blocking TEs. Burns is a huge addition that should give. Biggest issue last year was QB and blocking. QB can't be any worse, and OL/TE additions plus a new OL coach should improve the worst part of the team
It's a very real possibility hence why I am not a fan of using our 2025 first to move up.
(2) He will get hurt again and Giants fans will say it was the right move to let him go.
What if he just has an average year behind that OL? I think he is cooked if asked to play 85% of the snaps like he did here. If he is a spot duty guy he can be successful but that’s a high cost for a spot duty guy. Even if he has a good year, it was time for the Giants to move on. He’s not a long term answer with the wear and tear he has.
Quote:
I think we're going to suck this season.
It's a very real possibility hence why I am not a fan of using our 2025 first to move up.
This doesn't make much sense. The Giants are likely going to suck this season whether or not they trade up, if you trade up at least you get a real QB prospect and maybe 26 is a revival year.
(2) He will get hurt again and Giants fans will say it was the right move to let him go.
And the third thing is the league will have us playing Philly earlier than usual to ensure Barkley has his shot against us.
Probably a MNF. In Philly.
To answer the OPs question, yes we are a better team because we might have the best front 7 in football and we (on paper) upgraded the OL. Waller did nothing last year so that isn’t a loss if you are comparing 2024 potential vs 2023 actuality.
Quote:
In comment 16436105 SFGFNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
I think we're going to suck this season.
It's a very real possibility hence why I am not a fan of using our 2025 first to move up.
This doesn't make much sense. The Giants are likely going to suck this season whether or not they trade up, if you trade up at least you get a real QB prospect and maybe 26 is a revival year.
I love that if. Yeah, if they nail the QB but to only look at the upside is foolish. You can't ignore the downside. How do you think Carolina is feeling about their trade last year? Most trade ups for QBs fail, specifically when that team has major holes across the roster. The trade ups for Mahomes and Buffalo made sense because those were good teams prior to getting their QB. Yes, if they nail the QB position then it will probably be worth it. If it doesn't work out, this team is set back multiple years again.
Yes, they will be a better team, and they still have the draft and FA to go. The OL is improved with 4 new OL, 2 who should be starting. Waller was out much of the year. The Giants added 2 blocking TEs. Burns is a huge addition that should give. Biggest issue last year was QB and blocking. QB can't be any worse, and OL/TE additions plus a new OL coach should improve the worst part of the team
Regarding Burns, I just don’t agree with using picks and making him the highest paid player. He is a very good player, but the Giants need so many players and have only so much cap space. We should have been able to get a good player on a cost controlled contract at that 2nd round pick. I think Burns was a one player away move and we clearly need more than that. Again it seems very similar to Williams, we had to give picks and pay him too $$ and it never worked out but I loved Williams and he was a good player for us.
Also, it’s worth noting how much worse the back 7 has gotten on paper. They’ve lost McKinney, Jackson, Simmons, and Holmes and have replaced them with only Mills…
The interior DL too - they’ve now lost LW and Robinson and have not replaced either guy.
Going from Taylor to Lock also a downgrade. RB obviously a downgrade.
So I’m not sure where this team has definitively gotten better, besides edge and RT (but the RT may still be Neal)
Quote:
In comment 16436118 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
In comment 16436105 SFGFNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
I think we're going to suck this season.
It's a very real possibility hence why I am not a fan of using our 2025 first to move up.
This doesn't make much sense. The Giants are likely going to suck this season whether or not they trade up, if you trade up at least you get a real QB prospect and maybe 26 is a revival year.
I love that if. Yeah, if they nail the QB but to only look at the upside is foolish. You can't ignore the downside. How do you think Carolina is feeling about their trade last year? Most trade ups for QBs fail, specifically when that team has major holes across the roster. The trade ups for Mahomes and Buffalo made sense because those were good teams prior to getting their QB. Yes, if they nail the QB position then it will probably be worth it. If it doesn't work out, this team is set back multiple years again.
So because it's risky they shouldn't do it? That's a crazy way to run a franchise.
You have to trust your evaluations and swing for the fences every once in awhile. Doesn't always work out but that doesn't mean you stop trying.
Quote:
passrusher? For the life of me, I don't understand the thought process that the Giants should wait until they are a better team to make moves to improve the team. That's how you wind up shitty for another decade.
Yes, they will be a better team, and they still have the draft and FA to go. The OL is improved with 4 new OL, 2 who should be starting. Waller was out much of the year. The Giants added 2 blocking TEs. Burns is a huge addition that should give. Biggest issue last year was QB and blocking. QB can't be any worse, and OL/TE additions plus a new OL coach should improve the worst part of the team
Regarding Burns, I just don’t agree with using picks and making him the highest paid player. He is a very good player, but the Giants need so many players and have only so much cap space. We should have been able to get a good player on a cost controlled contract at that 2nd round pick. I think Burns was a one player away move and we clearly need more than that. Again it seems very similar to Williams, we had to give picks and pay him too $$ and it never worked out but I loved Williams and he was a good player for us.
The needed a ton of good players when they paid Daniel Jones too. Brian Burns is a very good football player and they have him for his prime.
You can’t become a good team without adding good players to the roster. They likely weren’t getting a player as good as Burns in the second round.
Also, it’s worth noting how much worse the back 7 has gotten on paper. They’ve lost McKinney, Jackson, Simmons, and Holmes and have replaced them with only Mills…
The interior DL too - they’ve now lost LW and Robinson and have not replaced either guy.
Going from Taylor to Lock also a downgrade. RB obviously a downgrade.
So I’m not sure where this team has definitively gotten better, besides edge and RT (but the RT may still be Neal)
Bredeson and Glowinski, did they really seem like they should be starting offensive linemen in the NFL?
Quote:
In comment 16436125 LW_Giants said:
Quote:
In comment 16436118 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
In comment 16436105 SFGFNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
I think we're going to suck this season.
It's a very real possibility hence why I am not a fan of using our 2025 first to move up.
This doesn't make much sense. The Giants are likely going to suck this season whether or not they trade up, if you trade up at least you get a real QB prospect and maybe 26 is a revival year.
I love that if. Yeah, if they nail the QB but to only look at the upside is foolish. You can't ignore the downside. How do you think Carolina is feeling about their trade last year? Most trade ups for QBs fail, specifically when that team has major holes across the roster. The trade ups for Mahomes and Buffalo made sense because those were good teams prior to getting their QB. Yes, if they nail the QB position then it will probably be worth it. If it doesn't work out, this team is set back multiple years again.
So because it's risky they shouldn't do it? That's a crazy way to run a franchise.
You have to trust your evaluations and swing for the fences every once in awhile. Doesn't always work out but that doesn't mean you stop trying.
There is risk and there is stupidity. What you see as a risk is just not smart. We had a chance to draft Herbert but the year we need a QB again the only way is to mortgage our future? I'm not against a small trade up but giving up a shit ton like Carolina did was stupid. If NE takes a QB then Arizona is almost definitely taking MHJ. That just leaves LAC that I believe would really benefit from trading down. That I am fine with. Trading up to 3? It seems way too expensive considering we traded away pick 39. Even if we get a worthwhile QB, go look at the statistics. The only tradeups that resulted in championships are the KC trade for Mahomes. Teams put way too much value on QBs. Yes, it is the most important position in sports but even then it is too much. SF is a perfect example of building up the team to give their QB a chance. We see countless teams trade up for QBs who fail because of the surrounding talent. So, to answer your question, no it isn't because it is risky. It is because when you are as deficient as we are with talent, even of we nail the QB pick, the odds of this team succeeding is slim. It is risk/reward. What is the reward? It isn't as simple as saying we have our QB.
I absolutely disagree. The QB rom is marginally better. We know Jones is a bust, that has not changed. DeVito is a better player now, then he was last year, as he has game experience and did marginally well when he played.
I will go with Lock is an upgrade from Taylor because he is less likely to get injured every time he steps on the field, aka availability makes him an upgrade alone.. He is younger with a better arm, also an upgrade. Taylor was possibly the "smarter" player because of experience. But overall, even though I am not a Lock fan, I think he is better for the Giants than Taylor.
Yea I don’t get it. All we heard were complaints about the pass rush so they paid for a premium position for one of the better ones in the league who is also in his prime.
(2) He will get hurt again and Giants fans will say it was the right move to let him go.
No, It's not good but it's not worse. We replaced Taylor with Lock ... it's about just as very bad with possible upside...
It is a depressing state, but not worse. It's depressing because the expectation should be to improve.
Quote:
Which is kind of impressive considering it will take up about 20% of the total salary cao
I absolutely disagree. The QB rom is marginally better. We know Jones is a bust, that has not changed. DeVito is a better player now, then he was last year, as he has game experience and did marginally well when he played.
I will go with Lock is an upgrade from Taylor because he is less likely to get injured every time he steps on the field, aka availability makes him an upgrade alone.. He is younger with a better arm, also an upgrade. Taylor was possibly the "smarter" player because of experience. But overall, even though I am not a Lock fan, I think he is better for the Giants than Taylor.
Jones is a worse player going into this year than last. He is a running QB recovering from an ACL tear, no matter how bad he was before, he's even worse now, and he is still the assumed starter
Lock doesn't have the pedigree that Taylor has. While yes, availability should be an upgrade, Taylor was a journey man starter for many years. Saying either is better is a valid opinion, but I would rather have Taylor (and the league agrees based on the fact that Taylor got a larger contract).
Devito, yes should be better, but as a 3rd stringer, his improvement means very little.
All in all, the room is worse, especially when you weight it by the position on the depth chart
There was no downside to this trade unless you think it prevents us from moving up from 6 but we have future picks for that. It also allows a bit of freedom on what to do with Thibs, as he can net a solid pick if he plays like he did in 2023.
There is risk and there is stupidity. What you see as a risk is just not smart. We had a chance to draft Herbert but the year we need a QB again the only way is to mortgage our future? I'm not against a small trade up but giving up a shit ton like Carolina did was stupid. If NE takes a QB then Arizona is almost definitely taking MHJ. That just leaves LAC that I believe would really benefit from trading down. That I am fine with. Trading up to 3? It seems way too expensive considering we traded away pick 39. Even if we get a worthwhile QB, go look at the statistics. The only tradeups that resulted in championships are the KC trade for Mahomes. Teams put way too much value on QBs. Yes, it is the most important position in sports but even then it is too much. SF is a perfect example of building up the team to give their QB a chance. We see countless teams trade up for QBs who fail because of the surrounding talent. So, to answer your question, no it isn't because it is risky. It is because when you are as deficient as we are with talent, even of we nail the QB pick, the odds of this team succeeding is slim. It is risk/reward. What is the reward? It isn't as simple as saying we have our QB.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I think if a QB you believe in is there you try and get him. That doesn't mean the other teams picking ahead will play ball--in which case I'd trade down and accumulate assets for 25 since we'll be looking for a QB then again--but you should try.
Also, I think you're writing Carolina off too early, Bryce Young had a terrible year, but that doesn't mean he's a bust just yet.
Also, it’s worth noting how much worse the back 7 has gotten on paper. They’ve lost McKinney, Jackson, Simmons, and Holmes and have replaced them with only Mills…
The interior DL too - they’ve now lost LW and Robinson and have not replaced either guy.
Going from Taylor to Lock also a downgrade. RB obviously a downgrade.
So I’m not sure where this team has definitively gotten better, besides edge and RT (but the RT may still be Neal)
Well, getting better at two premier positions (Edge/OT) is a good start IMO.
It certainly may not mean that, I'm just saying my preference if the top 4 guys are gone is to punt on the QB question until 25. I'm not a Penix/Nix fan (although if I had to choose, I'd prefer Nix).
the nfl is a very flatly talented league and the small% of players who are on a different talent level dont change teams - which is why those teams tend to be winning teams.
this roster is still in the mushy middle but it's young, improving, and the coaching staff/FO now have 2 years of experience under their belts. you would hope in year 3 even if the talent level has remained constant they would be able to adapt towards the positive and get better results.
remember something like half of the league is now led by coaches with less experience than daboll. if he is the goods he is using that extra experience to his advantage and has this team farther ahead of others.
Quote:
Yeah, good ones. Look at contending teams, how many elite players do they have? I bet it’s more than 2. Plugging holes isn’t good enough. Elite players have a multiplier effect in the NFL, you see it time and time again.
Yea I don’t get it. All we heard were complaints about the pass rush so they paid for a premium position for one of the better ones in the league who is also in his prime.
It’s not the player, it’s the double edged sword. We paid top $$ for Burns and gave up a premium pick. I consider premium picks 1st, 2nd and 3rd rounders. You need to grow some of your own players to go with the high priced guys.
Quote:
In comment 16436153 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
Yeah, good ones. Look at contending teams, how many elite players do they have? I bet it’s more than 2. Plugging holes isn’t good enough. Elite players have a multiplier effect in the NFL, you see it time and time again.
Yea I don’t get it. All we heard were complaints about the pass rush so they paid for a premium position for one of the better ones in the league who is also in his prime.
It’s not the player, it’s the double edged sword. We paid top $$ for Burns and gave up a premium pick. I consider premium picks 1st, 2nd and 3rd rounders. You need to grow some of your own players to go with the high priced guys.
They used a premium pick on Jones and paid him, a player of their own. What’s the difference?
Pay good players at premium positions, it doesn’t matter if they’re yours or another teams. Burns is likely better than whatever player of their own they would get in the second round over the next 5 years.
Starters Gained: Singletary, Burns, Runyan, Elumonor
Startes Lost: Bredeson, Barkley, McKinney, Robinson
Biggest Roster Concerns: QB, CB2, WR1
The serious injuries to Jones has me pessimistic.
Quote:
In comment 16436153 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
Yeah, good ones. Look at contending teams, how many elite players do they have? I bet it’s more than 2. Plugging holes isn’t good enough. Elite players have a multiplier effect in the NFL, you see it time and time again.
Yea I don’t get it. All we heard were complaints about the pass rush so they paid for a premium position for one of the better ones in the league who is also in his prime.
It’s not the player, it’s the double edged sword. We paid top $$ for Burns and gave up a premium pick. I consider premium picks 1st, 2nd and 3rd rounders. You need to grow some of your own players to go with the high priced guys.
So what, most UFAs bust or the return doesn’t meet the investment, and pass rush options are almost non existent. You can’t operate in todays NFL being safe with every single decision and expect that it will work and your picks will all pan out. We traded a low hit rate premium pick for as close to a sure thing as you’ll find.
The OL should be better, but that’s not saying much. Barkley to Singletary is a bit of a downgrade, but I don’t think it’s as much as some say. Singletary can play, and won’t run himself into as many TFL plays as Saquon did. The WR group still needs upgrading, as does the QB room.
Quote:
In comment 16436134 Blue The Dog said:
Quote:
Which is kind of impressive considering it will take up about 20% of the total salary cao
I absolutely disagree. The QB rom is marginally better. We know Jones is a bust, that has not changed. DeVito is a better player now, then he was last year, as he has game experience and did marginally well when he played.
I will go with Lock is an upgrade from Taylor because he is less likely to get injured every time he steps on the field, aka availability makes him an upgrade alone.. He is younger with a better arm, also an upgrade. Taylor was possibly the "smarter" player because of experience. But overall, even though I am not a Lock fan, I think he is better for the Giants than Taylor.
Jones is a worse player going into this year than last. He is a running QB recovering from an ACL tear, no matter how bad he was before, he's even worse now, and he is still the assumed starter
Lock doesn't have the pedigree that Taylor has. While yes, availability should be an upgrade, Taylor was a journey man starter for many years. Saying either is better is a valid opinion, but I would rather have Taylor (and the league agrees based on the fact that Taylor got a larger contract).
Devito, yes should be better, but as a 3rd stringer, his improvement means very little.
All in all, the room is worse, especially when you weight it by the position on the depth chart
Jones is an ineffective QB, no matter what - that has not changed.
I'll take Locke over Taylor at this point in time. Tired of the open WRs getting balls thrown two yards short -fairly common occurrence with TT.
Quote:
I think we're going to suck this season.
It's a very real possibility hence why I am not a fan of using our 2025 first to move up.
If we end up 6-11 again next year and picking 6th, what do they do then? Save the 2026 first round pick and see if they can only win 3 games to get a QB?
At some point you have to identify a solution and work to get it rather than sitting on your couch and waiting for it to knock on your door.
But we've learned that nothing matters on offense unless you fix the OL.
We've also learned that who is in the secondary won't matter as much unless you can rush the passer.
The biggest problem the Giants have remaining is they don't have a QB.
How does the math on this work? Waller did nothing last year. Burns’ value is greater than Barkley + McKinney. Add in potentially fixing 1 or 2 OL issues and I’m not sure I follow.
Offense will depend on whether the addition of Runyon and Eleumanor shore up the Oline (with improved play from Neal). If the Oline is better, the offense will be better even without Barkley.
But at the end of the day this is a passing league, and we don’t have anyone who has proven to be a legitimate NFL passer. If we are going to see Jones under center holding the ball all day, the improvement in the Oline won’t be that impactful.
Quote:
In comment 16436153 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
Yeah, good ones. Look at contending teams, how many elite players do they have? I bet it’s more than 2. Plugging holes isn’t good enough. Elite players have a multiplier effect in the NFL, you see it time and time again.
Yea I don’t get it. All we heard were complaints about the pass rush so they paid for a premium position for one of the better ones in the league who is also in his prime.
It’s not the player, it’s the double edged sword. We paid top $$ for Burns and gave up a premium pick. I consider premium picks 1st, 2nd and 3rd rounders. You need to grow some of your own players to go with the high priced guys.
Rudy - as a concept i think the key to evaluating teams right now is to look at the core top 20% of the roster right now more than the rest. that is where teams have placed their major investments, Burns and Runyan each being the giants latest.
the reason they paid as much as they did for Burns is because it is nearly impossible to get upgrades like him at the core player level at age 26. look at this chart, the franchise tag for edges is trending towards the highest non-qb position and the value of it is basically the same as burns' aav (28.2m):
of the 50 non-ST players on an active roster the top 20% is 10 players. burns, lawrence, thomas, okereke, waller, runyan, jones, thibodeaux, neal, elumeanor.
the first 4 names on that list may be as good as any teams top 4 non-qbs leaguewide. they need to keep adding more burns/okereke/lawrence/thomas, not less.
Quote:
In comment 16436158 ajr2456 said:
Quote:
In comment 16436153 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
Yeah, good ones. Look at contending teams, how many elite players do they have? I bet it’s more than 2. Plugging holes isn’t good enough. Elite players have a multiplier effect in the NFL, you see it time and time again.
Yea I don’t get it. All we heard were complaints about the pass rush so they paid for a premium position for one of the better ones in the league who is also in his prime.
It’s not the player, it’s the double edged sword. We paid top $$ for Burns and gave up a premium pick. I consider premium picks 1st, 2nd and 3rd rounders. You need to grow some of your own players to go with the high priced guys.
They used a premium pick on Jones and paid him, a player of their own. What’s the difference?
Pay good players at premium positions, it doesn’t matter if they’re yours or another teams. Burns is likely better than whatever player of their own they would get in the second round over the next 5 years.
They used a premium on Jones but we’re not paying him at a premium. They could have moved on and never paid him at a premium.
You are correct that Burns is most likely better than any player we get in the 2nd but we are paying him more than a 1st round pick and you never know how a guy is going to play in your system. I see it as a similar move to Williams and that didn’t work out so well. Great player that didn’t convert to wins
Offense will depend on whether the addition of Runyon and Eleumanor shore up the Oline (with improved play from Neal). If the Oline is better, the offense will be better even without Barkley.
But at the end of the day this is a passing league, and we don’t have anyone who has proven to be a legitimate NFL passer. If we are going to see Jones under center holding the ball all day, the improvement in the Oline won’t be that impactful.
Also very much depends on JMS getting better, which unfortunately, is not a given.
You are correct that Burns is most likely better than any player we get in the 2nd but we are paying him more than a 1st round pick and you never know how a guy is going to play in your system. I see it as a similar move to Williams and that didn’t work out so well. Great player that didn’t convert to wins
at present burns is the most accomplished player on the roster with lawrence the only legitimate alternative. he started 2 of the last 3 pro bowls.
he is absolutely a first round talent - that is why the rams offered 2 firsts for him about 18 months ago.
what do you think the odds are of getting another dexter lawrence with any first or second round pick? jordan davis was a monster in the 2022 draft and he is not that. burns is similar. he is easily a level better than thibodeaux, who was a 5th overall pick in a very good edge draft.
so was he non-premium last year when his cap hit was only 15m and behind dozens of non-qbs?
is justin herbert's deal non premium since his cap hit is 19m this year?
or hurts since his cap hit is 13m?
seems like maybe looking at a 1 year cap hit isnt the best way to make that judgement?
Quote:
He has the the fifth highest cap hit for 2024 in the entire league.
so was he non-premium last year when his cap hit was only 15m and behind dozens of non-qbs?
is justin herbert's deal non premium since his cap hit is 19m this year?
or hurts since his cap hit is 13m?
seems like maybe looking at a 1 year cap hit isnt the best way to make that judgement?
Paying Jones $86 million over two years isn’t a premium?
Quote:
In comment 16436288 ajr2456 said:
Quote:
He has the the fifth highest cap hit for 2024 in the entire league.
so was he non-premium last year when his cap hit was only 15m and behind dozens of non-qbs?
is justin herbert's deal non premium since his cap hit is 19m this year?
or hurts since his cap hit is 13m?
seems like maybe looking at a 1 year cap hit isnt the best way to make that judgement?
Paying Jones $86 million over two years isn’t a premium?
11th highest active guarantee among qbs, 12th highest aav, and basically half as much guaranteed as the top guys (1/3 as much as watson's 230m). i dont think that's premium personally.
and once cowboys extend dak and dolphins extend tua that drops 2 spots. if detroit extends goff it's 3. and the only reason rodgers is behind him is because he took a big paycut to facilitate the trade. when rodgers extended in 2022 he had the highest aav of any qb.
Yes, they will be a better team, and they still have the draft and FA to go. The OL is improved with 4 new OL, 2 who should be starting. Waller was out much of the year. The Giants added 2 blocking TEs. Burns is a huge addition that should give. Biggest issue last year was QB and blocking. QB can't be any worse, and OL/TE additions plus a new OL coach should improve the worst part of the team
I agree. It seems like the plan for some would be to not sign good players until we get more good players. Don't spend the money good players want until we find enough scrubs and rookies to be a good team.
Quote:
(minus injuries since that can’t be predicted)
unfortunately, this is the giants and it can be predicted. 1 of the 2 Burns or KT will get injured in camp and therefore for they won’t start the season together on the field. Then as the season progresses and the injured player return the other will pick up an injury. They will never be healthy at the same time. I have seen this movie soooo many times….
Sure but at some point that luck will turn. We can only try and not sign injury prone players, what happens after that can’t really be prevented.
that was a choice the team made. the total 82m guarantee is all paid out in the first 2 years, how the giants structured that on their cap was up to them. they chose to deflate year 1 and inflate year 2 on the cap. doesnt change the total $ or how the overall contract should be viewed.
cherry picking individual season cap hits without the context of a full deal is moronic. or its not and chris jones at 7m this year is a screaming bargain! how did the chiefs do it?!?!!?
When they drafted him they were not paying him at a premium. They then chose to pay him that. His cap # is what it is, they didn’t want to go all in on Jones and because of the short term contract pay the price for that.
But you’re comparing 2 different scenarios. The Giants didn’t have to give up picks to sign Jones to the big contract. They gave up picks and big money to sign Burns. To me that is too steep a price since I believe that you should be able to find a quality starter in round 2. Not as good as Burns most likely but we could have found an equally good FA maybe not at DE and had our 2nd round pick. If there was a year left on Burns contract at the lower rate it would have been more desirable.
A little over 20% of second round picks see second contracts with the team that drafted them, there’s a better chance that at age 25/26 that player is no longer a Giant than he is. Instead they got one of the better players in the league.
The Giants were adding a pass rusher in FA and instead of just throwing cash at an older player, they parted with a 2nd round pick to get one of the better ones who are in their prime.
Quote:
He has the the fifth highest cap hit for 2024 in the entire league.
When they drafted him they were not paying him at a premium. They then chose to pay him that. His cap # is what it is, they didn’t want to go all in on Jones and because of the short term contract pay the price for that.
But you’re comparing 2 different scenarios. The Giants didn’t have to give up picks to sign Jones to the big contract. They gave up picks and big money to sign Burns. To me that is too steep a price since I believe that you should be able to find a quality starter in round 2. Not as good as Burns most likely but we could have found an equally good FA maybe not at DE and had our 2nd round pick. If there was a year left on Burns contract at the lower rate it would have been more desirable.
You’ve got about a 1/3 chance of getting a good starter in the 2nd round depending on the data, and I’m sure that percentage plummets when assessing elite players.
I don’t think you are giving enough attention to the bust rates of 2nds across the league, and even worse for the Giants.
Can’t really compete consistently unless you fix the lines.
Barkley vs an improved OL? Might be debatable.....but this site wanted to run off Barkely....since he was drafted...as all RB are replaceable
I say...
Let's wait until they pkay
Gotta improve QB.
Exactly, if we hit on Neal, Ezeudo and JMS this off-season would have been a lot different. Instead we keep filling the same spots. Hopefully they turn into players and we can start to progress further.
Burns is a very good player but the Giants have gotten good starters in the 2nd round at a cost controlled 4 years. McKinney, Ojulari, Robinson & JMS. So is Burns better than a different $30mil FA and a solid starter? JonC would you have made that trade?
Team has done a respectable job of addressing the team's achilles heel. The offensive line
Hyatt & Robinson and some decent RBs. Now you add weapons in the draft. You were never going to fix everything in one offseason.
Losing McKinney might hurt, but pass rush is vastly improved with Burns. And with Thibs and Burns as starters. You can bring in Ojulari as that third rushing threat.
But Jones is still the biggest problem. The sooner he is off the team, and we are moving forward with a new QB room, the better for everyone.
Quote:
and build a foundation and flowing talent pipeline.
Exactly, if we hit on Neal, Ezeudo and JMS this off-season would have been a lot different. Instead we keep filling the same spots. Hopefully they turn into players and we can start to progress further.
Burns is a very good player but the Giants have gotten good starters in the 2nd round at a cost controlled 4 years. McKinney, Ojulari, Robinson & JMS. So is Burns better than a different $30mil FA and a solid starter? JonC would you have made that trade?
I would not have, mainly because the roster is full of holes and I'm not certain he'll be a difference maker to the tune of his cost. I'll root like hell for him to do it though.
I am as far from an expert as you can get but I would have made the trade. Because, unlike a rookie - he is guaranteed to be plug and play. Rookies generally take a year or two.
I agree about holes. I'm thinking draft may be more Ol, CBs, and RB.