--The Ravens are paying Lamar Jackson $52M AAV to hand it off to Derek Henry who is making $8M AAV.
--The Eagles are paying Jalen Hurts $51M AAV to hand it off to Saquon Barkley who is making $12.5M AAV.
I get that both of those teams are within Super Bowl windows now. I also understand that it did NOT make sense for NYG to pay Barkley that money. However, Schoen's statement is clearly not consistent with how both BAL & PHI feel. I understand Henry isn't making $12M, but that is still $60M between both QB and RB.
As christian has said, did it make sense for Schoen to draw a line in the sand over a few million to Barkley just to give Jones what essentially is a 3 year commitment at $37.5M AAV?
Had they signed Barkley after 2022, they'd likely have a rookie QB or very cheap placeholder this season. (Darnold, Barkley & Nabers) or maybe they take McCarthy in that scenario.
I like Schoen, but this is my biggest criticism of him thus far. And I have no reason to believe that Rich Eisen "buyers remorse" report wasn't true. It feels like this was the safer outcome (pay Barkley & tag Jones).
The fatal mistake, and the entire problem here, since that ignominious moment on April 25, 2019, has been the complete bamboozling of the management of this franchise by Daniel Jones. The idea that they would not only draft him sixth and put all of the eggs of this franchise in that basket, but that they would double down and make him the fifth highest paid player this year in terms of cap hit, is beyond ludicrous. We are going on six years now and the GM of this franchise still doesn't know if DJ "can sling it!"
So the problem with the GM at the moment is the complete blind spot that he would actually ask the question if they should be "paying DJ 40M to hand off to a 12M running back" and not the right question "should they be paying a quarterback, whose proper value comps are Darnold, Trubisky and Mariota, 40M?" Signing Russell Wilson, drafting Milton or Pratt and cutting DJ after June 1st was the only sensible course of action to quickly pivot from his disastrous error and turn this thing around. He didn't do it. Now he lives or dies based on the success or failure of Daniel Jones. Good luck with all of that!
So for a running back, the risk ceiling is lower, because you know it's a lower return asset. That is why they make less. Opposite for a QB. The risk ceiling is higher.
If you rewind to 2022, Schoen had a decision between putting the risk on Barkely or Jones. He could have capped the risk at 32M for Jones and 25M for Barkley, or set the risk at 82M for Jones and 10M for Barkley.
So let's look at this in real terms, and not just dollars, but percentage of cap the guarantees represented.
Let's say Barkley signed a 3/33M contract with 25M guaranteed, under the assumption he would play 2023 + 2024 for the Giants, and they be cut. That 25M represents 5.21% of the cap over those years.
For Jones (4/160, 82M guaranteed, and assume he's cut after year 2) that equals 17.8% of the cap.
If Barkley underperforms by 50%, you've "wasted" 2.6 of your resources. If Jones underperforms at the same rate you've "wasted" 8.9% of your resources.
In a situation where you have tenuous confidence in the outcome, choose the lower risk ceiling. This was bad work by Schoen. He either had too much confidence in Jones, or isn't operating under good risk mitigation principles.
So well said. And from the premise of Jones & Barkley were absolutely going to return for 2023, it was the better process.
I don't disagree with what Go Terps is saying, I just don't find that viable with just about any owner in the NFL. If Schoen had a a super bowl ring under his belt he'd have an argument to Mara. A first time GM going into Mara's office and presenting that? No fucking way.
The unequivocal right answer was to say to Team Jones - "You proved me wrong. I didn't want to bet 22M on you having a good year, and I lost. You just made an additional 10M. Go do it again and make me look bad again."
The franchise tag isn't just a negotiating tool. It's a hedge. He wasn't too scared to use it on Barkley, he shouldn't have been too scared to use it on Jones.
Jones hadn't proven enough to get 82M. He had proven enough to get 32M.
You are wrong about schoen. This is why from reports he made a strong 3-year offer to Barkley mid and end of '22 season, exactly to get the above type of contract breakdown. Going into 2023 free agency, draft and contract negotiations with Jones, the giants would have been in a much better position. Barkley's rejection screwed the giants big time.
An angry Schoen was stuck with Mara not allowing him to trade Barkley, and having to sign Barkley and Jones. By July, 2023, having lost the above mentioned value of signing Barkley early, he hardened his position with Barkley, and we all know what happened as a result.
This tells the whole story. It was Barkley who rejected Schoen’s offer putting the Giants in a difficult position. Schoen did his best to keep Barkley. Barkley is gone because of his own decisions.
I will never, ever understand treating the situation as they did from a football standpoint. It was foolish, and I'd bet anything it was a Mara mandate.
12m = 4.7%
6m = 2.35%
these are not significant sums or differences.
what is a significant difference is having to replace the most productive player on your offense or not. they have chose to go that route and while we all obviously hope that works out they have probably made the climb steeper. and from the looks of hard knocks, it seems like schoen didnt really have any firm reasoning for that except "i dont want to pay a rb".
which is fine thats his choice, but sean is 100% correct in pointing out there are lots of examples of winning teams who have made the opposite choice.
Quote:
You are wrong about schoen. This is why from reports he made a strong 3-year offer to Barkley mid and end of '22 season, exactly to get the above type of contract breakdown. Going into 2023 free agency, draft and contract negotiations with Jones, the giants would have been in a much better position. Barkley's rejection screwed the giants big time.
An angry Schoen was stuck with Mara not allowing him to trade Barkley, and having to sign Barkley and Jones. By July, 2023, having lost the above mentioned value of signing Barkley early, he hardened his position with Barkley, and we all know what happened as a result.
This tells the whole story. It was Barkley who rejected Schoen’s offer putting the Giants in a difficult position. Schoen did his best to keep Barkley. Barkley is gone because of his own decisions.
Schoen also did his best with Jones at that time. Given having made the playoffs, and Mara's love of Jones, he couldn't risk losing him. Unhappy solution, pay him but also have a two year out that wouldn't kill the team. Most BBIers recognized this at the time, but some with hindsight are now overly critical of Schoen for this decision.
12m = 4.7%
6m = 2.35%
these are not significant sums or differences.
what is a significant difference is having to replace the most productive player on your offense or not. they have chose to go that route and while we all obviously hope that works out they have probably made the climb steeper. and from the looks of hard knocks, it seems like schoen didnt really have any firm reasoning for that except "i dont want to pay a rb".
which is fine thats his choice, but sean is 100% correct in pointing out there are lots of examples of winning teams who have made the opposite choice.
The Giants aren't a winning team. It's also quite clear that Schoen doesn't value the RB position; that's what it comes down to. When the cap goes up, it increases the cost for all positions, so being able to pay more for a RB also means paying more for edge, CB, etc.
That's a problem, because the team is built like it should be. The resources are allocated like they are in their window.
But I agree...they aren't actually there.
Quote:
you all realize the salary cap is now 255m right? and it's going to keep going up?
12m = 4.7%
6m = 2.35%
these are not significant sums or differences.
what is a significant difference is having to replace the most productive player on your offense or not. they have chose to go that route and while we all obviously hope that works out they have probably made the climb steeper. and from the looks of hard knocks, it seems like schoen didnt really have any firm reasoning for that except "i dont want to pay a rb".
which is fine thats his choice, but sean is 100% correct in pointing out there are lots of examples of winning teams who have made the opposite choice.
The Giants aren't a winning team. It's also quite clear that Schoen doesn't value the RB position; that's what it comes down to. When the cap goes up, it increases the cost for all positions, so being able to pay more for a RB also means paying more for edge, CB, etc.
except the RB position has basically remained flat despite the cap going up. barkley only ended up getting what he asked for last year in a cap that was 10% lower.
So for a running back, the risk ceiling is lower, because you know it's a lower return asset. That is why they make less. Opposite for a QB. The risk ceiling is higher.
If you rewind to 2022, Schoen had a decision between putting the risk on Barkely or Jones. He could have capped the risk at 32M for Jones and 25M for Barkley, or set the risk at 82M for Jones and 10M for Barkley.
So let's look at this in real terms, and not just dollars, but percentage of cap the guarantees represented.
Let's say Barkley signed a 3/33M contract with 25M guaranteed, under the assumption he would play 2023 + 2024 for the Giants, and they be cut. That 25M represents 5.21% of the cap over those years.
For Jones (4/160, 82M guaranteed, and assume he's cut after year 2) that equals 17.8% of the cap.
If Barkley underperforms by 50%, you've "wasted" 2.6 of your resources. If Jones underperforms at the same rate you've "wasted" 8.9% of your resources.
In a situation where you have tenuous confidence in the outcome, choose the lower risk ceiling. This was bad work by Schoen. He either had too much confidence in Jones, or isn't operating under good risk mitigation principles.
I disagree with how you equate the two resources of running back and quarterback. In your example of an oil company, I would look at the two players as different commodities. Let’s say oil and natural gas. I do not think you can mathematically treat each commodity the same way. Maybe they do that in industry. Just my opinion.
Quote:
In comment 16551668 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
you all realize the salary cap is now 255m right? and it's going to keep going up?
12m = 4.7%
6m = 2.35%
these are not significant sums or differences.
what is a significant difference is having to replace the most productive player on your offense or not. they have chose to go that route and while we all obviously hope that works out they have probably made the climb steeper. and from the looks of hard knocks, it seems like schoen didnt really have any firm reasoning for that except "i dont want to pay a rb".
which is fine thats his choice, but sean is 100% correct in pointing out there are lots of examples of winning teams who have made the opposite choice.
The Giants aren't a winning team. It's also quite clear that Schoen doesn't value the RB position; that's what it comes down to. When the cap goes up, it increases the cost for all positions, so being able to pay more for a RB also means paying more for edge, CB, etc.
except the RB position has basically remained flat despite the cap going up. barkley only ended up getting what he asked for last year in a cap that was 10% lower.
I think this comes back to risk mitigation. Say Jones has a bad year (plausible) and the Giants are in the market for a QB. Are you really paying Barkley $26M guaranteed with a reboot at RB? That's why the Singletray deal seems to make more sense. My sense is that the Giants would be looking at spending on premium positions to build the team while they reboot at QB. I don't think the proper way to look at is on a year to year basis, it is about flexibility. The Giants have a lot more flexibility with Jones/Singeltary over the next few years than the eagles do with Hurts/Barkley. They are committed to them and that's fine. If you have your guys you should be.
It will be interesting to see the next episode of hard knocks on how Schoen reacts to Barkley potentially giving them the chance to match.
Everything we’ve seen has shown him trying to convince everyone else that moving on is best for the team.
Even the conversation Schoens conversation with Barkley’s agent on HK showed the agent knew that. And, I’m guessing that new footage will show that Barkley wasn’t interested in the Giants matching the offer made by the Eagles. And I, for one, do not blame Barkley if that happened. It was time to partways
In a situation where you have tenuous confidence in the outcome, choose the lower risk ceiling. This was bad work by Schoen. He either had too much confidence in Jones, or isn't operating under good risk mitigation principles.
Good stuff.
The telephone call Schoen had with Barkley in E2 - where he said Barkley should have the market set his value - is the conversation Schoen should have had with Jones in March of 2023.
That would have taken balls, and probably therapist-like discussions with Mara to get him on-board, but that would have been a shining moment for Schoen as a first time GM.
Quote:
Really early in my career I had the outstanding opportunity of working at a multi-national oil company, and worked on how to translate really complex capital investment projections into plain English for the annual report. The thing the company always emphasized is that you cap risk upfront, meaning you know how much you lose if there is absolutely failure. You overpay for fixed rates, fixed resources, fixed prices -- because the best way to manage your business is to set a ceiling on risk.
So for a running back, the risk ceiling is lower, because you know it's a lower return asset. That is why they make less. Opposite for a QB. The risk ceiling is higher.
If you rewind to 2022, Schoen had a decision between putting the risk on Barkely or Jones. He could have capped the risk at 32M for Jones and 25M for Barkley, or set the risk at 82M for Jones and 10M for Barkley.
So let's look at this in real terms, and not just dollars, but percentage of cap the guarantees represented.
Let's say Barkley signed a 3/33M contract with 25M guaranteed, under the assumption he would play 2023 + 2024 for the Giants, and they be cut. That 25M represents 5.21% of the cap over those years.
For Jones (4/160, 82M guaranteed, and assume he's cut after year 2) that equals 17.8% of the cap.
If Barkley underperforms by 50%, you've "wasted" 2.6 of your resources. If Jones underperforms at the same rate you've "wasted" 8.9% of your resources.
In a situation where you have tenuous confidence in the outcome, choose the lower risk ceiling. This was bad work by Schoen. He either had too much confidence in Jones, or isn't operating under good risk mitigation principles.
So well said. And from the premise of Jones & Barkley were absolutely going to return for 2023, it was the better process.
I don't disagree with what Go Terps is saying, I just don't find that viable with just about any owner in the NFL. If Schoen had a a super bowl ring under his belt he'd have an argument to Mara. A first time GM going into Mara's office and presenting that? No fucking way.
The unequivocal right answer was to say to Team Jones - "You proved me wrong. I didn't want to bet 22M on you having a good year, and I lost. You just made an additional 10M. Go do it again and make me look bad again."
The franchise tag isn't just a negotiating tool. It's a hedge. He wasn't too scared to use it on Barkley, he shouldn't have been too scared to use it on Jones.
Jones hadn't proven enough to get 82M. He had proven enough to get 32M.
I don’t disagree with you, but I think tagging Jones would have had a much more deleterious impact on the cap than tagging Saquon. With so many needs, Schoen needed to free up some money. The mistake, in hindsight admittedly, was not picking up Jones’s option.
I think this comes back to risk mitigation. Say Jones has a bad year (plausible) and the Giants are in the market for a QB. Are you really paying Barkley $26M guaranteed with a reboot at RB? That's why the Singletray deal seems to make more sense. My sense is that the Giants would be looking at spending on premium positions to build the team while they reboot at QB. I don't think the proper way to look at is on a year to year basis, it is about flexibility. The Giants have a lot more flexibility with Jones/Singeltary over the next few years than the eagles do with Hurts/Barkley. They are committed to them and that's fine. If you have your guys you should be.
It will be interesting to see the next episode of hard knocks on how Schoen reacts to Barkley potentially giving them the chance to match.
if you have a rookie QB next year, doesnt it seem like a decent option to have to take some of the pressure off and be able to hand the ball or dump it off to barkley?
last year they paid barkley $10m guaranteed they got no "credit" for in a multi-year deal. he supposedly would have taken just $13m more guaranteed and then they'd have him this year in his final guaranteed year plus an option year next year.
if singletary is still here through next year they would have paid him $11m. so it's not like you are saving the entire amount barkley got to spend elsewhere.
their bigger asset failing than barkley is not having been able to develop a single inexpensive IOL in the last 2 years and thus having to pay Runyan as much as it would have cost to bring back barkley (a couple years after paying glowinski about the same and him failing).
it's amazing to me how asset conscious people are with what has been 1 of the most productive RBs in giant history vs overpaying middle of the road players at other non-premium positions.
Everything we’ve seen has shown him trying to convince everyone else that moving on is best for the team.
Even the conversation Schoens conversation with Barkley’s agent on HK showed the agent knew that. And, I’m guessing that new footage will show that Barkley wasn’t interested in the Giants matching the offer made by the Eagles. And I, for one, do not blame Barkley if that happened. It was time to partways
As per my comment earlier in this thread, I believe Schoen was 90% done with Barkley by free agency in early 2023, and the final nail was having to franchise him in July '23, thus having a bad influence on the Jones deal. It was bad "icing" that I believe Mara wouldn't allow Barkley to be traded at any time.
Quote:
You are wrong about schoen. This is why from reports he made a strong 3-year offer to Barkley mid and end of '22 season, exactly to get the above type of contract breakdown. Going into 2023 free agency, draft and contract negotiations with Jones, the giants would have been in a much better position. Barkley's rejection screwed the giants big time.
An angry Schoen was stuck with Mara not allowing him to trade Barkley, and having to sign Barkley and Jones. By July, 2023, having lost the above mentioned value of signing Barkley early, he hardened his position with Barkley, and we all know what happened as a result.
This tells the whole story. It was Barkley who rejected Schoen’s offer putting the Giants in a difficult position. Schoen did his best to keep Barkley. Barkley is gone because of his own decisions.
This is exactly what it comes down to. I've never gotten the sense that Schoen really wanted to keep Barkley or Jones, but was "forced" into making efforts to try and retain both. What the Eagles gave Barkley isn't too far off from what the Giants were reportedly offering him - I suspect that the human element came into play and Barkley simply decided that he was ready to move on.
At the end of the day, Barkley did Schoen a favor by leaving - this team really does not need a RB making $12 mil APY nor did Schoen want to have one. We all know that the Jones contract wasn't ideal, but there's at least some flexibility there after this season to move on from him.
There just needs to be a little bit of patience. From day one of his hiring I believed that it would take until 2025 for Schoen to clean up some bad contracts and roster issues that were left behind, and to construct a team that is closer to his vision, and I think that's been bearing out.
Quote:
I think this comes back to risk mitigation. Say Jones has a bad year (plausible) and the Giants are in the market for a QB. Are you really paying Barkley $26M guaranteed with a reboot at RB? That's why the Singletray deal seems to make more sense. My sense is that the Giants would be looking at spending on premium positions to build the team while they reboot at QB. I don't think the proper way to look at is on a year to year basis, it is about flexibility. The Giants have a lot more flexibility with Jones/Singeltary over the next few years than the eagles do with Hurts/Barkley. They are committed to them and that's fine. If you have your guys you should be.
It will be interesting to see the next episode of hard knocks on how Schoen reacts to Barkley potentially giving them the chance to match.
if you have a rookie QB next year, doesnt it seem like a decent option to have to take some of the pressure off and be able to hand the ball or dump it off to barkley?
last year they paid barkley $10m guaranteed they got no "credit" for in a multi-year deal. he supposedly would have taken just $13m more guaranteed and then they'd have him this year in his final guaranteed year plus an option year next year.
if singletary is still here through next year they would have paid him $11m. so it's not like you are saving the entire amount barkley got to spend elsewhere.
their bigger asset failing than barkley is not having been able to develop a single inexpensive IOL in the last 2 years and thus having to pay Runyan as much as it would have cost to bring back barkley (a couple years after paying glowinski about the same and him failing).
it's amazing to me how asset conscious people are with what has been 1 of the most productive RBs in giant history vs overpaying middle of the road players at other non-premium positions.
No. IMO, the QB is elevating the team, not needing a RB to take off pressure. WRs would be more valuable to a QB than a premium RB, especially if the line is not that good. RB is not a premium position. I view a premium position as a position that can make your team better singularly. That is QB, CB, Edge, tackles. RB production is directly tied to OL which is why I don't really advocate paying them until you are set there.
Singletary has $15M less guaranteed money than Saquon. The eagles are going to have to pay that at some point and this is where it comes back to risk mitigation.
Quote:
In a situation where you have tenuous confidence in the outcome, choose the lower risk ceiling. This was bad work by Schoen. He either had too much confidence in Jones, or isn't operating under good risk mitigation principles.
Good stuff.
The telephone call Schoen had with Barkley in E2 - where he said Barkley should have the market set his value - is the conversation Schoen should have had with Jones in March of 2023.
That would have taken balls, and probably therapist-like discussions with Mara to get him on-board, but that would have been a shining moment for Schoen as a first time GM.
I mean - yes, in hindsight you're right.
Keep in mind that Schoen has to do his own risk mitigation assessment for his own job as well.
Going against the owner and his cronies after what was probably deemed a very "successful" year by the FO is really putting yourself on the edge.
Schoen has to figure that if either/both walk out the door and have great or even mediocre seasons elsewhere especially on a better team that had better results, coupled with the fact that the Giants season would have likely resulted equally or worse than this year without both players might have done him in after year #2.
I disagree with how you equate the two resources of running back and quarterback. In your example of an oil company, I would look at the two players as different commodities. Let’s say oil and natural gas. I do not think you can mathematically treat each commodity the same way. Maybe they do that in industry. Just my opinion.
This is a great question. The answer is no, you don't look at each commodity the same. But you work backward from a common variable, which is money.
The value (cost/return) of each resource is represented in dollars. So let's say your projection is crude will net you some higher return when the commodity comes to market than natural gas, you're willing to pay more to produce crude.
So let's the quarterback is crude and is worth more, you're willing to pay more for the quarterback, and willing to pay less for natural guess, the running back. You set the ceiling higher for crude, and lower for gas.
But now you have to put together your portfolio, and you have a total number you must hit.
If you feel very confident the geography you are exploring for crude will net returns, it's perfectly safe to bet big there. But let's say the land lease is an under water exploration in the Norwegian Sea, and only a small amount exploratory projects have net good returns. With scant evidence would you bet big there?
You would probably still do it, but if only if you can set a floor on your costs. So that the return is still in your benefit even if things don't go perfectly.
And then your whole portfolio are these cost benefit decisions where you don't expose yourself to these big risks.
I don’t disagree with you, but I think tagging Jones would have had a much more deleterious impact on the cap than tagging Saquon. With so many needs, Schoen needed to free up some money. The mistake, in hindsight admittedly, was not picking up Jones’s option.
I've shared this table a few times, but in summary if the Giants had tagged Jones and signed Barkley to a handsome 3/39M deal, the only two moves the Giants needed to make:
- Move some of Jackson's 2023 salary into 2024
- Not sign Campbell
They would have been cap positive every year over the next three years, and had Barkley on the roster.
No. IMO, the QB is elevating the team, not needing a RB to take off pressure. WRs would be more valuable to a QB than a premium RB, especially if the line is not that good. RB is not a premium position. I view a premium position as a position that can make your team better singularly. That is QB, CB, Edge, tackles. RB production is directly tied to OL which is why I don't really advocate paying them until you are set there.
Singletary has $15M less guaranteed money than Saquon. The eagles are going to have to pay that at some point and this is where it comes back to risk mitigation.
a lot of false presumptions in there - wide receivers cost literally 3x running backs in FA and you wont even get a good one. you think paying 27 year old barkley 25m guaranteed is expensive, what is paying a 30 year old calvin ridley 50m guaranteed? super duper expensive?
nobody said wide receivers arent important - that's why they have correctly drafted wide receivers early each of the last 3 years. and through next season all of them will still be on affordable rookie deals. that is precisely what should allow them to spend a little more on a complementary position like RB.
and no offense but "the qb elevates the team" thing is nonsense. even if they do it's not an argument to not put the best players possible around the QB, especially when we are talking about rookie qbs whose rate of failure is about 10x higher than their rate of "elevating". josh allen needed help while he was developing his first 2 years and then he needed more help in the form of diggs before he got to the franchise qb level. there is no good argument for putting FEWER good players around any QB. the only question is costs/opportunity costs which in this case were both minimal and manageable.
Teams like SF, Det, Eagles and the Ravens run the offense off of the running game.
Impossible to gauge any lost yards with SB gone. SB's actual yards and those yards gained by other player because of his presence. TBD.
I don't see much relevance to comparing this situation to a corporate company.
Schoen feels the same way as he didn't pay an aging often injured RB. He's sending a message
Schoen feels the same way as he didn't pay an aging often injured RB. He's sending a message
Makes sense, but DJ is NOT a 40 mil QB. He’s just a QB being paid that much.
Is there anyone on BBI who thinks the DJ is the quarterback to lead this team to the Super Bowl?
I keep waiting for us to suck bad enough to get his replacement. Getting very close to sucking bad enough is much more painful.
Lots can change in one year - but the new recruits at the QB position for next year's draft don't look awesome.
Lots can change in one year - but the new recruits at the QB position for next year's draft don't look awesome.
Yup
but is still early and that always changes.
I don’t agree with those saying just take a shot at a guy you think is not a great bet to be a franchise quarterback. That said, im really hoping we get a guy to be hopeful about next season.
Teams like SF, Det, Eagles and the Ravens run the offense off of the running game.
Impossible to gauge any lost yards with SB gone. SB's actual yards and those yards gained by other player because of his presence. TBD.
I don't see much relevance to comparing this situation to a corporate company.
Ha, I was thinking the same thing. Though I’m sure if I had the patience to read all of that I would’ve been very impressed
I will never, ever understand treating the situation as they did from a football standpoint. It was foolish, and I'd bet anything it was a Mara mandate.
Someday, maybe, the light will come on and you'll realize the decisions the Team makes are not only from a "football standpoint". They are making business decisions, and business sure is good.
Just think about how many people are locked into this NYG soap opera and are chomping at the bit to watch the next episodes. While you may want to believe the decision-makers are strictly trying to win games, the moves they are making are actually focused on keeping us tuned in. And its working.
The truth lies somewhere in between. They still believe that he is capabale as a starter, but know his ceiling is limited and they likely have to upgrade to take that next step as an organization.
So you get the “hey we believe in Daniel” propaganda, but also the “keep us posted on #3 pick” convos with New England
I can only hope he's as definitive or more next Winter, when it's time (yet again) to move on from Jones.
Quote:
An intelligent team would have let both Barkley and Jones walk after 2022. Both are losing players: unintelligent (in a football sense) and injury prone.
I will never, ever understand treating the situation as they did from a football standpoint. It was foolish, and I'd bet anything it was a Mara mandate.
Someday, maybe, the light will come on and you'll realize the decisions the Team makes are not only from a "football standpoint". They are making business decisions, and business sure is good.
Just think about how many people are locked into this NYG soap opera and are chomping at the bit to watch the next episodes. While you may want to believe the decision-makers are strictly trying to win games, the moves they are making are actually focused on keeping us tuned in. And its working.
Actually that's exactly what I've been saying for years. The Maras want to win, but they're not turning over every stone to do it.
Lots can change in one year - but the new recruits at the QB position for next year's draft don't look awesome.
For economic reasons, the chances of Jones being back on the roster a very high in 2024, even if they do pick a QB.
Hopefully the fates conspire and the Giants get their Kaepernick to their Alex Smith this year.
I can only hope he's as definitive or more next Winter, when it's time (yet again) to move on from Jones.
I'd be shocked if that happened. If you look at it from their perspective there's no reason to do it.
Quote:
worst part of sucking bad enough is.....is this year to suck bad enough to get a replacement?
Lots can change in one year - but the new recruits at the QB position for next year's draft don't look awesome.
For economic reasons, the chances of Jones being back on the roster a very high in 2024, even if they do pick a QB.
Hopefully the fates conspire and the Giants get their Kaepernick to their Alex Smith this year.
I disagree.
If they keep him beyond 2024 the economics go from bad to worse.
The Giants built in that out for after next year on purpose. They are going to use it and take the penalty.
-NYG drafts a 2nd round QB in 2025
-Jones/rookie in 2025
-Big QB move in 2026 potentially
A few things can change that:
1. Health
2. Performance
3. Any later round QB hitting in 2025
I just think that is the most likely. They'll need to really bottom out to draft a lottery QB. They'll likely be picking anywhere from 10-20 and QB probably doesn't meet the value. Don't see them paying huge money to any QB when they have Jones.
You need some luck to fall into a franchise QB and the Giants generally take less swings.
If they keep him beyond 2024 the economics go from bad to worse.
The Giants built in that out for after next year on purpose. They are going to use it and take the penalty.
The economics get better, there's no question. The cash commitment to keep Jones on 2025 is 30.5M vs. the 41.5M average over the first two years.
-NYG drafts a 2nd round QB in 2025
-Jones/rookie in 2025
-Big QB move in 2026 potentially
A few things can change that:
1. Health
2. Performance
3. Any later round QB hitting in 2025
I just think that is the most likely. They'll need to really bottom out to draft a lottery QB. They'll likely be picking anywhere from 10-20 and QB probably doesn't meet the value. Don't see them paying huge money to any QB when they have Jones.
You need some luck to fall into a franchise QB and the Giants generally take less swings.
I doubt they'd draft a QB at all. I'd expect them to just replace Lock's contract with an equivalent FA.
The Giants view the position like a US Senator. A second round pick is going to challenge Jones. They don't want that.
The Giants view the position like a US Senator. A second round pick is going to challenge Jones. They don't want that.
If you ask Chat GPT how things will proceed with Daniel Jones:
He'll have a perfectly forgettable season, but the Giants will scrape out 7-8 wins largely on the back of dynamite individual performances from Nabers.
The Giants will pick 10th in a poor quarterback draft, which will lead the Giants front office to consider "What viable upgrade is available over Daniel Jones for one year at 30M dollars?"
The answer will be none, and the Giants will return with largely the same quarterback group in 2025.
Yes, we need to get the right man under center, but fans should be thrilled here. Enough 1980's offenses.
Yes, we need to get the right man under center, but fans should be thrilled here. Enough 1980's offenses.
I agree with the built around running back, but an offense with lots of play action, RPO, and getting the ball into the receivers hands quickly and having them do the work is a pretty modern offense.
Now the execution of the offense? I'm all for it.
Quote:
An intelligent team would have let both Barkley and Jones walk after 2022. Both are losing players: unintelligent (in a football sense) and injury prone.
I will never, ever understand treating the situation as they did from a football standpoint. It was foolish, and I'd bet anything it was a Mara mandate.
Someday, maybe, the light will come on and you'll realize the decisions the Team makes are not only from a "football standpoint". They are making business decisions, and business sure is good.
Just think about how many people are locked into this NYG soap opera and are chomping at the bit to watch the next episodes. While you may want to believe the decision-makers are strictly trying to win games, the moves they are making are actually focused on keeping us tuned in. And its working.
Yes, the team making money is a big factor, but so is team morale, and image. AMove like trading Barkley would Iclearly show they were giving up on the season, and blowing it up for hope of getting the quarterback.
I’m not saying that wouldn’t be the right move, but to the current 53 guys plus on the team and a lot of the fan basethat doesn’t think like us, it would not be an easy sell.
What is the consensus on what they would’ve gotten for Barkley. Anyway?
Yes, we need to get the right man under center, but fans should be thrilled here. Enough 1980's offenses.
The Giants are operating as though the right man is under center.
The roster isn't rebuilding; it's built. Huge expenses have been laid out at QB, both OTs, WR, NT, both EDGEs, and CB. They're in their window now.
The way the Giants approach the QB position it may be YEARS before they find the QB that's "just right" enough to even consider replacing Jones.
Quote:
The team does not intend to be built around a RB. That's the smart move. Yes, we are better off in the short term, but this team is rebuilding, we are not a contender.
Yes, we need to get the right man under center, but fans should be thrilled here. Enough 1980's offenses.
The Giants are operating as though the right man is under center.
The roster isn't rebuilding; it's built. Huge expenses have been laid out at QB, both OTs, WR, NT, both EDGEs, and CB. They're in their window now.
The way the Giants approach the QB position it may be YEARS before they find the QB that's "just right" enough to even consider replacing Jones.
When you say huge expenses are being laid out, what is that supposed to mean? Aren't most teams at around the salary cap, and paying select players huge contracts, usually at those very positions?
Three mistakes. I think severely overpaying the remaining one was not his preference.
Quote:
No. IMO, the QB is elevating the team, not needing a RB to take off pressure. WRs would be more valuable to a QB than a premium RB, especially if the line is not that good. RB is not a premium position. I view a premium position as a position that can make your team better singularly. That is QB, CB, Edge, tackles. RB production is directly tied to OL which is why I don't really advocate paying them until you are set there.
Singletary has $15M less guaranteed money than Saquon. The eagles are going to have to pay that at some point and this is where it comes back to risk mitigation.
a lot of false presumptions in there - wide receivers cost literally 3x running backs in FA and you wont even get a good one. you think paying 27 year old barkley 25m guaranteed is expensive, what is paying a 30 year old calvin ridley 50m guaranteed? super duper expensive?
nobody said wide receivers arent important - that's why they have correctly drafted wide receivers early each of the last 3 years. and through next season all of them will still be on affordable rookie deals. that is precisely what should allow them to spend a little more on a complementary position like RB.
and no offense but "the qb elevates the team" thing is nonsense. even if they do it's not an argument to not put the best players possible around the QB, especially when we are talking about rookie qbs whose rate of failure is about 10x higher than their rate of "elevating". josh allen needed help while he was developing his first 2 years and then he needed more help in the form of diggs before he got to the franchise qb level. there is no good argument for putting FEWER good players around any QB. the only question is costs/opportunity costs which in this case were both minimal and manageable.
I never advocated for signing a guy like Ridley for that type of money. That's dumb too. I never mentioned anything about overpaying an average free agent WR, so I'm not sure of your point there.
To your last point, I don't disagree that a good WR can be a QBs best friend, but how many times can you say that about a RB? So if you think a QB elevating the team is a nonsense take, so is the premise that a good RB takes the pressure off a young QB. It just doesn't happen anymore.