Daniel Jones

[thebeast]

I just meant it in terms of money. But also in terms of who represents the team. Mahommes, Burrow, Allen, those guys represent their team. Saquan is the face of the Giants, which could have been locked up long term during his prime. Instead the giants decided to take, what I think is a very short sighted approach, and just look at what the market says vs doing what was right for this team.

With regard to Jones, I didn’t like the signing to begin with. I don’t think good things happen when you sign mediocre QBs. Maybe he’s a too 10 guy, but even so, for real life football, that won’t get it done. Just ask the Vikings who have the best WR in football and had one of the best RBs and a mediocre QB.

[mild]

Short sighted approach: paying a potential Franchise QB, and not locking up an RB long-term for his post-prime years?

Beating heart of this team or not, what you are suggesting is much crazier than what the Giants did. If you can find me one example from the modern game where the team prioritised re-signing the RB long term over the QB - and it turned out to be the correct move - then I am all ears.

This is like saying you'd rather have Dalvin Cook over Kirk Cousins. Do you honestly think that's a better recipe for winning? What is the upside case for 2-3 years down the track?

You can crap on Kirk all you want, but he's basically been a (back end) top 12 QB for the last 4 years. On top of that, there's every reason he might keep that going for another few years - in his age 35-38 seasons.

Daniel Jones is 26, and hadn't shown enough to make Joe Schoen exercise his 5th year option in his first 3 years. In *one year* of play under Brian Daboll, DJ did enough to shift Schoen's perception of him, and earn a reasonable midrange QB contract that could benefit both sides.

We're talking about someone with potentially another decade of play ahead of him if he hits - vs. a RB that has likely already had his best years. (*knocks on wood* I'm sorry Saquon, I don't want to believe it either)

Players don't get paid for what they've done. They get paid for what they're going to do.

But do continue, I'm enjoying pulling your argument apart.

[thebeast]

I didn’t read all that. I stopped when you said pay a franchise QB over an RB. You’re making the same mistake the giants made. Jones isn’t a franchise QB, and Saquan isn’t just a RB.

[thebeast]

Here are further thoughts after actually reading the rest of what you wrote.

If you are going to pay Jones then you should have been ready to pay barkely. He is necessary to maximize Jones’ abilities. He can’t just be replaced with any RB. He’s also entering his prime. Locking him up for three years is locking him up during his prime.

Personally, I don’t think the giants should have paid Jones (or Barkley). Last year was the worst possible outcome for us. We won a lot of fluky games and made the playoffs and beat a weak Vikings team, so now the leadership thinks this is a team to build on, which I don’t think it is. The better approach would have been to draft a franchise qb and reset the money timeline and build the team around it. The Vikings are the perfect example, do you really want to be the Vikings and have Cousins? Not me. I actually want a real contender, like the bengals, chiefs, bills, etc.

[mild]

If you are going to pay Jones then you should have been ready to pay barkely.

Why? How are you correlating these two as necessary to each other?

He is necessary to maximize Jones’ abilities.

How do we *know* this? And if that's the case - shouldn't the Giants be interested in finding out if Daniel Jones is good *without* a really good RB next to him?

Perhaps with, say... a 4 year contract that is in reality a 2 year "prove it" deal?

He can’t just be replaced with any RB. He’s also entering his prime. Locking him up for three years is locking him up during his prime.

We will agree to disagree. To the bold: actually, there is quite a lot of evidence to say that you can. The data the NFL community has suggests that Saquon's prime is likely to tail off in his next contract. Suggestion: NFL GM's have this data, too.

Regardless, it pales in comparison to the bet you are making on, say, the 15% chance - that you've got a difference-making QB for the next decade. Only one of these things has long-term franchise-altering upside if the contract hits. The other is a 26 year old Running Back that we overdrafted at #2 overall.

Personally, I don’t think the giants should have paid Jones (or Barkley). Last year was the worst possible outcome for us. We won a lot of fluky games and made the playoffs and beat a weak Vikings team, so now the leadership thinks this is a team to build on, which I don’t think it is. The better approach would have been to draft a franchise qb and reset the money timeline and build the team around it. The Vikings are the perfect example, do you really want to be the Vikings and have Cousins? Not me. I actually want a real contender, like the bengals, chiefs, bills, etc.

I mean, this is all lovely, but it's not based in any reality where you could have affected it nor done a better job. You can say all that, but you're not actually saying *how* you'd have done a better job - because you couldn't. For the situation he inherited, Schoen's moves have been pretty sound.

"We won too many games" - OK, but we did that because we hired possibly one of the best HC's in the league, no? The guy who just got a career year out of the QB our last GM selected when we were last in a position to swing on a "franchise guy"? First time I've seen coaching competence framed as a bad thing...

"Worst possible outcome for us" - agree to disagree. Didn't bust on either 1st round pick, saw enough from Jones to give him a shot to keep the job, identified and hired one of the best HC's in the league, and cleared a lot of bad Gettleman contracts and picks off the books.

"Should have reset the money timeline" - my brother in christ, we literally did.

"Just draft a franchise QB like Burrow, Mahomes, Allen... what's so hard about that" - *facepalm*

We're on to Cincinatti.

[Anteaters]

(Superbowl Chompian Isaiah Pacheco says hello from the 7th round

I agree that under the current CBA, the Giants should have used their long-term contract money on Danny over Saquon. I think it's a bad CBA for RBs, and for other players for other reasons, but under the current bad-fair rules, the Giants made the right business decision.

However, I disagree that Pacheco's role in KC's championship is indicative of proof of anything. No more than a 6th round QB getting to play during his teams playoff run and winning a championship his rookie season is indicative of how all NFL QBs are easily replaceable. Neither does Purdy's performance indicate anything like that.

Sometimes the right piece slips through the cracks and is found later in the draft.

BTW, Brittain Brown, the RB chosen one spot ahead of Pacheco, says hey from nowhere ... because he's never played in an NFL game.

[HereForTheComments]

Seems like a good time to remind everyone of Ezekiel Elliott. The same arguments I’m seeing in this thread about Barkley and Jones could have easily been said about Zeke and Dak. Want to guess which contract Jerry Jones probably regretted? Zeke fell off a cliff with zero warning after the new contract.

I am assuming Zeke is one of the big reasons a lot of the RBs today are struggling to get contracts. Tony Pollard proved how easy it is to replace them. On the flip side, loads of top draft pick QBs who have been busts prove how hard it is to find one.

[Cameron Giles]

Seems like a good time to remind everyone of Ezekiel Elliott. The same arguments I’m seeing in this thread about Barkley and Jones could have easily been said about Zeke and Dak. Want to guess which contract Jerry Jones probably regretted? Zeke fell off a cliff with zero warning after the new contract.

I am assuming Zeke is one of the big reasons a lot of the RBs today are struggling to get contracts. Tony Pollard proved how easy it is to replace them. On the flip side, loads of top draft pick QBs who have been busts prove how hard it is to find one.

I think multiple things are true here. The only opinions I've seen that are off are those that are just carrying water for the NFL.

True: NFL front offices are logical in how they are maneuvering the cap with RBs. The majority of Super Bowl teams do not feature an expensive RB, which means that paying one significant money isn't integral to building a contender. Meanwhile, there is a stronger correlation to paying other positions (QB, OL, DL) and building a contender and winning a Super Bowl. Draft an RB - Use them for 4-5 years - Franchise once - Discard. That is rarely going to cause regrets from a cap standpoint.

Also True: The above causes RBs to miss out on significant earnings professionally. It's the only position in the NFL where a player's prime is considered to be during their college years and their rookie contract. NFL teams fully understand that and the CBA (that players agreed to) allows them to exploit it. This should be revisited so that RBs can:

1. Make more money during their rookie contract based on more lucrative production, usage, and award-based incentives.
2. Have the option of hitting free agency (without the possibility of being franchised) earlier in their careers for the chance to make more money if they meet certain production milestones. I think more teams would be interested in a 23 or 24-year-old RB hitting FA, even if it's just a two-year deal. This could potentially jumpstart the franchise tag value and be an all-around win.

It's going to be interesting to see how good Jones is without his pacifier. The Giants aren't necessarily wrong for playing hardball with him, because they're backed by a CBA that enables them to.

[HereForTheComments]

Seems like a good time to remind everyone of Ezekiel Elliott. The same arguments I’m seeing in this thread about Barkley and Jones could have easily been said about Zeke and Dak. Want to guess which contract Jerry Jones probably regretted? Zeke fell off a cliff with zero warning after the new contract.

I am assuming Zeke is one of the big reasons a lot of the RBs today are struggling to get contracts. Tony Pollard proved how easy it is to replace them. On the flip side, loads of top draft pick QBs who have been busts prove how hard it is to find one.

I think multiple things are true here. The only opinions I've seen that are off are those that are just carrying water for the NFL.

True: NFL front offices are logical in how they are maneuvering the cap with RBs. The majority of Super Bowl teams do not feature an expensive RB, which means that paying one significant money isn't integral to building a contender. Meanwhile, there is a stronger correlation to paying other positions (QB, OL, DL) and building a contender and winning a Super Bowl. Draft an RB - Use them for 4-5 years - Franchise once - Discard. That is rarely going to cause regrets from a cap standpoint.

Also True: The above causes RBs to miss out on significant earnings professionally. It's the only position in the NFL where a player's prime is considered to be during their college years and their rookie contract. NFL teams fully understand that and the CBA (that players agreed to) allows them to exploit it. This should be revisited so that RBs can:

1. Make more money during their rookie contract based on more lucrative production, usage, and award-based incentives.
2. Have the option of hitting free agency (without the possibility of being franchised) earlier in their careers for the chance to make more money if they meet certain production milestones. I think more teams would be interested in a 23 or 24-year-old RB hitting FA, even if it's just a two-year deal. This could potentially jumpstart the franchise tag value and be an all-around win.

It's going to be interesting to see how good Jones is without his pacifier. The Giants aren't necessarily wrong for playing hardball with him, because they're backed by a CBA that enables them to.

I agree that there should be changes in favor of RBs earning more on their rookie contracts. Incentive laden contracts make the most sense to me.

[Lumps]

Seems like a good time to remind everyone of Ezekiel Elliott. The same arguments I’m seeing in this thread about Barkley and Jones could have easily been said about Zeke and Dak. Want to guess which contract Jerry Jones probably regretted? Zeke fell off a cliff with zero warning after the new contract.

I am assuming Zeke is one of the big reasons a lot of the RBs today are struggling to get contracts. Tony Pollard proved how easy it is to replace them. On the flip side, loads of top draft pick QBs who have been busts prove how hard it is to find one.

I think multiple things are true here. The only opinions I've seen that are off are those that are just carrying water for the NFL.

True: NFL front offices are logical in how they are maneuvering the cap with RBs. The majority of Super Bowl teams do not feature an expensive RB, which means that paying one significant money isn't integral to building a contender. Meanwhile, there is a stronger correlation to paying other positions (QB, OL, DL) and building a contender and winning a Super Bowl. Draft an RB - Use them for 4-5 years - Franchise once - Discard. That is rarely going to cause regrets from a cap standpoint.

Also True: The above causes RBs to miss out on significant earnings professionally. It's the only position in the NFL where a player's prime is considered to be during their college years and their rookie contract. NFL teams fully understand that and the CBA (that players agreed to) allows them to exploit it. This should be revisited so that RBs can:

1. Make more money during their rookie contract based on more lucrative production, usage, and award-based incentives.
2. Have the option of hitting free agency (without the possibility of being franchised) earlier in their careers for the chance to make more money if they meet certain production milestones. I think more teams would be interested in a 23 or 24-year-old RB hitting FA, even if it's just a two-year deal. This could potentially jumpstart the franchise tag value and be an all-around win.

It's going to be interesting to see how good Jones is without his pacifier. The Giants aren't necessarily wrong for playing hardball with him, because they're backed by a CBA that enables them to.

You get out of here with yer book learnin’ and nuanced takes!

[Anteaters]

You get out of here with yer book learnin’ and nuanced takes!

though I appreciate nuanced knowledgeable takes.

[FantasyFreak]

It will be interesting to see what Barkley does this year, no doubt. I don't understand why now, on 2 threads, the conversation is diverting into RB's contracts, structure, and what "should" or shouldn't be done, it's really not that relevant. We can't do anything about it, no sense spinning our wheels about theoretical changes to the cap, CBA etc.

IF we're talking about the Dynasty context of when to trade a RB, or move off him, then looking at contracts and structures apply. Regardless, I am curious to see how DJ looks in year 2 with BD. I also wonder why they didn't try and improve their WR's a lot more than they did, because it's a really weak depth chart.

[Anteaters]

It will be interesting to see what Barkley does this year, no doubt. I don't understand why now, on 2 threads, the conversation is diverting into RB's contracts, structure, and what "should" or shouldn't be done, it's really not that relevant. We can't do anything about it, no sense spinning our wheels about theoretical changes to the cap, CBA etc.

IF we're talking about the Dynasty context of when to trade a RB, or move off him, then looking at contracts and structures apply. Regardless, I am curious to see how DJ looks in year 2 with BD. I also wonder why they didn't try and improve their WR's a lot more than they did, because it's a really weak depth chart.

I think the contract situations are relevant because today's players are much smarter about protecting their business interests. When Baltimore decided to not provide security for Lamar, he sat out games the last two years, some of which he might have chosen to play in if he had contract security.

I could see Barkley and Jacobs doing the same this year, whenever they get that nagging twinge somewhere. Got a limp that hurts, but that you played with two years ago? Sit and wait until the pain is gone. Got a diagnosis that could maybe be played on but will require off-season surgery? Maybe Barkley/Jacobsdecide to have the surgery immediately so they are fully healthy for 2024 tryouts/contracts. I fully expect each of them to sign the tender, but I don't expect either of them to leave everything on the field like these unquestionably tough players have done in the past. That reduced playing time equals reduced fantasy production, and that's something to should concern every fantasy manager.

I agree the conversation here doesn't necessarily need to go down the rabbit hole of whether or not the CBA is fair to players. We could just discuss the situation as one that might rightfully result in RBs sitting when they feel less than 95% and how that might affect their fantasy production/value.

But asking for insightful restraint on an internet forum is like asking ... well, it's like NFL RBs asking for due compensation. It ain't gonna happen!

[FantasyFreak]

It will be interesting to see what Barkley does this year, no doubt. I don't understand why now, on 2 threads, the conversation is diverting into RB's contracts, structure, and what "should" or shouldn't be done, it's really not that relevant. We can't do anything about it, no sense spinning our wheels about theoretical changes to the cap, CBA etc.

IF we're talking about the Dynasty context of when to trade a RB, or move off him, then looking at contracts and structures apply. Regardless, I am curious to see how DJ looks in year 2 with BD. I also wonder why they didn't try and improve their WR's a lot more than they did, because it's a really weak depth chart.

I think the contract situations are relevant because today's players are much smarter about protecting their business interests. When Baltimore decided to not provide security for Lamar, he sat out games the last two years, some of which he might have chosen to play in if he had contract security.

I could see Barkley and Jacobs doing the same this year, whenever they get that nagging twinge somewhere. Got a limp that hurts, but that you played with two years ago? Sit and wait until the pain is gone. Got a diagnosis that could maybe be played on but will require off-season surgery? Maybe Barkley/Jacobsdecide to have the surgery immediately so they are fully healthy for 2024 tryouts/contracts. I fully expect each of them to sign the tender, but I don't expect either of them to leave everything on the field like these unquestionably tough players have done in the past. That reduced playing time equals reduced fantasy production, and that's something to should concern every fantasy manager.

I agree the conversation here doesn't necessarily need to go down the rabbit hole of whether or not the CBA is fair to players. We could just discuss the situation as one that might rightfully result in RBs sitting when they feel less than 95% and how that might affect their fantasy production/value.

But asking for insightful restraint on an internet forum is like asking ... well, it's like NFL RBs asking for due compensation. It ain't gonna happen!

Yep, I know. The "will they sit if they are a bit banged up", is a legitimate concern. We'll just have to wait and see, it's baked into a risk factor if you want to roster these guys, and yes, it might affect their value for some FF players, but there just isn't much sense going in circles on the issue, on the specifics of what we feel, or should be done in regarding the specifics of the CBA etc. That had literally no bearing on the FF realities of our little game, and we have no control over. It's off topic, derails the thread and doesn't solve anything.

Again, back to Jones. I am very curious why they didn't attempt to do more with the WR corps they have. Hyatt is pretty one dimensional. Their corps is pretty weak, and you'd think they'd make an attempt to improve it more, unless they believe it's "the system" that makes the player.

I suppose, in some context, you could argue adding Waller was the biggest move they made to the receiving corps in general, though he's not a "wide receiver".

[Anteaters]

back to Jones. I am very curious why they didn't attempt to do more with the WR corps they have. Hyatt is pretty one dimensional. Their corps is pretty weak, and you'd think they'd make an attempt to improve it more, unless they believe it's "the system" that makes the player.

I suppose, in some context, you could argue adding Waller was the biggest move they made to the receiving corps in general, though he's not a "wide receiver".

I think they avoided the "affordable" FA WRs because of a risk/reward calculation. The last couple of FA WRs the Giants signed ended up being terrible acquisitions. If I was a GM, I would not be rushing to pay Hopkins what he got. And despite the excitement some fans/reporters have for Ridley, I wouldn't have been in the market for him either - although the price to acquire Ridley was relatively low.

Jakobi/JuJu/Lazard all had reasons for me as a GM to bypass. If I ran the Giants I would not have wanted to give JuJu the contract NE gave him. It's fairly reasonable and he's a dependable receiver, but I don't think he'd make things much better for Danny. Ditto for the Jakobi contract. And no one wanted Lazard at that ridiculous price except Assrod.

There wasn't much else out there. I'd argue the Waller contract is not a good bet. Except there's an out after this season. He's a great receiver and should help Danny for as long as he's healthy, but I wouldn't bet on Waller's health at this point. But with the out at the end 2023, it's an acceptable risk.

If I was a betting man, I'd put money that NY will make a huge offer to Higgins next year. And smaller but substantial offers to Marquise and Pittman. I'd be very surprised if one of those three wasn't on the Giants in 2024.