I did don’t know that it ends his career. But few RBs can sit a year or 2 and comeback at top of their game. Seems like a lose lose for everyone.
Too bad for Saquon
- Thread starter bdgan
- Start date
What you don’t seem to accept is that not all teams are the same. The market today is based on having a passing game with a good QB and strong receivers… either of which the Giants have. Also, not many RB’s can be part of the passing game like Barkley. They’re not replacing Barkley with any generic RB and they will find that out if he doesn’t play.
I keep forgetting you have all the inside information about everything that the rest of us don’t have access to. How silly of me.
Again the Giants dont agree with your assessment based on Hyatt and Waller plus they're hoping other guys are healthy. You refuse to accept they disagree on Jones which ruins your argument. Your (nor my) evaluation means anything. The Giants are all in on Jones and Barkley can play or lose 2 prime years of his career and 22M.
You even said before it's not the 10M it's about a long term contract which only guaranteed money matters on those. But then you changed your argument because it doesn't work
That’s fine, they’re riding Jones. My guess is it will be a failure. We will see.
I didn’t change my argument…I said the problem is in the details, which we don’t know what they are. You seem to think you have all the details (but then again you always do). I said the amount wasn’t what was insulting, it was the lack of an acceptable contract….I never mentioned a dollar amount.
Right you said LONG TERM which only guaranteed money on those is relevant as you know. All contracts are about money. Every single one. This isn't the NHL where he's looking for a NMC. In the NFL the years and everything else means nothing aside from what is guaranteed.
I guess only Barkley could answer that and contracts are often about more than money….the devil is in the details.
I wish Barkley the best but strictly in terms of economics I think the Giants are right on this one. Between wear and tear and injuries and fungibility of RBs it's just not worth pouring too much money into an RB. We have recent examples proving it, when the Rams poured too much into Todd Gurley and the Cowboys poured too much into Zeke Elliot. And we have one in the other direction where the Chargers declined Melvin Gordon't request for big money and replaced him with Austin Ekeler, who was cheaper and who performed about the same and meanwhile Gordon left and was so-so in Denver.
Yes, Barkley is another level, or was before the injuries, I'm not sure hie is now, but even if he is, is the marginal positive effect of being better than other RBs worth THAT much money, which could otherwise be put towards other positions on the team?
Yes, Barkley is another level, or was before the injuries, I'm not sure hie is now, but even if he is, is the marginal positive effect of being better than other RBs worth THAT much money, which could otherwise be put towards other positions on the team?
What details in NFL contracts? Again, this isn't about a no trade clause, it's not the NHL. This is, like all NFL contracts, about guaranteed money. Stop pretending agents and players say otherwise to keep the players fans from turning on them. This is about GUARANTEED money...anything else would have worked out because it's minor in the NFL unlike other leagues.
Again, unless you know what’s going on behind the scenes (which you don’t) you’re just blowing smoke. All I know is that with Barkley the Giants will be a decent team, without him they will suck. Pretty easy.
That's an assumption. The Steelers finished above 500 with Pickett and a guy that's probably not a top 20 back. You're not giving Daboll or Jones or anyone else enough credit.
Give me something in an NFL contract that Barkley could want that isn't about guaranteed money. Just one thing that is important enough that it not about the money. Just one option
I think a lot of the arguments pro and against are just silly. If the Giants have a SB caliber QB (who they already paid), if the upgrades they made have improved the team enough to contend for that SB WITHOUT Barkley, why didn't they just let him go? If the free agent marked doesn't want to give SB the guaranteed money he wants, so be it.
The reality is, the Giants are pretty sure he's worth more than $10 million. Somebody would have paid it. So they use their leverage, the franchise tag. So be it. It's been negotiated for.
You can imply the Giants are being smart and understand Barkley's issue collectively. However, if the Giant were smart, you move him for draft picks before this nonsense got to this point and now it's a matter of who bends.
After all, if any RB could do it, why didn't they draft one?
Because they knew they had the final leverage swing outside of Barkley not playing. That's why.
The reality is, the Giants are pretty sure he's worth more than $10 million. Somebody would have paid it. So they use their leverage, the franchise tag. So be it. It's been negotiated for.
You can imply the Giants are being smart and understand Barkley's issue collectively. However, if the Giant were smart, you move him for draft picks before this nonsense got to this point and now it's a matter of who bends.
After all, if any RB could do it, why didn't they draft one?
Because they knew they had the final leverage swing outside of Barkley not playing. That's why.
You absolutely don't move him for draft picks when you control his rights. And let's not pretend his trade value is great. McCaffrey didn't get a first. Why would they deal him for say a 2nd and 4th? You tag him for the next two years which is far better. Giants hold all the cards. If Saquon sits out he hurts himself more than the Giants.
No one has to like how the tag works or the value of running backs but you have to accept both of those realities when evaluating the situation.
A 2nd and a 4th are better than a guy who doesn't sign and play.
If RBs are a dime a dozen, what good are his rights? Just cut him loose. Any draft pick can produce similarly well.
Why not let things play out if you are Saquon and your control is minimized? He has a deadline to sign, play, get a service year counted, and still make $4+ million if I understand things correctly. Let NYG play 7 or 8 games. If they are 7-1, you sign and show up and contribute to the run much more rested than your counterparts. If they are 2-6, you sign and see if you are the missing piece or if the whole puzzle just sucks, it sucks.
At the end of the day, it's his body. It's up to him to determine how much it costs for him to take 20 hits per game. Bringing in James Robinson and Cole Beasley isn't what I call a productive use of the money and roster space that they wouldn't give Barkley. They should have been talking to Cook. Or maybe they are.
They brought in Waller and Hyatt. Look at the number Beasley put up under Daboll. He won't duplicate that but he's a reliable possession receiver that should have space in the middle with Waller and Bellinger able to stretch the field some from the TE spot.
Why would they talk to Cook? Cook is done. They're banking on Saquon not being as dumb as Bell and they'll likely win that bet the next 2 years.
People keep pretending the Giants aren't in power position here. They're not the Steelers. They'll continue to tag him.
Waller is good, but he isn't a WR and he isn't Kelce.
Hyatt is your answer for "they drafted/signed a WR"? He's probably battling for WR3 this camp. He ran 2 routes at Knoxville in Heupels offense.
Beasley looked old last year. Unless he's geared up, I doubt a guy who had 6 receptions for 35 yards is going to be the possession WR he once was in '23 during his 10th+ season in the league.
Cook is available. He's as close to Barkley quality that you can still get that is known. Market wasn't kind to him either. Maybe he's willing to take less.
I've never said the Giants didn't have power. They absolutely do and they are using it. More power to them. Bell's case is Bell's case. Giants can tag away. Barkley still has options. They make have limits. They may not work out. What if he is the good soldier, signs, and blows another knee? His value drops even further than sitting out some or all of this year.
Waller isn't Kelce (who is) but he can stretch the field and most teams can't match up a LB with him. Bellinger is also a threat or has potential as he demonstrated last year. Hyatt is also on the team to run those routes while he develops--he'll keep defenses honest which is something they were missing. Hodgins looked good at the end of the year. Beasley is reliable and still can get open. he won't play a ton but he adds value. They're in much better shape now than last year. That's not debatable.
He disagree on Cook--I wouldn't sign him regardless of my RB situation. But we'll see how that plays out. I think there's a reason he's a FA. No one is willing to pay him close to what he wants.
His option is to play or throw away years of his prime. Giants will tag him again next year. Sitting out isn't about dropping his value--it's about reliving this. There's zero doubt on that. Actually, the Giants will do it for 3 years out of spite.
He should have signed the long term contract if he was worried about a potential injury but he (and other RBs) haven't accept reality yet. Saquon's getting very bad advice unfortunately.
We all love Saquon but he's fighting a losing battle here and making very bad decisions. It's a shame. Hopefully he comes to his senses sooner than later. I wish he would have just accepted the long term offer.
Everything you wrote is debatable. The worst is propping up Beasley as someone who can still get open just to say the Giants have done some marvelous job. If he can get open, why just 6 catches? Wasn't he released for a younger guy and only caught on when Brady needed body's at WR?
Cook testing the open market and getting less is fine. It's fair. He's not being forced to play for a certain team at a certain price or not play at all.
Like I said, I think Barkley should miss up to the point of no return. Let the Giants flourish or flounder and then show up and do what you do. He'll still get paid for what he plays. He'll still get his service year. And he can do it 2 more years after that if they want to tag him out of spite. And he can show up at PoNR 2 more times or play or do whatever he wants.
What? Beasey is depth which is never a bad thing. Beasley was out of the league for a couple reasons. I even said he won't play a lot and you tried to spin that into what exactly?
Cook isn't being forced to do anything. If he was being offered good money he wouldn't be on the market. He's hoping someone gets desperate.
And Barkley loses the majority of 3 years of his prime and millions of dollars. He can do whatever he wants and if he takes the route of Bell he'd be remembered the exact same way. People here always talk about legacy. If Saquon cares about his (maybe he doesn't) he learns from the mistakes of others instead of repeating them.
You brought up that he's reliable and can get open. Depth? OK. That doesn't translate to the Giants being better, which was part of the discussion. Everybody has added depth. What improvements have been made that make this team better than last year?
You said Waller, Beasley, and Hyatt. I disagree on all 3. One is way past his prime. One is a rookie, meaning we have no clue what will happen. And the other is an aging TE who is a year or 2 removed from being high end with no guarantee that he can get back there after injuries. Carr 2 years ago is probably a better QB than Jones.
At the end of the day, the Giants are the ones who drafted Barkley at #2 and have did nothing smart since. Now I'm supposed to buy in to this RB wasteland era just because some teams have done it? Naw. I think it's bad business from an organization that shouldn't have drafted a RB at #2 without the OL or plans to build one. Particularly if RBs have been factored out of the game.
Is Barry Sanders remembered for being selfish? Did his early retirement hurt his legacy? Heck, did Bell hurt his by sitting out? I don't think different of him. Out talking about playing games high off MJ, getting robbed by hookers (i think that was him, if not, apologies im incorrect) does more to tarnish him than his holdout.
Not everyone has depth...at least not quality depth. With their young receivers Beasley helps just by being there. As has been said, Hyatt has to learn a lot and a vet like Beasley is helpful.
We disagree on Carr being better than Jones. Jones had a better year last year than Carr ever did if you look at it in its entirety. Not sure how anyone can say Waller and Hyatt don't improve their team.
"Have done nothing smart since"??? What? Are you saying Daboll wasn't a good hire? Didn't they make the playoffs last year and won a game? As a Steelers fan I'd kill for a playoff win it's been so long.
Sanders retired. He didn't hold out over money. Also, Barkley hasn't accomplished anything close to what Sanders did. People bash Bell constantly for what he did. It's literally all they talk about regarding his career at this point.
Beasley just came on. Seems like a reaction to Barkley, just like signing Robinson. Neither are quality depth, otherwise they would have already been signed. The Giants didn't just stumble on this treasure trove of aging vets to help the young guys.
Of course, you disagree on Carr. Jones is a better runner. Definitely not a better passer.
Again, is Waller and Hyatt it? I don't follow all their signings. If they are it, and I'm assuming they are since you haven't mentioned anyone else besides the TE who is going to shrink before game 1 or get popped for PEDs.
Daboll, we'll see. He made the playoffs with a healthy Barkley as the focal point of the offense. I'd like to see him win a playoff game with Barkley or make the playoffs without him before anointing him as this great, smart hire.
Barkley is on pace for a similar career to Sanders: stuck being the best RB in the league on a team that gives no help. I don't think the tag existed during Barry's era did it?
Maybe you are just too close to the Bell situation being a Steelers fan; the casual NFL fan doesn't give a damn about his hold out. A stud who eventually flamed out. Steelers haven't been any good since have they?
Why would anyone care what a casual NFL fan thinks? They literally have no clue what they're talking about. I don't care at all about his decision personally...tons of players have left teams I'm fans of, including Penn State, and I've still rooted for them. What Bell did was short-sighted and set him up for failure as experts have been saying since it happened. Also Bell's departure wasn't the Steelers issue...it was AB going psychotic and them trying to force DJ to be a #1 receiver. Not to mention Tomlin's unwillingness to make changes which is proven by Canada still being the OC. Steelers also weren't winning title with Bell or even getting close.
Im not sure why you and others are pretending the Giants only had Barkley last year. Just because you're a fan of Saquon it shouldn't prohibit you and others from giving others credit.
Generally speaking I'm not a fan of running QBs but I'll take Jones over Carr any day. Derek Carr had a stacked team around him with a power run game and arguably a top 3 receiver in the game yet he crashed and burned.
Giants also added a top tier interior OL in the draft which they focused on improving the past 2-3 years for both Jones and Barkley. It's odd you and others bash the OL to praise Barkley but don't consider that when discussing the growth we saw from Jones last year.
And no Saquon isn't Barry unfortunately. He's an elite back but not on track to be one of the all-time greats. Thought he had that kind of talent but he has produced close to that level thus far. Barkley's 26....he's got 3-4 prime years left. Won't touch Barry but almost no one ever will.
Many people here have posted about Le’Veon Bell and used him as an example what will happen to Barkley. And done so with conviction as if it was an indisputable fact. I am here to tell you the two situations have nothing in common.
When Bell was with the Steelers he played with a Hall of Fame QB, pro bowl receivers, a pro bowl TE, a pro bowl and probably HoF center, a pro bowl guard, and a pro bowl tackle. He had an entire offense allowing him to look great.
And then he went to the Jets!?! What an offensive powerhouse that was. What a stupid move.
Barkley is in just about the opposite situation. The offense around him has sucked since the day he was drafted. If he becomes a free agent and carefully selects a team with the proper talent instead of the highest bidder he could excel and finally show his true talents.
I don’t pretend to know what move would be best for him. Both have pluses and minuses. But I do know there is no comparison between his situation and that of Bell.
None.
When Bell was with the Steelers he played with a Hall of Fame QB, pro bowl receivers, a pro bowl TE, a pro bowl and probably HoF center, a pro bowl guard, and a pro bowl tackle. He had an entire offense allowing him to look great.
And then he went to the Jets!?! What an offensive powerhouse that was. What a stupid move.
Barkley is in just about the opposite situation. The offense around him has sucked since the day he was drafted. If he becomes a free agent and carefully selects a team with the proper talent instead of the highest bidder he could excel and finally show his true talents.
I don’t pretend to know what move would be best for him. Both have pluses and minuses. But I do know there is no comparison between his situation and that of Bell.
None.
I was listening to the Fan in Pittsburgh on Thursday and the topic of Bell came up. Guess he basically lied to his teammates about sitting out. And a lot of guys were pissed at him, in particular the OL. So I'm sure that had a lot to do with him leaving Pittsburgh. Then in some interview Bell said he regretted how he handled the situation.
Barkley wanted a long term deal with THE GIANTS.
This isn't about anything other than money--and that's okay. RBs have a limited shelf life in the NFL. None of that alters at this point his only viable option is to sign the tag before the season starts to avoid losing a paycheck.
Just because we all like Barkley doesn't mean we need to spin this to support him. This isn't any different than Bell IF (a big if) he makes the wrong decision and sits.
He also won't be given the same opportunity Bell was as the Giants will tag him again...and again.
Which has nothing to do with my post.…..Bell’s situation was totally different. Not comparable.
It has everything to do with your post. Both want paid. That's it. Neither wanted to leave their team. There's nothing to your post other than "spin"
You said the two situations have "nothing in common" which is factually incorrect.
Last edited:
DUUuuhhh! They both wanted more money. I yield to your geniusouzity…..
My post was about the postulate that Bell sat out a year and was never the same…..and posters stating that this is proof that Barkley will ruin his career by sitting out a year. Which is crazy. Totally different situations.
Barkley sitting out a year (or three cause he'll be tagged three times) will destroy his career. You can't lose years of your prime in the NFL as a RB. He sits out he's losing 10.5M. He'll never get that back. No contract is going to make up for that. He'd need 33.5 in guaranteed money over 2 years--he's not getting more than McCaffrey.
Your situation also somehow implies when he plays it might be with the Chiefs or another loaded team. Giants have made it clear they aren't going to allow that to happen.
What is the benefit of sitting out a year? Let's start there because maybe I'm missing something. How does losing a year of his prime help his career?
Homey don’t play that game. Ain’t gonna get trapped into some meaningless, endless string of crap. I said before I will not pretend to know what is best for SB. He is a very smart guy. I will respect his decision.
But for the notion that sitting out a year will end his career….. that is as foolish as attempting to equalize his situation with that of Bell.
Lots of players get injured in August camp, sit out a year and come back better than ever. Missing a year at age 26 is a nothing burger. He is such a workout freak that he will likely be better with a full year to heal up and get even better.
And going to a better team with a better offense would extend his career, possibly by five years or more. RB is such a high risk position that one cannot predict injuries but his odds would be much better.
I just don't understand why you keep talking about going to another team. The Giants aren't going to allow that as they have complete control. Plus, the Giants are nowhere as bad as you're making them out to be right now.
Similar threads
