Jump to content

Barkley is back in the building


Larz

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Joe W. Namath said:

11 million dollars for 1 year.  But running backs dont get paid………

Not compared to wideouts they don't and they touch the ball more. Allen Lazard and Corey Davis make more money annually. Who would you rather have on this team?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Claymation said:

Not compared to wideouts they don't and they touch the ball more. Allen Lazard and Corey Davis make more money annually. Who would you rather have on this team?

Different positions.  A center touches the ball more then anyone.  Should they get paid like qbs?

What wrs get paid has nothing to do with what rbs or any other positions get paid.  That is a premium position in todays game.

  • Thumb Down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joe W. Namath said:

11 million dollars for 1 year.  But running backs dont get paid………

Daniel Jones, bottom-8 QB dependent on Barkley for any success he's had in the league to date, is due to make $45M in 2024.

Meanwhile, Barkley is going to make less than Curtis Samuel this season.

No, relatively speaking, RBs decidedly do NOT get paid.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Joe W. Namath said:

What wrs get paid has nothing to do with what rbs or any other positions get paid.  

Your entire f**king argument is that RBs get paid.  How else are people supposed to contend such a claim without comparing to other positions?

Need someone to choose players at non-premium positions?  Fine.  non-EDGE Dolphins LB Jerome Baker is due to make $12.5M this year.  SS Budda Baker is due to receive $16.9M.  Non-pass rushing DT Kenny Clark is due $12.9M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joe W. Namath said:

11 million dollars for 1 year.  But running backs dont get paid………

 

last year, christian kirk signed a 4-year, $72 million contract, with $37 million fully guaranteed, including a $20 million signing bonus.  at the time he signed the contract, he had played in 56 games, caught 236 passes for 2,902 yards and 17 TDs, while adding 16 rushes for 142 yards (3,044 yards, 17 TDs total)

saquon barkley has played in 60 games, has rushed 954 times for 4,249 yards and 29 TDs, while also catching 247 passes for 1,820 yards and 8 TDs (6,069, 37 TDs total).  he just signed a 1-year contract where he can max out at $11 million, with a $2 million signing bonus.

sure, $11 million in life-changing money for most people on this board and most people in the world.  but who would you rather have on your team - christian kirk or saquon barkley?  who do you think should get paid more - an elite RB or a JAG WR?

  • Upvote 4
  • Sympathy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Larz said:

 

Very surprised that $1M in incentives is all it took. It’s great for the Giants, though. 
 
Josh Jacobs, meanwhile, is sipping a piña colada and saying, “enjoy training camp, sucker!”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Larz said:

IMG_6885.jpeg

Kind of an oversimplification, no? I'm pretty sure he's unhappy with this outcome, which the team always had in its back pocket. More like he had to accept it because he doesn't have enough seasons left to hold out for a season & still get a multi-year contract after that (knowing the Giants can still just tag him again anyway, if they were so inclined). 

He may yet make more this way, as well. $12MM plus next year (whether tagged or another contract) after the salary cap balloons again, is more than $22MM over 2 years. Of course he has to make it through the season healthy again (with around or at least top 5 rushing #s at that). If he gets tagged again, since they tagged him this offseason, I think they may still have to bump that by 20% (though it's a gray area with the negotiated 1-year deal). If so he could make $12MM this year plus $13-14MM next year. That's more than $22MM, but it's not without risk that he won't get it.

The only time since the free agency era began, that I remember a RB holding out and the team coming back with its tail between its legs was Emmitt Smith in the 90s. Held out, and I think he was under contract (team had even more control than the franchise tag). Then this unbeatable team loses the first 2 games without him & made him the game's highest paid RB (even if it wasn't the QB money he was seeking, it was a lot closer to QB-money than RBs get nowadays). During the season their only 2 post-holdout losses came when he was injured, too. With a healthy Smith (after he took a game & a bye to get in game shape), they were 14-0. With him holding out or injured / not in game shape the same team was 1-4. Pretty stark comparison.

But it was a different game back then, with rules enforced very differently, so I don't see that Smith-like leverage repeating any time soon. Even though he didn't get it, it wasn't totally laughable for Smith to demand QB money as part of his negotiation. To put that in context, Barkley was hardly demanding some $55MM/season. 

Barkley may be as valuable (or more valuable) to the Giants' fortunes as Emmitt was to the Cowboys, but 26 and 24 are very different for RBs in terms of contract leverage, and $11-12MM is a lot more he'd be walking away from than Emmitt under a 1990 mid-1st rookie contract.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Joe W. Namath said:

Different positions.  A center touches the ball more then anyone.  Should they get paid like qbs?

What wrs get paid has nothing to do with what rbs or any other positions get paid.  That is a premium position in todays game.

oh please, that's your rebuttal...a center.

And there are 6 centers making more money than Barkley.

There were 2 WR that had more yards from scrimmage than Barkley last year, Hill and Jefferson.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, jvill 51 said:

Anyone know if next years tag would still count as his second tag, since he technically never signed the tag this year? @Sperm Edwards? I almost have to imagine it would still be considered a second tag, otherwise this is incomprehensibly dumb.

I just finished a post wondering about this.

My guess is probably yes, since he did get tagged all offseason through July 15th, but it's a gray area since he isn't technically playing under the tag. On the other hand he kind of is, since the tag amount is his guaranteed amount - and the amount he makes without incentives - since he was forbidden from more than a 1-year deal because he was tagged.

I really don't know for sure, tbh. Can't recall it coming up (MT noted the last time a tagged player didn't play under the tag or outright hold out was almost 20 years ago). 

OTOH what if this 1-year just-done contract was for $16MM (rather than $11MM with a chance of $12MM)? Would next year's franchise tag amount have to be $18.2MM even though he was tagged at only $11MM? If Barkley makes $12MM this year by hitting his incentives, would a '24 tag be 20% more than $11MM or 20% more than $12MM? Or because he didn't play under the tag does the 20% not even apply in the first place?

I really don't know. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barkley is $11 million richer than Jacobs.  If Jacobs sits out the season, he's never getting that money back.  Ever.  The RBs have no leverage.  And they are paid less because their careers are shorter and they are easily replaceable.  There's no formula for NFL salaries based on touches.  A top WR may touch the ball fewer times, but gains more yards on those touches - not that that matters either.

Does anyone really think Jacobs will be worth more next season than this season after another year of wear and tear?  Le'Veon Bell got paid because the Jets were idiots.  I don't see another NFL team being that stupid again.  All Jacobs is doing is taking a training camp off. Will he be better for it? Doubtful.  The history of players returning after missing camp is not good.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Kind of an oversimplification, no? I'm pretty sure he's unhappy with this outcome, which the team always had in its back pocket. More like he had to accept it because he doesn't have enough seasons left to hold out for a season & still get a multi-year contract after that (knowing the Giants can still just tag him again anyway, if they were so inclined). 

He may yet make more this way, as well. $12MM plus next year (whether tagged or another contract) after the salary cap balloons again, is more than $22MM over 2 years. Of course he has to make it through the season healthy again (with around or at least top 5 rushing #s at that). If he gets tagged again, since they tagged him this offseason, I think they may still have to bump that by 20% (though it's a gray area with the negotiated 1-year deal). If so he could make $12MM this year plus $13-14MM next year. That's more than $22MM, but it's not without risk that he won't get it.

The only time since the free agency era began, that I remember a RB holding out and the team coming back with its tail between its legs was Emmitt Smith in the 90s. Held out, and I think he was under contract (team had even more control than the franchise tag). Then this unbeatable team loses the first 2 games without him & made him the game's highest paid RB (even if it wasn't the QB money he was seeking, it was a lot closer to QB-money than RBs get nowadays). During the season their only 2 post-holdout losses came when he was injured, too. With a healthy Smith (after he took a game & a bye to get in game shape), they were 14-0. With him holding out or injured / not in game shape the same team was 1-4. Pretty stark comparison.

But it was a different game back then, with rules enforced very differently, so I don't see that Smith-like leverage repeating any time soon. Even though he didn't get it, it wasn't totally laughable for Smith to demand QB money as part of his negotiation. To put that in context, Barkley was hardly demanding some $55MM/season. 

Barkley may be as valuable (or more valuable) to the Giants' fortunes as Emmitt was to the Cowboys, but 26 and 24 are very different for RBs in terms of contract leverage, and $11-12MM is a lot more he'd be walking away from than Emmitt under a 1990 mid-1st rookie contract.

Complete over complication 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I just finished a post wondering about this.

My guess is probably yes, since he did get tagged all offseason through July 15th, but it's a gray area since he isn't technically playing under the tag. On the other hand he kind of is, since he was forbidden from more than a 1-year deal because he was tagged.

I really don't know for sure, tbh. Can't recall it coming up (MT noted the last time a tagged player didn't play under the tag or outright hold out was almost 20 years ago). 

I just can’t imagine his reps let him sign this deal if it means he doesn’t get the 20% bump with next year’s tag and it further delays his ability to get to the open market. All for getting some of the money a couple of months in advance and 1 mill in genuinely hard to reach incentives which reportedly are also tied to the Giants making the playoffs? Would be malpractice.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

Barkley is $11 million richer than Jacobs.  If Jacobs sits out the season, he's never getting that money back.  Ever.  The RBs have no leverage.  And they are paid less because their careers are shorter and they are easily replaceable.  There's no formula for NFL salaries based on touches.  A top WR may touch the ball fewer times, but gains more yards on those touches - not that that matters either.

There are other reasons as well, but I'd agree at 26 he's not in the same position leverage-wise as he'd be at 24. 

Teams are spending so much more on OL to make the RB position more expendable. Or anyway, to make a merely good QB capable of elite RB numbers (see Thomas Jones, before during and after playing behind the elite Jets OL).

It's not because it's better economics to pay 5 guys more instead of 1, so much as - unless you're talking about the 2020s-era Jets - RBs are more likely to miss games, exit games early, and outright land on IR, than OLmen. So it's not just building the most talented team, but the most resilient team as well in a rough game that now has 17 regular season games alone. 

As sympathetic as I am to RBs whose leverage has been gutted by the situation, I'm sympathetic to teams coming to this conclusion, too. It's the smart move on paper. 

RBs' career lengths just aren't the same, and with their higher injury numbers factored in, it just rarely pays to make a long-term mega-dollar investment in a single RB. TBH they shouldn't be able to get tagged (to the extent any player should be getting tagged, but I think that's an easier negotiation than eliminating it outright, but the league might see that as a Trojan Horse & be immovable on that for RBs just for that reason alone). 

It's rough -- they get so many touches & get clobbered & piled-on by so many others, so much more than anyone else, and it's become or becoming the lowest-paid position other than kickers & punters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NFL MVP called third-year QB Zach Wilson (@ZachWilson) over to have him listen in and view how he called one of the situational drills (believed to be the two-minute or four-minute offense), a source said."

A-Rod has "quickly developed outstanding chemistry with second-year wide receiver Garrett Wilson (@GarrettWilson_V) in particular."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...