jtd13
Footballguy
That's assuming the leaked offers by the giants were anywhere close to accurate, which is pretty much never the case.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
RB Saquon Barkley, PHI (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Faust
- Start date
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
How does it help his stance? At this point the two parties are no longer able to negotiate. Sitting out a few games only accomplishes him missing a game(s) check.
He will "sit out" training camp and come back a week before the season starts and play Week 1.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Exactly. He missed the window.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
The agent should definitely be fired, because at the end of the day he didn’t get a deal done for his client.
https://twitter.com/rydunleavy
Ryan Dunleavy
@rydunleavy
New: In the end, #Giants and Saquon Barkley couldn't bridge a gap of less than $2 million in both average annual salary and guarantees over the first 2 years, sources said. Both sides felt they budged enough and now it feels like a big risk for both
The Giants’ final three-year offer was in the ballpark of $11 million to $11.5 million per year with guarantees between $22 million and $23 million, multiple sources told the Post.
Those numbers were all within $1 million to $2 million on both ends of Barkley’s reduced asking price.
Ryan Dunleavy
@rydunleavy
New: In the end, #Giants and Saquon Barkley couldn't bridge a gap of less than $2 million in both average annual salary and guarantees over the first 2 years, sources said. Both sides felt they budged enough and now it feels like a big risk for both
The Giants’ final three-year offer was in the ballpark of $11 million to $11.5 million per year with guarantees between $22 million and $23 million, multiple sources told the Post.
Those numbers were all within $1 million to $2 million on both ends of Barkley’s reduced asking price.
pinkstapler
Footballguy
Big picture, something will happen here IMO in the near future, perhaps as soon as this offseason. When you have several of the biggest RBs in football upset about this, it feels like it's past the point of just Jacob's or Barkley's individual circumstances.
Derrick Henry
@KingHenry_2
At this point , just take the RB position out the game then . The ones that want to be great & work as hard as they can to give their all to an organization , just seems like it don’t even matter . I’m with every RB that’s fighting to get what they deserve .
Christian McCaffrey
@CMC_22
This is Criminal. Three of the best PLAYERS in the entire league, regardless of position.
Austin Ekeler
@AustinEkeler
This is the kind of trash that has artificially devalued one of the most important positions in the game. Everyone knows it’s tough to win without a top RB and yet they act like we are discardable widgets. I support any RB doing whatever it takes to get his bag.
And that doesn't include a lot of the analysts/commentators/retired NFL players also commenting negatively about it.
This year will likely go as most here are saying. They will show up and play week 1. I also do think they will not be playing at 110% though. Even if that just means dropping a bit sooner after being hit, or taking a ball OOB rather than turning into a safety flying down the line at you full speed. Hearing football players talk about the game, from the 70s up till today, especially as they get a bit older; they know the physical toll it takes on their bodies and in many cases they are literally giving up future health in their old age to play this game. It's a nuanced situation with many implications, but undoubtedly one of those will always be money. "Is this worth it?". Jacobs and Barkley could live the rest of their lives off the money they've already made. I can sit here at keyboard and say "yeah but they could double that money by playing just one more year" and judge them for not taking that opportunity. But I try to see the other side of it too. In the end people tend to do what's best for themselves/their family first and foremost, and that's the main reason I see them playing this year. But I do think all these guys are gonna be meeting up in the offseason to start looking at what they can do big picture to change the state of the RB market and what we are seeing happen now. I don't think it's just gonna go away and become a "well that's just the way it is" thing. And I think that's a good thing, and hope that does happen.
Derrick Henry
@KingHenry_2
At this point , just take the RB position out the game then . The ones that want to be great & work as hard as they can to give their all to an organization , just seems like it don’t even matter . I’m with every RB that’s fighting to get what they deserve .
Christian McCaffrey
@CMC_22
This is Criminal. Three of the best PLAYERS in the entire league, regardless of position.
Austin Ekeler
@AustinEkeler
This is the kind of trash that has artificially devalued one of the most important positions in the game. Everyone knows it’s tough to win without a top RB and yet they act like we are discardable widgets. I support any RB doing whatever it takes to get his bag.
And that doesn't include a lot of the analysts/commentators/retired NFL players also commenting negatively about it.
This year will likely go as most here are saying. They will show up and play week 1. I also do think they will not be playing at 110% though. Even if that just means dropping a bit sooner after being hit, or taking a ball OOB rather than turning into a safety flying down the line at you full speed. Hearing football players talk about the game, from the 70s up till today, especially as they get a bit older; they know the physical toll it takes on their bodies and in many cases they are literally giving up future health in their old age to play this game. It's a nuanced situation with many implications, but undoubtedly one of those will always be money. "Is this worth it?". Jacobs and Barkley could live the rest of their lives off the money they've already made. I can sit here at keyboard and say "yeah but they could double that money by playing just one more year" and judge them for not taking that opportunity. But I try to see the other side of it too. In the end people tend to do what's best for themselves/their family first and foremost, and that's the main reason I see them playing this year. But I do think all these guys are gonna be meeting up in the offseason to start looking at what they can do big picture to change the state of the RB market and what we are seeing happen now. I don't think it's just gonna go away and become a "well that's just the way it is" thing. And I think that's a good thing, and hope that does happen.
@pinkstapler I don't really see what they can do. It's still millions to play football and someone will do the job. Not sure when the next CBA comes out they should try and have this addressed. Limiting years on the rookie deal for RB's and/or eliminating the usage of the tag would help RB's tremendously IMO.
However, the union reps the whole league and if they ask this for Rb's the league will want concessions some other place so none of this is easy.
This is a case IMO where the NFL should not take such a hard stance. RB's got the ball in their hands, they are big names, big fantasy names. Popular players who help grow fandom and the game.
Last thing I'd add is that is as bad as this all looks for RB's I think we will see more RB's making $10M then ever before. Barkley was $2m off on his negotiations and Jacobs was apparently so close he was sitting in car in the parking lot with Max Crosby ready to sign in case the deal was reached.
However, the union reps the whole league and if they ask this for Rb's the league will want concessions some other place so none of this is easy.
This is a case IMO where the NFL should not take such a hard stance. RB's got the ball in their hands, they are big names, big fantasy names. Popular players who help grow fandom and the game.
Last thing I'd add is that is as bad as this all looks for RB's I think we will see more RB's making $10M then ever before. Barkley was $2m off on his negotiations and Jacobs was apparently so close he was sitting in car in the parking lot with Max Crosby ready to sign in case the deal was reached.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Recent history suggests otherwise. You may even conclude a high priced RB is detrimental to building a championship team.
Terpman22
Footballguy
If he holds out, it doesn't do anything for him. The Giants find a way to play and try to win without him in the lineup. Any games missed will result in "less stats" as leverage for the next contract. The RB position is sort of screwed right now, but that's how it goes. The Leveon Bell lesson is a lesson every RB should know about. Saquon assuredly will be with a new team next year, might be this year...
pinkstapler
Footballguy
What goes into winning a superbowl is like what goes into baking a Gateu St. Honore... oversimplification doesn't begin to describe how bad of a process it is to look at the past 8 superbowls and say "well they didn't have a high paid RB so you must not need one to win". There are so many moving parts and pieces, that include even intangible things such as refereeing and luck, that one extra scoop of flour is enough to make the whole thing fall in on itself. The much less convoluted way to look at it is the Giants are better with Barkley than they are without him. Again, I don't see anyone disagreeing there on that simple fact. What that should equal financially I won't pretend to know. But again, that's not what I'm making a case about.
From a macro level the case has already been made on how RB careers differ significantly from other positions in efficacy, window, career length, pay, etc. And so far the only arguments lodged against those are akin to "well that's the CBA/they agreed/they knew/etc." If I have to explain to anyone why those are poor arguments that don't actually address what's being talked about, then it's beyond what I care to do at this point. In an honest legitimate discussion, there's nothing to refute what's being put forth outside of saying "I don't really care" or having the opinion that it won't have a lasting impact on the league. That's a fine opinion to have, but I have the opposite one. All we can do on that front is wait and see.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Can't say that I agree with this one. Barkley and Jacobs could get banged up or get used up this season. If those two do see heavy workloads, not sure other teams will want to bring them in on big dollar, multi-year deals after having 700 carries over 2 seasons. The market hasn't shown teams with much interest or desire in paying or bringing in RB for big dollars. If the current crop of top backs all start getting $7 or $8 million a year offers, then what? Mixon just had to take a $4.5M a year pay cut to stay with the Bengals and Cook still hasn't found a new team. If healthy, Barkley and Jacobs may probably be considered better all around backs, but the point remains that teams aren't running out and giving RBs big contracts these days.
pinkstapler
Footballguy
I certainly never meant to insinuate there's an easy solution, let alone that I know what that would be lol, so I apologize if it came off that way. I did make a post in one of these threads suggesting looking into exactly what you pointed out. Changing the use of the tag on RBs, changing the number of years of retention for a 1st round picked RB, and at this point just because I think it would solve other problems as well I'd take a look at modifying what they did in 2011 with short changing rookie contracts to begin with. Maybe it was the right idea, but I think poorly implemented. It's artificially shortening the careers of all NFL vets IMO.
All those ideas, even if someone things they are great, are definitely difficult to implement. Like you said, the union has to rep everyone. So not only will the league want some "take" to go with their projected "give"; but other positions will almost certainly have their own gripes they want heard (or even just about how RB rule changes may negatively impact them, who knows).
It reminds me of an argument I got in with my father not long ago where he was complaining about Vanna White asking for more money. "She makes $3 mil a year to turn letters! Hire some other hot broad to do it." (I chuckled as it's the first time in several years I heard a woman referred to as a broad) But then went on to point out, this is how people get lost in details they have no personal reference for and so it becomes bigger than the actual issue itself. Take big numbers out and put in something relatable. She was contracted 18 years ago to do a job for $50k a year. In that time her company has prospered, increased earnings, given surrounding employees raises, etc. And she's gotten nothing. After 18 years, she's asking to be paid more. Is that not a valid argument? Where it goes from there, I won't speculate. But I don't see how a rational person can't at least say "yeah, I see that point".
Amused to Death
Footballguy
I agree with all of the bolded. But what makes it a bad decision is to pay an RB a big contact over multiple years. We all see that a team can draft a rookie in rounds 2, 3, or 4 and get 75% of what Barkley gives them now. And certainly more than what Barkley is likely to give them in years 2 or 3 of the contract. Instead, the money is better spent building the OL, DL, QB, WRs, and DBs. Yes, they're better with him *this year*, which is why they decided to tag him.
I don't know the Giants roster well enough to know what contracts are looming for them beyond '23, but I'll bet they'd rather pay an O lineman or D lineman whatever money Barkley would have gotten in year 3 of a new contract.
Yes, the last decade has been dominated by HOF QB play wrt championships, but that's probably not going to change anytime soon. And besides Brady and Mahomes, we saw a shell of Peyton Manning win, Stafford and Foles as well...and none of them had high priced RBs on the team. Look at least year's 14 playoff teams - how many of them had RBs with big cap numbers?
pinkstapler
Footballguy
Maybe it's something like Kelce/Kittle/Olsen do with Tight End University. Where they just get RBs together in the offseason to train, discuss, learn, etc. It gets lost in all the good TEU does for rookies and with charitable work; but a big reason it also started was the pay disparity between receiving TEs and straight blocking TEs, and how the tags aren't aligned with that of other positions for being a world class player at that position. I don't think it's really gained much ground there, but then again the top guys have started getting paid since Graham made his stink. I just find it hard to believe these top RBs won't be getting together to at least talk about options (as few as they may have).
pinkstapler
Footballguy
The disconnect is I agree with everything you're saying. I'm not trying to be blind to the reality of the league. I'm saying it's bad it's gotten this way and I think it'll negatively impact the future of the league if they don't try to do something to change it. I guess I should have emphasized as much as I feel for Barkley right now, I also feel for the Giants. His well-being is not, and should not be their primary concern. Outside the owners, they are mostly bunch a normal guys with jobs trying to do theirs as well as they can too. I've never walked into a store and said "man you're selling this TV way too cheap, here take more of my money for it please" lol. They are doing what they should be, though if the price difference came down to less than $2 mil to make Barkley happy that seems like something I would have done. But maybe it's not true. And I am far from knowledgeable about how to run a football team lol. I just hope the RBs make enough of a stink to maybe spurn some change. As having top tier athletes specialize in the RB position and play on the field makes the overall NFL product better to consume IMO. There's always been a dichotomy in the NFL between winning championships and making money. From a making money perspective, I think what they are doing to RBs will hurt that side of it eventually.
pinkstapler
Footballguy
Ok sorry, can we now shift to Barkley owners in dynasty crying about how this will impact their teams this season? Because I'm one of those and I don't feel great right now lol. Between him, Dobbins, and Diggs a big part of my starting roster is deep in their feelings this offseason and it doesn't project a sunny outlook.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Yeah it sucks for RBs for sure. Unfortunately they're not a big part of championship teams, I'd say they're more of a luxury than a necessity. A good/great o-line will make average RBs more than serviceable. My disagreement wasn't so much with you but with Ekeler's comment about being hard to win championships without a stud RB when the last decade would suggest otherwise.
pinkstapler
Footballguy
Yeah he certainly could have made a better point. But it probably rekindled some of his own frustration. It wasn't that long ago he was demanding a trade and fighting through negotiations himself. I think that's why Dobbins has been vocal lately. He'll be in a similar boat next season. Because of some unfortunate circumstances he's not been able to show out. But even if he plays as a top 5 back this year, knowing he can just get tagged for the same money RBs were getting tagged for 7-8 years ago (while the rest of the positions have gone up each year)... and not just the pay disparity, but the lack of security, has to be incredibly frustrating.
Again, I think it's bad correlation to say they aren't a big part of a good team. I don't have the patience to go through and look up the left tackle or edge rusher of every championship team for the past decade. But despite being the highest paid positions in the NLF outside QB, they might not have much of a correlation either. But they still make bank while playing for the Browns, Cowboys, Texans, and Chargers. And again, it overlooks the disparity between career length and peak performance windows with regards to when they are actually getting paid for it.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
The best way to win a SB is to have an elite QB on a rookie deal. The next best way is to have a HOF QB (even if the cost is high). From there, it's getting good production on a limited budget. For example, the last time NE paid much for a RB was Corey Dillon 15+ years ago. Since then, they have burned through countless RBs and situational specialists, but they have managed to get 2,000+ YFS and 15-20 total TD out of their RBs almost every single year. They won 3 SBs with bargain basement guys at RB.
That's just one example. Some winning teams recently have won with cheap secondary help. Or offensive linemen. Or receivers. No matter what, teams will have to cut corners somewhere and need to get top production from those spots even though they have invested much. Paying $10M for a RB shouldn't really be cost prohibitive in winning . . . $25-30M WR and $20M+ LT and CB should hurt way more. If we dissected the rosters of SB winning teams, I doubt we will find many that had top of the market guys paywise for many players.
Counterpoint, Jones passer rating is basically the same with/without Barkley, up until last season. Is Barkley's health the reason, or the addition of Daboll. I'd bet on the latter.
By the same token, the Giants actually have a slightly better record without Barkley than with him from 2019-2021, before making the playoffs last year.
Don't get me wrong, having Barkley certainly doesn't hurt, but one wonders if the 10+ million might be better spent elsewhere. If he can stay healthy, I would bet Waller will probably have a bigger effect on Jones than Barkley has.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
So all a team needs to do is draft, arguably that greatest QB to ever play the game, then they can cheap out on the RB spot.
But then shouldn't Barkley's camp(agent) had come out and said the "leaked" offers were not accurate?
Anarchy99
Footballguy
I thought the Giants offers involved less guaranteed money than if he played on the franchise tag two years in a row. Then at the last minute they upped the guaranteed money but lowered his annual salaries.
The Frankman
Footballguy
BTW every leaked offer Saquon has hinted at being BS. The only one that seems correct according to Saquon's response is he turned down the $12 million. He many times said he's not looking to reset the RB market, the Giants need to stop playing around and give him his 3/43.5 with $24 million guaranteed (3rd year a team option at $15 upscaling or $14 downscaling).
I mean geez, I'd argue the Giants could have spent $41 million better elsewhere.
First, some of those wins you're including in Jones' tally actually went to Colt McCoy. 2nd, if you watch the Giants and the structure of the offense, you'd see that it's run primarily through Saquon Barkley; Heck even the year before Daboll showed up and the Giants O was McCoy/Alf Morris the O was designed to protect Daniel Jones at all costs from having a be a QB. The saying that Waller will have a bigger impact to Jones than Barkley will? Counterpoint. Last season.
I mean geez, I'd argue the Giants could have spent $41 million better elsewhere.
Last edited:
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
They wanted to spend it elsewhere. They wanted to sign Saquon to a deal and tag D Jones. But Saquon and team weren’t happy with the offers, so the Giants moved on and did a deal with Jones instead, and tagged Saquon.
(Don’t recall where I read this anymore)
jtd13
Footballguy
Yeah good point. I just meant the giants offense is going to suck if he sits, so it's be a chance for his value to be apparent. But it's not like the giants can come and give him a long term deal even if they see that after week 3.
Saquon did twice.
As a Saquon fan and Giants hater I'd love to see Saquon hold out.
That 2 year, $80+ million guaranteed given to Jones will look awful and the overreach/overreaction it was. Last year Jones threw for 15 TDs and went 700/7 on the ground, with Breida/Brightwell/Gray that's closer to 250 and 2.
Schedule starts: DAL, ARZ, SF, SEA, MIA, BUF. Wink's D will keep them in games, just like last year, but they need all the help they can get on O to pull off the 50/50 games that went their way last year. NYG should have stuck to rebuilding and Saquon holding out would prove that IMO. I think the Giants are a bad org with bad leadership at this point. Not even Daboll and Wink can save them.
That 2 year, $80+ million guaranteed given to Jones will look awful and the overreach/overreaction it was. Last year Jones threw for 15 TDs and went 700/7 on the ground, with Breida/Brightwell/Gray that's closer to 250 and 2.
Schedule starts: DAL, ARZ, SF, SEA, MIA, BUF. Wink's D will keep them in games, just like last year, but they need all the help they can get on O to pull off the 50/50 games that went their way last year. NYG should have stuck to rebuilding and Saquon holding out would prove that IMO. I think the Giants are a bad org with bad leadership at this point. Not even Daboll and Wink can save them.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Yeah unfortunately that’s just not financially prudent for him. He’s pretty important to that offense. It’s a shame nothing could be worked out.
Terpman22
Footballguy
No. Take away Saquon and they have an OK/mid season. Take away Jones and who is the QB?
I think they are going to regress even if both play all 17 games this year though b/c DJ ain't it overall. He's just a lot better than.....Tyrod Taylor.
Drake Hater
Footballguy
From a FF perspective if Saquon and other RB1s hold out this changes some draft strategies no? Not to mention rankings.
steelcityman
Footballguy
If he sits out all year, he's back in the same situation next year, right? And out $10M?
Does anyone really think he is sitting out all year? He'll show up right before the season, or at latest whatever week that qualifies him for a full season, get injured(soft tissue) and barely play.
Is Gray really a viable dynasty option now?
Does anyone really think he is sitting out all year? He'll show up right before the season, or at latest whatever week that qualifies him for a full season, get injured(soft tissue) and barely play.
Is Gray really a viable dynasty option now?
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Yes, which is why it’s a hollow threat made out of frustration. With the short shelf life of the position it would be beyond stupid for him to give up $10mm he’ll never see again.
zamboni
Footballguy
Saquon is clearly angry and disappointed, even though he had a chance to take the bag. I'm sure once he has a chance to cool down and see what the ramifications are of him sitting out (both current and future paychecks), he'll be back with the team. Whether that's sometime during camp or right before the season, we'll see.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
I don’t even think he’ll sit one game out - that’s close to $600,000 he’d be throwing away to make a point that no one is listening to.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
The devil is in the details. He may not miss games by way of holding out (ie, not getting paid), but I can see him pulling a hammy, tweaking an ankle, or otherwise getting the blue flu and not playing multiple games (where he would get paid).
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
That’s not the same thing that being discussed and I’m not sure perpetuating his “injury prone” label is going to help him get paid in free agency.
I’m not saying it couldn’t happen but these ways being discussed about how he can make a point, only really potentially hurt his bottom line.
zamboni
Footballguy
Was listening to the Fantasy Life podcast from yesterday and Ian Hartitz brought up a good point. Players today stay in amazing shape more so than ever. And even during training camp, RBs (particularly veterans) purposely don't take a lot of pounding anyway. It may take a bit to gel with their offensive lines and QBs, but vets can get up to speed pretty quickly.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
You missed what I was trying to emphasize. I am not saying he would get seriously hurt. But I am saying he could say he was hurt and / or exaggerate an injury to collect his weekly game checks while not actually playing. Once he signs his franchise tag contract, the money is guaranteed as long as he shows up. If Barkey is bringing up not playing actual games and not getting paid, I can see him sitting out a few extra games with a "lingering injury."
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
No, I completely understood what you were implying and my response remains the same - missing games with “phantom” injuries isn’t going to help his case.
His best course of action to maximize his value is go out and have another season like his rookie season.
zamboni
Footballguy
Agree with Dr. O. Missing games is only going to create some uncertainty by his next employer and won't help his financial cause. Balling out is his only way to get the money back he turned down.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
I didn't mean to quote you. However, Barkley could have a 1500/700/15 season this year, and it very likely won't get him more money, a long-term contract, or a truckload of guaranteed money. Teams don't seem to be interested in handing out deals like that these days. But if he gets hurt, we know other teams won't be offering him anything near what he wants for a contract (and the Giants may just let him walk). It's in Saquon's best interest to collect his $10M in salary this year while remaining fully healthy. How he accomplishes that is open for debate.
People may agree to disagree, but if he has back-to-back years with 350+ touches, that probably won't help his cause either. Teams have learned that uber high workload guys don't make it much past 27 anymore. That's the age he would be heading into 2024, so I don't think he would see a 4 year/$60M offer with $30M guaranteed. Through no fault of his own, he is in a dicey predicament.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Sure but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t try to put himself in the best position. I mean throwing his hands up in the air and saying “I quit” because the situation is unfair isn’t going to help him any. Anyway not sure there’s any point in arguing against unrealistic speculation.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Just curious. If your coworkers made $160K, and your company offered you $120K, would you be considered greedy? That's the real-world equivalent dollar equivalent to what happened with Barkley. In that example, he only ended up with $100K, so I can see the argument that he actually shot himself in the foot. In the real world, an employee could always seek out employment elsewhere for better pay. That's part of the issue with franchise tagged players. They can't go work for a competitor. If the high-end salary for RBs is $16M, there is nothing a player can do if the team that holds a player's rights has no interest in paying that. Sure, I get it, no one is going to cry any tears for an NFL player making $10M. The whole franchise tagging system only serves to thwart the pay of the league's best players.
zamboni
Footballguy
Maybe not greedy, but perhaps an inflated sense of his value and the market.
Obviously it wouldn't be a long term deal, but it would certainly be more if he went out and had a huge season than it would be if he half-assed it. Of course he'd have to weigh the risks of injury but it's not like there's zero downside to milking this season.
This analogy doesn't work IMO.
Employees can't always seek out employment elsewhere for better pay, some have contracts with restrictions including non-compete clauses. Generally there are trade offs for that (higher pay, benefits, etc.), just like there are with the franchise tag. There's give and take in all of this, if they removed the ability to tag players they would probably have to compromise somewhere else to offset it, like lower guarantees earlier. I don't think Barkley was complaining much about the system when he was guaranteed $31 mil before stepping on the field, or in 2020-2021.
