Is it really worth signing Barkley?

[DaveBrown74]

You normally make good points but I don't see how this is logical.  The Chiefs and Bill's have the two best QBs in football, both on HOF trajectories.  So because a team lead by Mahomes or Allen doesnt need a great RB you think that its not worth it?

Do you think the Giants have or will have a QB of the same level as those two? 

And it's not like those teams don't have Kelce and Diggs as standout skill players to help their RBs face favorable fronts. 

If the Giants had Tyreek Hill, would you recommend getting rid of him because KC did?

No, because I wouldn't be recommending paying our QB $50mm a year the way the Chiefs are, so we would be more likely to be able to afford someone like Hill.

If you don't like those examples, let's instead look at teams in the modern era that haven't had elite QBs but have actually made the RB the centerpiece of the offense. Some examples include the Vikes with Dalvin Cook (pre-Jefferson), the Titans with Derek Henry, and going a little further back the Vikes with Adrian Peterson? The latter is perhaps the best example because Peterson in his prime was better than Barkley. That team never sniffed a Super Bowl. The Titans have been decent with Henry (and he has also had seasons better than Barkley), and they have been a good but not great team. The same can be said about the Dalvin Cook Vikes. Can you identify a team in the past 15 years with a QB of Jones' caliber who went all-in on a 26 year old RB and got great results from doing that?

[uconnjack8]

No, because I wouldn't be recommending paying our QB $50mm a year the way the Chiefs are, so we would be more likely to be able to afford someone like Hill.

If you don't like those examples, let's instead look at teams in the modern era that haven't had elite QBs but have actually made the RB the centerpiece of the offense. Some examples include the Vikes with Dalvin Cook (pre-Jefferson), the Titans with Derek Henry, and going a little further back the Vikes with Adrian Peterson? The latter is perhaps the best example because Peterson in his prime was better than Barkley. That team never sniffed a Super Bowl. The Titans have been decent with Henry (and he has also had seasons better than Barkley), and they have been a good but not great team. The same can be said about the Dalvin Cook Vikes. Can you identify a team in the past 15 years with a QB of Jones' caliber who went all-in on a 26 year old RB and got great results from doing that?

What are you talking about with salary?  Did you miss the point is that you are comparing apples to oranges? The fact KC can say goodbye to Hill shows they are in a completely different situation than the Giants and the teams cannot be built the same.

To be clear I dont think a great RB is required to win a super bowl.  I even understand that today it usually doesnt happen.  But I do think that having one is an advantage, especially if and when a real pass catching threat is added.

What does going all in mean?  What is that?  15 million/year is all-in?  I didn't say "dont add talent ".  Mike Ditka went all-in on a RB, re-signing Barkley is  no where even close to all-in.  Its keeping talent on the team at a very low price for what he actually does. 

[DaveBrown74]

What are you talking about with salary?  Did you miss the point is that you are comparing apples to oranges?

To be clear I dont think a great RB is required to win a super bowl.  I even understand that today it usually doesnt happen.  But I do think that having one is an advantage, especially if and when a real pass catching threat is added.

What does going all in mean?  What is that?  15 million/year is all-in?  I didn't say "dont add talent ".  Mike Ditka went all-in on a RB, re-signing Barkley is  no where even close to all-in.  Its keeping talent on the team at a very low price for what he actually does. 

I don't agree that it's a "very low price" though. $15mm a year may not seem like a lot of money relative to the rest of the cap, but it's still high relative to the position, and there is a material opportunity cost associated with it.

Again I am just not a believer in giving out big second contracts to RBs, period. It's not a premium position to begin with, it's a short shelf-life position, it's a position that sustains a lot of injuries (Barkley in particular), and it's a position where rookies generally perform at an acceptably high level assuming they're solid player to begin with.

I like Barkley a lot and I realize he is coming back, so obviously I will be rooting for him like hell next year and for however long he is a Giant. Philosophically I am just not behind the idea of investing meaningful money in a big 2nd RB contract for any RB, and I am not going to change my opinion on that just because our team happens to be involved in it. As I have said in other threads though, a 2-3 year contract with the ability to easily walk away after the second year is something I can live with. I can certainly also live with the tag, provided Schoen doesn't feel he needs it for Jones.

[Trench]

A lot will depend upon how he performs in the playoffs.

[jimmyz]

Three years at a reasonable price.

[Jaime]

No, find his replacement in the Draft. 

[DaveBrown74]

Three years at a reasonable price.

What would be the highest AAV number that you would call "reasonable" for him?

[Torus34]

The value of a highly-talented running back such as Mr. Saquon Barkley is dramatically increased when a team includes other players of similar, if lesser, capabilities. Teams which rely on single super-stars don't climb as high in the standings as those who can keep the opponents from double-teaming their best and brightest player. Watch how the KC Chiefs make use of a number of receivers to open opportunities for Mr. Travis Kelce.

Signing Mr. Barkley's a given for the coming season. His on-the-field performance, though, will depend on a supporting cast of ball-carriers and a skilled front line.

Go, Big Blue!

[MagicRat]

My gut feeling is a deal gets done without us overpaying.
I think if Barkley "tests the market" he has a limited pool of potential suitors.

You're either looking at a team with ownership who want shiny things and will pay, or a team with their QB on a rookie deal who feel they're close.

Teams in the former category, well, they tend to not be good.

Teams in the latter category, who spring to mind, are pretty well set at RB.

Also,  Saquon strikes me as a level headed, erudite young man who could, potentially,  see a media career as a post football option.

Where better to plant the seeds for that than NY?