Big Blue Huddle

"I could tell they didn't really want me there," McKinney said. "I kind of knew that but for me, it was like I've still got to play well and I still have got to do the best I can for this team right now. I was still with the team and I was still all in but I could kind of tell the direction they were going."

Asked about the departure of players such as himself, Barkley, Leonard Williams, and Julian Love, McKinney stopped short of criticizing general Joe Schoen or head coach Brian Daboll.

"That's my old team," he said. "They go about their business a certain way and they feel like how they do things is the right way. Ultimately, that's how they feel.

"I can't do anything but respect it and wish them the best of luck. That's really all I can do."

https://giantswire.usatoday.com/2025/01/29/xavier-mckinney-on-new-york-giants-they-didnt-want-me-there/?taid=679a404cf7819700015344e8&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=twitter

I understand people will be upset but the Giants did the right thing.

Paying a 30 yr old DT 20 million a year isn't sound.

Paying any safety 70 million or 17 million a year is unrealistic.

Or Paying a RB to a huge 2nd contract

Safety, dt, and rb are non premium positions.

Good job by McKinney to not say anything he shouldn't. 

I would bet he has some stronger opinions on the situation but it does him no good to express them publicly.  He is on a team that goes to the playoffs regularly and they have put him in a role that truly allows him to showcase his talent. 

Good for him on all accounts.

Quote from: Jclayton92 on January 29, 2025, 11:00:34 AMI understand people will be upset but the Giants did the right thing.

Paying a 30 yr old DT 20 million a year isn't sound.

Paying any safety 70 million or 17 million a year is unrealistic.

Or Paying a RB to a huge 2nd contract

Safety, dt, and rb are non premium positions.

I agree that they did the right thing by not signing those guys, but they also need to replace talent for talent and they have failed miserably in that respect.  Not necessarily at those positions, but anywhere on the team.

Quote from: Jclayton92 on January 29, 2025, 11:00:34 AMI understand people will be upset but the Giants did the right thing.

Paying a 30 yr old DT 20 million a year isn't sound.

Paying any safety 70 million or 17 million a year is unrealistic.

Or Paying a RB to a huge 2nd contract

Safety, dt, and rb are non premium positions.

Jess,

I don't think it's unreasonable to say the Giants were not in a position to pay McKinney.  I think the big issue is that Schoen knew this and didn't trade him when he had the chance. Same with Barkley.

Quote from: uconnjack8 on January 29, 2025, 11:07:26 AMI agree that they did the right thing by not signing those guys, but they also need to replace talent for talent and they have failed miserably in that respect.  Not necessarily at those positions, but anywhere on the team.

That's harder to do when you let them walk away with nothing in return.  Schoen should have traded both of them before they hit free agency.

Quote from: Jclayton92 on January 29, 2025, 11:00:34 AMI understand people will be upset but the Giants did the right thing.

Paying a 30 yr old DT 20 million a year isn't sound.

Paying any safety 70 million or 17 million a year is unrealistic.

Or Paying a RB to a huge 2nd contract

Safety, dt, and rb are non premium positions.

If that's true then why do other teams?

Quote from: Philosophers on January 29, 2025, 11:09:31 AMIf that's true then why do other teams?

The teams that picked them up did so as proverbial icing on the cake. Those teams already had great teams and thought they were 1 or 2 pieces away which justified the signings. The Packers were already a playoff team and never sign high dollar free agents, yet they did because they thought they were a player away. Same thing with the Eagles, they were already a super bowl contender, and Barkley was a luxury they could afford because they draft well and a Roseman stretches out contracts to oblivion.

Quote from: Philosophers on January 29, 2025, 11:09:31 AMIf that's true then why do other teams?

The other teams have drafted better than NYG.  If you have plenty of successful draft picks forming the core of your roster, you can afford a few luxury signings.

Quote from: MightyGiants on January 29, 2025, 11:07:42 AMJess,

I don't think it's unreasonable to say the Giants were not in a position to pay McKinney.  I think the big issue is that Schoen knew this and didn't trade him when he had the chance. Same with Barkley.

No I agree, I was begging them to trade Barkley way back in 2022 when he was leading the league before the deadline and he hit that wall. Mckinney I thought was worth keeping because I thought Martindales defense was horrible for him and Bowens has always shined when he had great safety play. The problem was that Green Bay offered him like 4-5 million more a season than most people thought he would get and we simply couldn't match an absurd offer.

Quote from: Jclayton92 on January 29, 2025, 11:00:34 AMI understand people will be upset but the Giants did the right thing.

Paying a 30 yr old DT 20 million a year isn't sound.

Paying any safety 70 million or 17 million a year is unrealistic.

Or Paying a RB to a huge 2nd contract

Safety, dt, and rb are non premium positions.

I agree.  Unfortunately that seems to be the only positions the Giants can actually get right.

Love leaving was the bad one . He could have been and should have been retained.  The money worked for both sides and the negotiation was handled poorly.


McKinney never played for the giants the way he played in Green Bay and not a soul on the planet, including every Packer fan I spoke to here in Wisconsin thought he was worth the money he got.  In fact, I seem to recall that contract was listed as one of the worst signings of the offseason.  Mckinney has a break out year and now it is viewed differently.

Barkley should of been traded in either of his last two seasons.   

Williams was completely not worth his pay and contracts like that are the reason the giants cap was a mess. He was part of the cleansing process, that was a great move.

If I remember correctly, Loved priced himself at around 10 mil a year and that's what he was seeking from the Giants/open market.

He ended up signing for Seattle for 2 years worth 12mil. At the time of the signing, The Athletic, reported that the Seattle deal is "slightly less per year than the Giant's in-season offer" - when love viewed himself as the 10mil a year player. Ultimately, he played very well and parlayed that deal into a nice extension but I'm not 100% convinced the Giants brass can be entirely faulted for not bending to his initial demand.

I would have liked him to stay, but unfortunately he wouldn't move off his price point until he had no choice.

As to McKinney, I think a lot of people were shocked when he signed that deal. Of course, it looks like value when he started the season with 5-6 (i think) interceptions in the first half of the season. But when he only had 5 total in his final two years here, let's see how great the deal looks should he revert to his normal production.

McKinney's remarks are respectful and insightful. I felt the organization soured on him for a couple of reasons. I agree that money was an issue but all things equal, they still would have let him walk. Like Chris said, he had a breakout season and never played that way here. He exposed his body to a dangerous activity and there is language in his contract that deals with that and there were a couple of plays where he just gave up on. It's good for him that he turned his career in the right direction. I would have tried to keep him but not at the price he received and the Giants knew him far more intimately than any of us do.

Quote from: EDjohnst1981 on January 30, 2025, 08:01:55 AMIf I remember correctly, Loved priced himself at around 10 mil a year and that's what he was seeking from the Giants/open market.

He ended up signing for Seattle for 2 years worth 12mil. At the time of the signing, The Athletic, reported that the Seattle deal is "slightly less per year than the Giant's in-season offer" - when love viewed himself as the 10mil a year player. Ultimately, he played very well and parlayed that deal into a nice extension but I'm not 100% convinced the Giants brass can be entirely faulted for not bending to his initial demand.

I would have liked him to stay, but unfortunately he wouldn't move off his price point until he had no choice.

As to McKinney, I think a lot of people were shocked when he signed that deal. Of course, it looks like value when he started the season with 5-6 (i think) interceptions in the first half of the season. But when he only had 5 total in his final two years here, let's see how great the deal looks should he revert to his normal production.

I completely agree the remaining years on the deal will define if the Packers got value there, not just this one season.

Love fell victim to the idea of disrespect, an illogical yet common affliction.  In this case there were two reasons: 1- money and 2- his claim of a disconnect with the FO. 

The Giants didn't bit on the dollar value Love felt he was worth (as you stated $10 mill per) and then left money on the table from the Giants, only to play for less for Seattle. The cure is often to leave to play for less.  It doesn't make sense and often seems avoidable.

At the time and I still fell the Schoen should have been able to patch this up and fix that situation. He did not.