Time to move on from Saquon Barkley?

[brownelvis54]

For the next season, is it time to move on? This team is so bad and needs a major revam, whats the point to paying an aging RB? Time to move on?

[Fletch]

What is with the Barkley hate? When the day arrives that this team is better WITHOUT Barkley and it can be proved on the field i.e. the offense isn't like a 30 something ranked passing offense, and that Barkley's run are hindering them; that is the day you get rid of Barkley.

You do not get rid of your only legit vaible threat on offense because of boredom or because of some philosophical BS that you can just start drafting players and have a pass attack like some of the better ones in the league.

[uconnjack8]

What is with the Barkley hate? When the day arrives that this team is better WITHOUT Barkley and it can be proved on the field i.e. the offense isn't like a 30 something ranked passing offense, and that Barkley's run are hindering them; that is the day you get rid of Barkley.

You do not get rid of your only legit vaible threat on offense because of boredom or because of some philosophical BS that you can just start drafting players and have a pass attack like some of the better ones in the league.

Agreed.  He has accounted for 27.5% of the teams offensive yards.  Daboll and Schoen have to be sure they can replace those yards before they say we are not bringing him back. 

There is some sentiment that they can get the same production out of a RB drafted in the 3rd or 4th round.  Personally, given the circumstances of a poor OL and no threat of a passing attack, I think you would be hard pressed to even find a 1st rounder that could be as successful as he has been.

[Doc16LT56]

What is with the Barkley hate? When the day arrives that this team is better WITHOUT Barkley and it can be proved on the field i.e. the offense isn't like a 30 something ranked passing offense, and that Barkley's run are hindering them; that is the day you get rid of Barkley.

You do not get rid of your only legit vaible threat on offense because of boredom or because of some philosophical BS that you can just start drafting players and have a pass attack like some of the better ones in the league.

You're looking for proof that the offense won't be poorly ranked without Barkley. But we have several seasons with Barkley that the offense has been ranked 30-something and we've never had an offense with Barkley ranked in the top 16. So they're paying Barkley to be an elite player when those days are obviously over. He's a good RB who is being paid like a great RB. It doesn't make sense.

[sooners56]

Get rid of him and replace him with a mythical late round RB who will come in and do what Barkley does? Sounds great but odds are the late rd RB won't produce like Barkley and won't draw the attention that Barkley does. Maybe give Gray the job?

[madbadger]

What is with the Barkley hate? When the day arrives that this team is better WITHOUT Barkley and it can be proved on the field i.e. the offense isn't like a 30 something ranked passing offense, and that Barkley's run are hindering them; that is the day you get rid of Barkley.

You do not get rid of your only legit vaible threat on offense because of boredom or because of some philosophical BS that you can just start drafting players and have a pass attack like some of the better ones in the league.

Hard to call it hate but more of a recognition that he's really unhappy with his contract and it's hard to justify paying him what he wants to get paid if we can't provide him with anything approximating an average offensive line. Part of me thinks it's unfair to keep him around year after year and watch the Giants squander his talent, while the other part of me recognizes that resigning him also restricts our ability to improve the team around him. In some regards he's a victim of his own success while simultaneously punishing him for the personnel mistakes of the front office. It's just a bad situation all around.

[Brooklyn Dave]

For the next season, is it time to move on? This team is so bad and needs a major revam, whats the point to paying an aging RB? Time to move on?

Nope, it is time to resign him to a decent contract. He adds so much more than just looking at Stats. He is a captain, very well resapected by his teamates and still produces . With an upgraded OL and a coach who will use him as a two purpose back and receiver , his value is wortrhwhile .

[Jclayton92]

That's the problem, schoen offered him more than a decent contract, he offered him an amazing one and Barkley simply wanted more.

Barkley has his upside but not at his price tag. Every successful team in the NFL has cheap RBs besides one SF/CMC. So it's really hard with Barkleys injury history to want to continue investing in the position.

[President Rick]

I like SB, so yes if for 3-4 mil a year for 2-3 years but we MUST have an O LINE and priorities should be addressed with the $$$ available.  If he still wants top end $$$ he'll have to look elsewhere.

[DaveBrown74]

I would prefer to rip the band-aid off. We need to get younger and cheaper at the position. I want multiple RBs on rookie contracts, not this old fashioned approach of being all-in on one aging guy who gets hurt a lot. I just think the position is not worth paying up for anymore. Hell look at the Browns. They literally lost Nick Chubb in week one, who is as good a pure runner as the league has seen in the past 10-15 years, and they didn't miss a beat. Next man up with Jerome Ford. Is he as good as Chubb? No. Has it really mattered? They're 10-5, and this is the Browns we're talking about, so I'd have to say no.

Barkley is still a good player but he's not elite anymore. Too many injuries, and at 27/28 he will start to decline more noticeably. As it is he's a 4.0 YPC guy this year. That's simply not very good. As a rookie he was 5.0, and the line sucked then too, so I don't want to hear the bellyaching about the line if we're arguing he's still a star worth paying up for.

Throwing guaranteed money at him is a waste, and the tag ($12mm) is way too high. Better to let him hit the open market and let someone else pay up for him. Draft someone, save the $7-$9m, and use that on a free agent IOL or D lineman. RB is a position that is very easily replaced on day two of the draft, when we pick three times. Why not get much cheaper, much younger, and much fresher and healthier at the position?

[Fletch]

This is non sense. bark will be paid and rightfully so. The Giants are dead last in passing or damn near there. The Browns are like top 13 passing offense.

Again when the day arrives that his running is holding back the team is the day you cut him. Unless you want to be Carolina panthers bad and keep talking about giving Danile Jones weapons like SF 49ers have given Purdy blah blah blah.

The fact is you cannot look at the Giants in a vaccuum or compare them to other teams. The Giants are what they are. Sp the question is: Who is expendable and who isn't? We watched a Undrafted, third string QB win games and put out similar crappy passing numbers as a QB we are paying top 10 money. Tyrod looked even better just eye test alone.

Who cares about when Barkley hits the wall? Players bust all the time and reach their expiration date all the time. Heck Eli Manning made 22 mil standing on a sideline for nearly his whole last yea r in the league.

[uconnjack8]

I totally get the point of not wanting to spend money on an aging RB.  I am sure Schoen and Daboll do as well.  What seems to be missing from some peoples calculus is that if the offense and the team as a while doesn't improve next year there is a good chance there will be regime change.

It's easy for fans to say don't sign him and move on, our jobs don't depend on improvement.   

A team like the Browns has a top 5 OL, a decent passing attack, and a top 5 defense, so RBs can be less of a priority. 

So let's ask it this way.  If you were Joe Schoen and you knew it was likely that you were gone with another dreadful season with no signs of offensive life, would you say goodbye to Barkley?

If you would let Barkley go, what would you do to improve the offense and not only make up for the 27% of it you are losing, but actually improve the overall performance? 

You cannot go backwards or you are out of a job. Thats really the crux of it. 

[Doc16LT56]

If you would let Barkley go, what would you do to improve the offense and not only make up for the 27% of it you are losing, but actually improve the overall performance? 

It's difficult to imagine that replacing 27% of the yards on the 31st ranked offense will be that heavy a lift. We're talking about an offense that averages 263.7 yards per game. It would be a different story if we were talking about replacing 27% of Miami's 411.5 yards per game or the 49ers 404.3 yards per game. Replacing Barkley's production on this current iteration of the offense is not a huge barrier.

[DaveBrown74]

I totally get the point of not wanting to spend money on an aging RB.  I am sure Schoen and Daboll do as well.  What seems to be missing from some peoples calculus is that if the offense and the team as a while doesn't improve next year there is a good chance there will be regime change.

It's easy for fans to say don't sign him and move on, our jobs don't depend on improvement. 

A team like the Browns has a top 5 OL, a decent passing attack, and a top 5 defense, so RBs can be less of a priority. 

So let's ask it this way.  If you were Joe Schoen and you knew it was likely that you were gone with another dreadful season with no signs of offensive life, would you say goodbye to Barkley?

If you would let Barkley go, what would you do to improve the offense and not only make up for the 27% of it you are losing, but actually improve the overall performance? 

You cannot go backwards or you are out of a job. Thats really the crux of it. 

I hear you but I don't think it's a given that Schoen/Daboll get fired if next year doesn't go well. The QB situation is a mess, and that's not really their faults. I think Schoen recognizes that. Perhaps Daboll could get fired after a bad third year, but I don't see it with Schoen. So I'm not sure I agree that he's going to only sign Barkley to save his job.

[uconnjack8]

It's difficult to imagine that replacing 27% of the yards on the 31st ranked offense will be that heavy a lift. We're talking about an offense that averages 263.7 yards per game. It would be a different story if we were talking about replacing 27% of Miami's 411.5 yards per game or the 49ers 404.3 yards per game. Replacing Barkley's production on this current iteration of the offense is not a huge barrier.

We are talking about replacing the only plus skill player on the offense.  If it's so easy, why has this offense been terrible as long as it has?  Are the professionals missing this easy solution somehow?

What would you do specifically to not only replace those yards, but improve the offense, that doesn't include Barkley?

Point is you have to replace him and add to the equation OL, WRs and  QB. 

So who are you drafting amd signing? 

Personally I think gaining yardage in this offense being the only legit threat is extremely difficult compared to say being a cog in the Dolphins offense that has multiple weapons.