Tag: nfl-free-agency

Hard Knocks revealed why Giants let Saquon Barkley go in NFL free agency hard,knocks,revealed,why,giants,let,saquon,barkley,go,in,nfl,free,agency,sbnation,com,front-page,nfl,nfl-free-agency,hard-knocks,draftkings

On: By: admin


Odds are you are familiar with the NFL Films product of Hard Knocks, a documentary series that chronicles a team throughout the course of training camp and the preseason and ultimately ends right as the regular season begins.

Recently NFL Films has produced an in-season version of the show where they follow teams throughout the course of an NFL season. That is pretty self-explanatory.

Tuesday night saw the debut of a new version of the show. This latest HK follows the New York Giants over the initial part of this offseason and focuses on how the G-Men assembled their staff and team. It is always interesting to get these peeks behind the curtain and now we got a peek at an area that was previous off limits.

If you are a HK veteran like myself then in watching it a lot of things likely feel the same to you. Part of the challenge of this show is that there is no breaking news of any kind given that when anything massive happens it is then given to us in the next episode. There is relatively little shock value.

This is true for the Giants as we obviously know what they did throughout all of free agency and the NFL Draft; however, the debut episode was a lot about something that they didn’t do… pay running back Saquon Barkley.

New York selected Barkley with the second overall pick in 2018 and went through quite the song and dance with him once they finally got down to contractual negotiations. Barkley played on the franchise tag in 2023 so the time for a serious decision arrived this offseason and the Giants watched him walk in free agency to a division rival in the Philadelphia Eagles.

This subject is touched on throughout the episode but in the closing minutes Giants GM Joe Schoen is having a conversation with his brain trust and ultimately notes that they are not paying their quarterback in Daniel Jones what they are for him to hand the ball off.

Tim McDonnell, Director of Player Personnel: Take this a step further. We lose Saquon right… what’s our identity going to be on offense now? What’s our plan? What’s the next step of that, I guess is what I’m thinking. We’re losing… our explosiveness, our touchdowns. Quarterback, if it’s Daniel, depends on the run game.

Joe Schoen, General Manager: We’ve got to upgrade the offensive line and you’re paying the guy $40M. It’s not to hand the ball off to a $12M back. My plan is address the offensive line at some point here in free agency. We’re sitting at 6, there’s a chance there’s an offensive weapon there. This is the year for Daniel. The plan all along was give him a couple of years. Is he our guy for the next 10 years or do we need to pivot and find somebody else?”

To be clear this conversation was had before the Giants ultimately saw Saquon leave, remember that NFL Films is shooting these events in real time.

The benefit of hindsight tells us that the Giants did exactly what Schoen said in that they signed several offensive linemen in free agency (headlined by Jon Runyan) and took LSU wide receiver Malik Nabers at number 6 overall in the 2024 NFL Draft.

As someone who roots for and covers the Dallas Cowboys I have taken a great amount of joy in laughing at the Giants and their decision-making for the last 15 or so years, but if we are fair about all of this then they did absolutely nothing wrong.

I’ll acknowledge that the Giants don’t exactly have the benefit of the doubt and that Daniel Jones is not exactly someone I would strongly believe in personally, but this is still the NFL and building around the quarterback is the most logical way forward. In fact the Giants failed miserably at trying to build around Saquon Barkley for all of his Giants career.

People will laugh and roll their eyes at what the Giants did especially because Howie Roseman is the Eagles’ general manager and is regarded as being very good at his job, so it looks like the Giants made a huge mistake that the Eagles capitalized on. Again, benefit of the doubt type stuff.

But the Giants finally made the hard decision that they avoided for so long. Good for them I guess.

An NFL ‘QB salary cap’ is the owners’ dumbest idea yet an,nfl,qb,salary,cap,is,the,owners,dumbest,idea,yet,sbnation,com,front-page,nfl,nfl-free-agency,draftkings

On: By: admin


NFL owners are growing increasingly concerned about mammoth quarterback salaries, and reports indicate there have been some exploratory discussions on how to manage the spending.

Tom Pelissero of the NFL Network said on The Rich Eisen Show Wednesday that some owners have met about the possibility of installing a QB salary cap, which would limit the percentage of the cap which would be spent on a signal caller. Pelissero went on to say that the conversation right now is a non-starter, because so many teams have already paid their passers and don’t want to be hemmed in, but the fact this topic is being broached shows there could be some discussion on it in the future.

It’s a tricky subject to really address properly. On the one hand every player should be allowed to get whatever the free market allows them to, but there is a football reality to this as well. With such a mammoth chunk of a team’s cap being allocated to the QB position, it’s resulted in salaries plummeting at a variety of other positions, most notably at running back and safety, where players haven’t seen remotely the same raises in their compensation as other positions.

As it stands there are 11 quarterbacks in the NFL who account for over 20 percent of their respective team’s cap space this season. Meanwhile the highest-paid defensive player (T.J. Watt) accounts for 15 percent of the Steelers cap, with the vast majority of top-tier players falling in the 8-12 percent range. The owners would hold that if quarterback salaries were capped, let’s say for argument at 17.5 percent of the cap — that every other position would see more pay as a result. In addition, it would incentivize teams to pay better money for backup quarterbacks, which would ensure a more competitive team, should the starter be injured.

There is one huge problem with trying to initiate this kind of position-specific cap: It’s not in the CBA.

The NFL and NFLPA signed their most recent CBA in 2020, and it runs through the 2030 season. If owners wanted to change QB compensation to be a percentage of the total cap it would require an amendment to the collective bargaining agreement, which is something the NFLPA simply wouldn’t allow. Traditionally the union has pushed back on any and all cap-based compensation. The concern is that this would become a slippery slope for the league to implement cap-based spending for every position.

This is something nobody should want, because it would lead to league-wide homogenization. To keep football interesting we have to have some teams willing to overspend on offense vs. defense, and vice versa. If every team spent the same way then it would simply become a battle of the best markets and who drafted better, with little strategic wiggle room.

However, there exists a wrinkle to all this which Pro Football Talk is reporting on. Their sources say that NFL owners wouldn’t seek to codify percentage-based QB spending in the CBA, but rather make it an “unwritten rule” among teams.

“As we’ve heard it, it wouldn’t be an official, separate cap. It would be an unofficial, off-the-books (and, more importantly, off the CBA) arrangement pursuant to which teams would refuse to go above a certain level. All teams. Which would make it pointless for, say, Dak Prescott to force his way to the open market. The best deal he’d get from the Cowboys would be the same as the best deal he’d get from someone else. (It would be like a max contract in the NBA.)”

IT’S COLLUSION!

I’d refuse to believe NFL owners were this dumb, except that time and time again they’ve shown us that they are this dumb. If any conversations have taken place about how to pay quarterbacks amongst owners, and there’s a tacit agreement to keep pay down — then they are colluding against players, and the NFLPA by extension.

This isn’t some cute little idea to fool around with. It’s a blatant breach of the 2020-2030 CBA that could have profound implications. Not only would it be a breach of contract, but if there’s collusion on player compensation the NFLPA has the right to terminate the agreement immediately, which could lead to a prolonged lockout.

Section 2. Termination Due To Collusion:
(a) If at any time the conditions of Article 17, Section 16(a), (b), or (c) are satisfied, the NFLPA shall have the right to terminate this Agreement. To execute such termination, the NFLPA shall serve upon the NFL written notice of termination within thirty days after the System Arbitrator’s decision finding the requisite conditions becomes final. The parties agree, however, that such termination shall be stayed if any party appeals such finding to the Appeals Panel, and to seek expedited review from the Appeals Panel.

If conversations took place about circumventing the CBA to install a “QB cap,” then it’s created a mammoth problem for the NFL. Especially with Dak Prescott’s extension on the horizon, with a team that is in salary cap hell, it will warrant a massive investigation into the negotiations process by the NFLPA if it drags out. There were already rumors of collusion taking place in 2023 with Lamar Jackson, but if sources are telling Pro Football Talk that there could be work to suppress salaries then it opens up an entirely new can of worms.

Keep an eye on this story as it evolves, because there are some mammoth implications that take this well beyond simple talks of putting in a QB pay scale.