The contract details will be important.
On paper it’s a $69M deal but if it is true that only $26M is guaranteed, probably it’s front loaded so NE can easily cut him without much cap consequence after a year if things don’t work out or bring him back next season if things do.
Given how much cap space they have, that’s a reasonable gamble for somebody who would be an upgrade over their current WRs even if he only played half the season at 80% of his former peak ability.
I like the Wilson/Winston combination. I think their styles are complementary and their veteran experience is going to be incredibly valuable if the Giants draft a QB this season. I’m also doubtful that either one will last a full season, so it makes sense to plan now instead of just hiring a QB off the couch.
Let’s be honest, the Giants are not “one solid QB away from a Super Bowl” by any means. If you exclude the fluky 2022 season, there hasn’t been a decent Giants season since 2016.
I’m just happy that I don’t have to watch Daniel Jones anymore. I wish him all the best but Danny Dimes was not a good fit.
Yes, the devil is in the details. Looking at this chart of WR salaries, the contract details as stated put Diggs at around the same annual average salary as Michael Pittman, Terry McLaurin, and Calvin Ridley, who are currently the 15th, 16th, and 17th highest paid WRs in the league in terms of APY. But in terms of guaranteed money, his APY is far less than those at that level (~$8M vs. ~$12-13M). I still think they overpaid given his age and coming off a major injury, but the Patriots are in a position where they basically have to overpay free agents to get them to sign here. This may not turn out to be a good signing when all is said and done, but it is not incompetence by any stretch.
2016 was also a fluke season. The Giants haven’t been consistently good since winning the super bowl in 2011.
I was thinking more about how the 2022 season was absolutely abysmal, but the Giants magically found enough ways to win in the back half of the season and ended up limping into the postseason.
You’re right that 2016 was an isolated year of success, but as a standalone season it wasn’t that surprising that they made the postseason.
At this point I’m so fatalistic that I’m hoping they trade down out of #3 all the way into the 2nd round for some mediocre or bad team’s first rounder next year.
That way, when they shit the bed again and finish with a top three pick of their own next year they can package that with a top 10 pick from somebody else plus maybe even their own 2027 first rounder to move up to #1 and take Arch Manning.
I think the signing was fine, no matter how it turns out. To a large extent, I think these types of free agent signings need to be judged in context. The decision itself can be a good one, even if the end result is disappointing.
If a team, for whatever reason, cannot attract the talent they want without spending money, then the amount needed to get that talent is not overpaying. It’s the market rate for their situation. That’s the price they now have to pay for past decisions. Same reason the Browns weren’t going to hang on to Garrett without that massive extension contract.
If Diggs is a total bust, the team had cap space, and if it does turn out to be a de facto 1 year ‘prove it’ deal, they didn’t mortgage their future over it, either.
Just so I understand, it makes no difference to you how well, or even if, Diggs plays this year, the signing is fine? Even if there are other, cheaper free agent WRs who outperform him or if he’s the #2 or #3 WR on the Patriots, the outcome matters not?
No, it clearly matters to the team if he plays well or not and by how much.
I meant the decision itself is fine in context. Good decisions sometimes produce bad outcomes and sometimes a bad decision ends up working out.
There may be cheaper free agent WRs who might end up outperforming him. Or he could have a late career renaissance. Or anything in between. Judging solely by hindsight is a ridiculous standard (yet one I know most NFL fans use).
In this case, if they get a reasonable #1 option for what amounts to a 1 year deal, they win, even if they “overspent” by some standard. If they don’t, they’re not out a lot, considering the poor quality of the rest of their roster and how much cap space they will still have. That’s not poor front office work, either way.
Daboll and crew are in a uniquely bad situation. They have never had the chance to pick and develop a quarterback of their own. They weren’t given a choice but to try and turn Jones into something good. Now that they are free of Jones I’m sure they would love to get a chance to get a fresh QB and mold him into a winner. But Mara has made it clear they need to win now. So maybe they will try to do both at once?
And if his career is ended with a sack by Chicago’s third strong defensive end, I am OK with that.
Or the welfare fraud.
Wellington Mara’s criteria for a successful season was for the final game you play to be meaningful. I don’t expect them to still have playoff hopes in week 18, but if they do, I could see a way they continue on for whatever new era next year’s QB ushers in.
Short of that, no chance; they are all gone. They might even all be fired with anything short of winning a playoff game.
I do too. Even if the whole football thing doesn’t work out, it’ll make for a great sitcom. Clearly, Russell is Felix while Jameis is Oscar.
As for the Patriots, I understand that they were really trying to get on to the DK Metcalf deal, and that would have probably worked out better for Seattle because they could have gotten a better draft pick with that trade. But DK didn’t want to go there.
I wonder if they started getting antsy and really wanted to land somebody after that fell through.
This has been my biggest concern for Daboll’s entire tenure. What is he actually being judged and evaluated on? The Giants handed him a team and told him to make it work. Firing Daboll before he gets to show what he can do when he actually gets to make decisions seems foolish.
The Mara family is old school and slow to adapt in a lot of situations. I’m hopeful that this may mean more time for Daboll to actually show what he can do when he gets to make real decisions, but I’m doubtful.
Every 90’s cartoon that I grew up with convinced me that this is a winning combination. I see nothing but zany interactions, close calls, and success in the Giants future.
For all the problems the Giants have had, and continue to have, I never get the impression that Daboll is to blame.
How can you ever judge a GM using this reasoning? Unless a GM uses a first round pick on Keanu Reeves or gives a $30 million a year contract to Bugs Bunny, how can you ever say a decision was good or bad without considering the actual outcome?
I think I get the reasoning. Like in poker, if you get your money in good, with the odds in your favor, but you lose when the opponent hits a two outer on the river, you still made the right call.
But every single decision any rational GM makes can be described as “fine, in context” if you ignore the actual outcome. Drafting Zach Wilson before Jamaar Chase? Fine, in contect. Giving Larry Brown a big contract because of one good game? Fine, in context. Making LeVeon Bell the 2nd highest paid RB in the NFL? Fine, in context.
If you make the actual results of the decision a GM makes irrelevant, thete is no way to judge them. That’s certainly one way of looking at the job of the GM, but I’m not sure its helpful.
No, that’s a ridiculous standard by itself.
Front office decisions can still be judged by on field results but the standard of judgment can’t be “he needs to be a top 5 WR in the league next season or it’s a terrible contract”.
If they gave a player under a season long suspension a 10 year fully guaranteed contract that ties up your cap the entire time while he’s being sued by 20+ women for sexual misconduct? Yeah, that’s not a great decision. Maybe somebody would argue otherwise if they got 3 or 4 Super Bowl appearances out of it (I wouldn’t) but that’s the level of performance that would be needed to even begin to justify that sort of deal.
But giving a potentially high end WR a market level or slightly over market level contract for basically a 1 year guarantee when they have over $75M in cap space? That’s not some terrible front office decision even if he doesn’t play that well. That’s just a normal roll of the dice.
Well I can think of an example of being able to judge a GM decision as borderline incompetent without hindsight. Dave Gettleman drafting Daniel Jones #6 overall because he was in control of the huddle during the Senior Bowl. That was an utterly laughable decision.
Even if Jones turned out to be good, Gettleman could have probably drafted him with the sixth pick in the second round. Drafting him #6 overall was an embarrassment.