Giants' Eli Manning Slated To Have League's Highest CAP Number in 2013

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gfanblue

Not sure I understand the difference. Explain a cap hit and actual salary for the year.

---

Because, when he restructured last year, they converted a portion of is 2011 salary into signing bonus which he gets paid up front but gets spread out over the remainder of his contract in regards to the cap. So portions of this years 20 million cap hit is actually money he has already received as signing bonus that is being charged to this year. He is not actually receiving 20 mil this year. But he does account for 20 mil of the salary cap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikeyMike01

Why the hell is Stafford's that high?

---

His rookie deal was 6 years 72 million with 42 guaranteed . Thank god they put in a rookie cap. Those deals were outrageous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flip Empty

It's funny how much things can change in a single year.

---

Separates the true fans from the fair weather ones. He's the face of the franchise. You support your face. Steeler fans supported Ben after being accused of FREAKING RAPE! Yet people hate Eli for cap that he had no control over at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gfanblue

Not sure I understand the difference. Explain a cap hit and actual salary for the year.

---

The cap hit is how much a player costs against the cap. Salary is how much a player actually gets paid that season. A type of money that are included in cap hits, but not salary, is a signing bonus which is paid upfront but spread out over the length of the contract for cap purposes. For example, last season Eli restructured his deal. They converted $9.6m of his salary into a signing bonus. That signing bonus then got spread over the remaining 4 years of his deal.

This needs to be a clean-up year for the team. This current rendition of the team has pretty much shown that it's an 8-8 to 10-6 team. That's their range. It's time to retool, and part of that is taking a year to recover from all those restructures the team did over the past two years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrueBlue@NYC

This needs to be a clean-up year for the team. This current rendition of the team has pretty much shown that it's an 8-8 to 10-6 team. That's their range. It's time to retool, and part of that is taking a year to recover from all those restructures the team did over the past two years.

---

We do need to ease up on the restructures, but in Eli's case it might make sense if they extended him, say for three years, and then do what NE did for Brady.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gmen46

This past season the Giants had more pass attempts (103 more) than the Niners, that's true. An average of 6.5 more attempts per game.

But as the Giants were 21st in the league in pass attempts, and the Niners were 31st in attempts, to say the Giants are "pass happy" or that they "pass a hell of a lot more than the Niners" is quite an overstatement. After all, 20 teams attempted more passes than did the Giants this year.

And as you acknowledged, and as danielboone stated, while the Giants have arguably been more effective with their pass game the last couple of years, that is not the same as their offense being a "pass first" or even a "pass happy" offense, relative to the rest of the league.

As to whether either the Giants' or the Niners' style of offense is or was more conducive to Manningham's effectiveness as a receiver, comparing him to his last year with the Giants and his first year with the Niners--Mannigham played in exactly the same number of games (12) in 2011 and 2012, he started the exact same number of games (9) in 2011 and 2012, he even received 3 more passes in 2012 than he did in 2011. His only fall-off in production in 2012 was his average yards per catch (13.4 in 2011, vs a pedestrian 10.7 average with the Niners).

So enough, already, with excuses for Manningham's "fall-off" in production with the Niners. Clearly his yac fell of, which has nothing to do with how many targets he had in SF.

---

Thank you, gmen46, for doing the research and getting the numbers. Fantastic job. During the season you heard a lot of complaints from fans that we had too many run plays which were not particularly productive. But coach has always been a believer in a balanced attack and the Giants kept running. The idea is your passing game is not going to be as effective if the defense can pretty much count on you throwing it every time. Not sure I agree with that 100% put that is the philosophy. In any case, the best world is when your running game is good enough to contribute significantly to the offense. And that is going to open up your pass game. They should complement one another. On the other hand, in recent seasons there have been several SB winners with horrible running games. The 2011 Giants were LAST in the league in running even though they kept plugging away at it. Most teams with bad run games just pass most of the time.

I say go for it all this year. If we don't win, clean house next year and retool.

outrageous number but in the end not his fault at all. Giants FO wanted to pay him top $$$$ keep restructuring him.


I really feel his cap number has hurt us building a solid defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harooni

outrageous number but in the end not his fault at all. Giants FO wanted to pay him top $$$$ keep restructuring him.


I really feel his cap number has hurt us building a solid defense.

---

Then how is it that in 2012 we spent nearly 2-1 on defense over offense?