Personally, I think that's right in range, more or less.
Nicks is either going to get much more, or much less on a shorter "prove it" contract. My money says more.
And I did use shorthand on the Cruz thing; what I am specifically saying is that the Giants assumed that one of 2 things would happen with Nicks in 2013: he would get hurt, or he would be a stud. If he was a stud this year, then there would have been no connection with Cruz,other than you had to pay Nicks more (a very good problem indeed). If he got hurt, then you move on, with Cruz in the pocket.
And don't get me wrong: I am not in that "he quit on the Giants camp" - that makes no sense to me in any way, shape or form. But I do believe that circumstances will likely lead him to a new team, even if I would rather it did not.
Last edited by Delicreep; 02-18-2014 at 01:05 PM.
This space for rent
-Benching him in the biggest game of the season for no legitimate reason.
-Accusing him publicly of not trying for balls thrown to him.
-Commenting publicly that Nicks didn't "fight to play" in the Dallas game.
-Oh and the mysterious team sources that ran to the media with stories of Nicks being late for meetings and missing treatments.
- And just generally allowing Nicks to be villainized publicly without defending one of his players.
Plenty of reasons for Hakeem Nicks to feel wanted in New York.
"Phil Simms is the greatest QB in Giants history" ........Mahatma Gandhi
Riiiight....so it's TC's fault Nicks has been hurt every year since being signed and that he didn't score 1 TD all year in 2013....
Why do we have to blame one or the other? Is it possible to like both of them and just admit Nicks had a bad year and it has nothing to do with Coughlin?
I for one like Nicks and still respect him but my eyes tell me he's not the same player he used to be.