An anonymous NFL executive took some serious shots at the New York Giants for their decision to make Daniel Jones one of the highest-paid quarterbacks in the league.
The New York Giants rolled the dice this past season when they let starting QB Daniel Jones play out the final year of his contract. The move was a risk but one many fans and league observers felt was fair after the Duke standout delivered mixed results at best in his first three seasons in the league.
Related: New York Giants mock draft 2023 – Bolstering the defense for a run at NFC East title
However, that decision ended up working out perfectly for Jones. Under new head coach Brian Daboll and offensive coordinator Mike Kafka, the 25-year-old had a career year just in time to test his value in free agency. Yet, the QB never reached the open market.
After weeks of hard bargaining, the New York Giants chose to give Jones a massive four-year deal worth $160 million. Making him one of the highest-paid at his position in the sport. It was a staggering number but one the team felt they had to agree to so they could then quickly slap a franchise tag on Pro Bowl running back Saquon Barkley before he also hit the open market.
New York Giants record (2022): 9-7-1, third place in NFC East
On Tuesday, The Athletic NFL insider Mike Sando spoke with a pair of executives about the New York Giants decision, and both were baffled by the move, and one had a hot take on the choice.
“They would have been better off doing a bad deal with Saquon Barkley and tagging Jones rather than the other way around. Who was going to step out and pay Daniel Jones [in free agency]? That one was wild.”
– Anonymous executive
The other exec questioned about the topic chose a less firey approach in trying to explain why the Giants likely gave Jones a historic deal.
“That is surprising that they didn’t try to squeeze him a little bit, but the new regime just got there and won with him,” the executive said. “They probably want to continue to instill confidence in him. They overpaid Eli [Manning] in the past. That could just be a position they don’t want to mess around with and get too cute with.”