Is the Giants’ offensive philosophy based on football or economics?
While discussing Tom Coughlin’s use (or lack thereof) of a running game, Fox Sports’ Jay Glazer indicated it is essential to follow the money. And in the case of Tiki Barber, Glazer said, yardage is not the only thing at stake when he carries the ball.
“If he (Barber) doesn’t rush for a certain number of yards this year, then his salary next year will drop anywhere from $500,000 to $1.2 million,” Glazer said on Fox’s “NFL Sunday.”
Glazer said Barber’s contract has a similar clause for 2006. “If Tiki fails to reach 900-1,250 yards he would have to give the Giants back anywhere from $800,000 to $1.5 million,” Glazer added.
Despite their thrilling 24-23 win over Denver, the Giants’ reluctance to run the football was evident and highlighted on CBS’ telecast.
After the Giants went three-and-out with 2:24 left in the third quarter, a clearly agitated Phil Simms said: “Run the football. You have to keep the defense honest.”
So, when you hear Glazer’s report, which no one denied, questions follow.
Is pressure coming down from the top?
Would Giants GM/Media Darling Ernie Accorsi be consumed enough by the bottom line that he would keep the ball out of Barber’s hands to whack his salary?
Would the Giants improperly use Barber, who was drafted by the late George Young, to collect from the running back later? Hey, for an organization as profitable as the Giants, $1.5 mil is chump change. So, Accorsi would not nickel and dime Barber, would he?
Though the paucity of Tiki touches earlier in the game is a fair point, it’s pretty obvious the Giants are gonna be passing when trailing by a sizeable margin late in the day.