To play center. Bench Walton who is god awful to begin with and undersized. Simple, the season is over anyway let this kid play center,. I second the clean house comment, its time
He was drafted also because of his versatility. If he was strictly a center we wouldn't have drafted him.
People can try and defense this as much as they want but it's indefensible. He needs the experience on the field, regardless if it's at guard or center.
This is another example of Coughlin's undying favoritism towards veterans.
has regressed. The last few weeks he has been terrible. I hope it's injury related otherwise they are really in trouble.
If Richberg has "regressed" it's because the coaches had him playing against the highest level of professional competion a position he hasn't played in 5 years. But viewed in that light he has performed admirably.
Otherwise it makes no sense... especially since he's a C playing out of position. And we could have gotten him later on the draft which was as deep as it has been in 10 years!!!
This is another example of Coughlin's undying favoritism towards veterans.
Coughlin not playing rookies is such a fucking myth. It needs to be put to rest. You're not paying attention if you believe that. Why didn't Peyton Hills start over rookie Andre Williams if that was the case when Jennings went down? Richburg has been the starter as rookie for 10 games. 2011, opening starter at MLB was Greg Jones, a rookie. OBJ is starting right now, another rookie. Plenty more examples.
This is another example of Coughlin's undying favoritism towards veterans.
Coughlin not playing rookies is such a fucking myth. It needs to be put to rest. You're not paying attention if you believe that. Why didn't Peyton Hills start over rookie Andre Williams if that was the case when Jennings went down? Richburg has been the starter as rookie for 10 games. 2011, opening starter at MLB was Greg Jones, a rookie. OBJ is starting right now, another rookie. Plenty more examples.
Thank you TomTom. That whole narrative of TC "favors vetrans" and "doesn't play rookies" is beyond stale. It's just plain false. And Stupid.
You guys act like we are replacing an all-star here. For all intents and purposes, Richburg was supposed to sit out this year and take over the C position in the near future.
He got invaluable experience in the first half of the season at G only because Snee was unable to go and Schwartz got hurt. He has not played well the last couple of weeks, most likely due to his bad injury and hitting the rookie wall.
You guys are criticizing TC for doing whats best for the kids health and confidence. Let him rest up, get healthy, if Snyder sucks really bad, you stick Richburg back in there.
This is another example of Coughlin's undying favoritism towards veterans.
Coughlin not playing rookies is such a fucking myth. It needs to be put to rest. You're not paying attention if you believe that. Why didn't Peyton Hills start over rookie Andre Williams if that was the case when Jennings went down? Richburg has been the starter as rookie for 10 games. 2011, opening starter at MLB was Greg Jones, a rookie. OBJ is starting right now, another rookie. Plenty more examples.
I would love hear more examples of Coughlin actually letting a rookie go into the season as a starter - because I don't think they exist. Consistently in every case where a rookie touches the field as a starter, even in the examples you mentioned, at least 1 or 2 veterans ahead of them on the depth chart had to go down with an injury before they started getting touches.
Remember that the Giants attempted to bring Chris Snee back this season to play (who do you think was influencing that decision?) If Snee's body didn't disintergrate over the summer he'd probably be starting over Richburg. Also, if Coughlin decided to give Peyton Hillis the starting job over Williams after the preseason that he had TC would have deserved to be fired on the spot. There's no reason to give him credit for making such an obvious decision after Jennings got hurt.
This is another example of Coughlin's undying favoritism towards veterans.
Coughlin not playing rookies is such a fucking myth. It needs to be put to rest. You're not paying attention if you believe that. Why didn't Peyton Hills start over rookie Andre Williams if that was the case when Jennings went down? Richburg has been the starter as rookie for 10 games. 2011, opening starter at MLB was Greg Jones, a rookie. OBJ is starting right now, another rookie. Plenty more examples.
I would love hear more examples of Coughlin actually letting a rookie go into the season as a starter - because I don't think they exist. Consistently in every case where a rookie touches the field as a starter, even in the examples you mentioned, at least 1 or 2 veterans ahead of them on the depth chart had to go down with an injury before they started getting touches.
Remember that the Giants attempted to bring Chris Snee back this season to play (who do you think was influencing that decision?) If Snee's body didn't disintergrate over the summer he'd probably be starting over Richburg. Also, if Coughlin decided to give Peyton Hillis the starting job over Williams after the preseason that he had TC would have deserved to be fired on the spot. There's no reason to give him credit for making such an obvious decision after Jennings got hurt.
Gibril Wilson was an opening day starter in 2004 as rookie. Devon Kernard is starting right now. Kiwi was a starter as a rookie in 2006 remember the Titans/Vince Young game? Michael Johnson starter some games in 2007 at Safety. Brian Keihl Starter games at LBer in 2008, had int vs the Steelers. Aaron Ross starter games as rookie in 2007, pick 6 vs the jets, how great was that. Plenty more. You also have to ask yourself who was the veteran playing there position?
Come on man. This is ridiculous. i was excited when we drafted richburg. he was a great interior lineman coming out. I wanted martin but since we got odell and him i thought it was a better move. I am starting to want to clean house. get the brooms out.
That whole narrative of TC "favors veterans" and "doesn't play rookies" is beyond stale. It's just plain false. And Stupid.
gmen9892 said:
Quote:
For all intents and purposes, Richburg was supposed to sit out this year and take over the C position in the near future.
Probably a little of both. If the rookie is a high pick or great player, he'll play him (or at least give him a chance to show he can play, like Wilson in 2012 before falling flat on his face). But he clearly shows loyalty to veterans even when they are not performing. Both Reese and Mara have made comments that younger guys need to play more. Reese most recently said that about Moore, but remember in 2007, when the team was fading in the 2nd half, he told Coughlin that he needed to play younger guys more, and lo and behold Bradshaw saved the season.
Regarding Richberg being drafted with no expectation of playing, if that's true then Reese really has to go. The consensus of this past offseason is that with all the holes in the roster, Reese had to knock the ball out of the park with the draft. Using a 2nd round pick on a guy you want to groom for the future would be freaking negligent.
As it is now, including Richberg we have only 2 guys from the draft that have made any tangible impact. Kennard, though starting now, hasn't done much, and Williams had made no impact. So apart from Beckham, this draft has not done a whole hell of a lot for us this year. Stating the obvious I know...
That whole narrative of TC "favors veterans" and "doesn't play rookies" is beyond stale. It's just plain false. And Stupid.
gmen9892 said:
Quote:
For all intents and purposes, Richburg was supposed to sit out this year and take over the C position in the near future.
Probably a little of both. If the rookie is a high pick or great player, he'll play him (or at least give him a chance to show he can play, like Wilson in 2012 before falling flat on his face). But he clearly shows loyalty to veterans even when they are not performing. Both Reese and Mara have made comments that younger guys need to play more. Reese most recently said that about Moore, but remember in 2007, when the team was fading in the 2nd half, he told Coughlin that he needed to play younger guys more, and lo and behold Bradshaw saved the season.
Regarding Richberg being drafted with no expectation of playing, if that's true then Reese really has to go. The consensus of this past offseason is that with all the holes in the roster, Reese had to knock the ball out of the park with the draft. Using a 2nd round pick on a guy you want to groom for the future would be freaking negligent.
As it is now, including Richberg we have only 2 guys from the draft that have made any tangible impact. Kennard, though starting now, hasn't done much, and Williams had made no impact. So apart from Beckham, this draft has not done a whole hell of a lot for us this year. Stating the obvious I know...
Bradshaw played in that Bills game when they had the lead and he finished it off. He also played because Derrick Ward broke his leg, and Ruben Droughens got hurt as well. I'm not sure he saved that season. He played great in the post season but I'm pretty sure no one told Coughlin to play him.
he's getting paid millions of dollars, has access to top notch trainers, nutritionists, and wellness staff.....he needs to learn what it's like to play a full pro season.
That whole narrative of TC "favors veterans" and "doesn't play rookies" is beyond stale. It's just plain false. And Stupid.
gmen9892 said:
Quote:
For all intents and purposes, Richburg was supposed to sit out this year and take over the C position in the near future.
Probably a little of both. If the rookie is a high pick or great player, he'll play him (or at least give him a chance to show he can play, like Wilson in 2012 before falling flat on his face). But he clearly shows loyalty to veterans even when they are not performing. Both Reese and Mara have made comments that younger guys need to play more. Reese most recently said that about Moore, but remember in 2007, when the team was fading in the 2nd half, he told Coughlin that he needed to play younger guys more, and lo and behold Bradshaw saved the season.
Regarding Richberg being drafted with no expectation of playing, if that's true then Reese really has to go. The consensus of this past offseason is that with all the holes in the roster, Reese had to knock the ball out of the park with the draft. Using a 2nd round pick on a guy you want to groom for the future would be freaking negligent.
As it is now, including Richberg we have only 2 guys from the draft that have made any tangible impact. Kennard, though starting now, hasn't done much, and Williams had made no impact. So apart from Beckham, this draft has not done a whole hell of a lot for us this year. Stating the obvious I know...
I think the plan is, as it should be for all rookies, to draft them to be a starter for the next 5-10 years. If they end up starting from Day 1, it is because they have so much talent that they forced the coaching staff's hand. Fact of the matter is, Richburg did end up playing from Day 1 by doing this, just not at the position he was drafted for.
He will be our starting C next year at some point, book it. As for this year, why keep forcing him out there if he is playing worse and clearly ailing? What benefit does that give anyone?
benching Richburg. He was drafted to start next year. I know it stinks that the 49ers and Pats took centers after Richburg that stepped right in. He needs an offseason to get a bit stronger.
We all love to speculate on what's going on including me.
So if Snyder plays OK. Pugh and Richburg heal up do we see this line - Beatty, Snyder, Richburg, Schwartz, Pugh before the season end. Is this TC plan? Who knows. But as many above have said, it's more likely there just is nothing to be gained by playing an injured Richburg or Pugh.
which is longer than the college season. The kid might be beat up b/c he's the size of a center yet playing Guard. Betting he needs to heal physically and maybe a bit mentally.
The ideal plan was for him to sit the year and get himself physically ready for the starting C job in 2015. Nothing wrong with putting him on the bench now. He may not be familiar enough for the mental responsibilities of the C position anyway...I'm sure he hasn't been practicing at that spot.
the more I am upset if Walton remains the OC over Richburg. If you're shaking up the OL for bad play, and you have Schwartz coming back, it is a perfect time.
most are not fully equipped out of the gate to perform well for a full season.
Too, he's got a significant leg injury that's damaged his performance level.
i don't mind resting him for reason #2 at all.
re: reason #1, even if you are not playing at a high level for all 16 games as a rookie, i would think the playing time experience in the trenches would be invaluable. as well, as a pro athlete, they don't need to worry about their grades, essays and other academic requirements. and as a pro athlete, they are freak physical specimens that have more strength/speed/power/athleticism than normal 21-23 year olds. they can just focus on being the best football player they can be leveraging the resources that the team has to ensure they are in peak condition for sundays.
most are not fully equipped out of the gate to perform well for a full season.
Too, he's got a significant leg injury that's damaged his performance level.
i don't mind resting him for reason #2 at all.
re: reason #1, even if you are not playing at a high level for all 16 games as a rookie, i would think the playing time experience in the trenches would be invaluable. as well, as a pro athlete, they don't need to worry about their grades, essays and other academic requirements. and as a pro athlete, they are freak physical specimens that have more strength/speed/power/athleticism than normal 21-23 year olds. they can just focus on being the best football player they can be leveraging the resources that the team has to ensure they are in peak condition for sundays.
As a fan I don't disagree. But, I'm aware the coaches don't remotely think in the same manner, therefore, I don't bother wasting the energy wondering why they do what they do.
the wall was a well accepted phenomenon for rookies. Dunno how well it holds up today with the reduced practice schedule/intensity. I've heard some players say it was harder in College than in the modern NFL.
Still, I'm guessing that it still holds true that it takes a year as a pro to get used to the pace and what it takes to get ready while not wearing oneself out.
They criticize the move without knowing 99% of what's going on behind closed doors.
It's been alluded to here but there are so many factors, injury included, that go into a decision like this.
Of course people are just using it to further their agenda (fire the coaches) so they're happy to assume that the benching is for a very narrow reason, if it even is a benching.
most are not fully equipped out of the gate to perform well for a full season.
Too, he's got a significant leg injury that's damaged his performance level.
i don't mind resting him for reason #2 at all.
re: reason #1, even if you are not playing at a high level for all 16 games as a rookie, i would think the playing time experience in the trenches would be invaluable. as well, as a pro athlete, they don't need to worry about their grades, essays and other academic requirements. and as a pro athlete, they are freak physical specimens that have more strength/speed/power/athleticism than normal 21-23 year olds. they can just focus on being the best football player they can be leveraging the resources that the team has to ensure they are in peak condition for sundays.
As a fan I don't disagree. But, I'm aware the coaches don't remotely think in the same manner, therefore, I don't bother wasting the energy wondering why they do what they do.
That's not to suggest you aren't aware, poorly written on my part.
not like he NEVER plays rookies...but rookies have a hard time seeing the field because Coughlin likes to keep in NFL veterans longer than they deserve to be.
was drafted too high, in the 2d Round.. IMO he's been terrible on running plays, getting no push- not a road-grader and OK as a pass-blocker..
In Saturday's Reading (greatly appreciated from Defenderdawg), PFF states that Richburg is the 8th best LG in pass-blocking.
OK but in the same article, they reviewed other rookies, as follows:
Bryan Stork Patriots starting C 4th Round pick: -0- sacks.
Corey Linsley.starting C Packers 5th Round 10th best pass-blockng C.
Travis Swanson drafted as C but starting LG Lions 3d Round pick: -0- sacks.
Brandon Linder starting OG Jaguars 3d Round pick: 8th best OG.
I agree that it's too early to pass judgment on Richburg career but I wrote when he was drafted that he was drafted too high- too small and not pro-strong.
If we wanted a C, we could have drafted one in the 4th or 5th Rounds and drafted someone else in the 2d Round and still wound up with a starting rookie C playing at a high level. For example, Stephon Tuitt, drafted by the Steelers in the 2d Round, would have been available to the Giants; he's rated a top 15 DE.
Hard for any one player to stand out for positive performance
Bobby Epps et al: I really think you guys at BBI are really onto something; in fact, I recently actually sent an e-mail to Jerry Reese suggesting that the Giants are making a big mistake making their picks at the actual draft and that they would have a much better chance of success if they waited until say at least mid-season to make their selections. (I am still waiting for a reply so I figure JR and company are still thinking on it!)
Stephon Tuitt is rated a top 15 DE? Oh really? You do realize that Tuitt has a grand total of FIVE tackles on the season, right. Zero sacks, FIVE tackles.
Boy, the Giants really screwed that one up. I guess it's only players drafted by other teams that get the benefit of the doubt, huh?
I guess we'll have to wait and see how Richburg's career progresses vs. other rookie OL drafted after him.
BTW at the time of this year's draft I wrote on BBI that IMO Richburg was drafted way too high. What was your evaluation?
BTW I also wrote at the time that I could not understand the drafting of Berhe and Bennett Jackson as DBs. My reasoning was that as a result of the FA signings plus the DBs already on the roster, there were other positions where rookies should have been drafted. Despite the fact that we're decimated at Safety, Demps and Stevie Brown are playing ahead of Berhe and Jackson is not on the roster, with Mike Davis, Chykie Brown and Chandler Fenner there instead. Zach Fulton, drafted immediately after Bennett Jackson, would have been a nice addition to the OL.
He was drafted also because of his versatility. If he was strictly a center we wouldn't have drafted him.
People can try and defense this as much as they want but it's indefensible. He needs the experience on the field, regardless if it's at guard or center.
This is another example of Coughlin's undying favoritism towards veterans.
If Richberg has "regressed" it's because the coaches had him playing against the highest level of professional competion a position he hasn't played in 5 years. But viewed in that light he has performed admirably.
Otherwise it makes no sense... especially since he's a C playing out of position. And we could have gotten him later on the draft which was as deep as it has been in 10 years!!!
Quote:
This is another example of Coughlin's undying favoritism towards veterans.
Coughlin not playing rookies is such a fucking myth. It needs to be put to rest. You're not paying attention if you believe that. Why didn't Peyton Hills start over rookie Andre Williams if that was the case when Jennings went down? Richburg has been the starter as rookie for 10 games. 2011, opening starter at MLB was Greg Jones, a rookie. OBJ is starting right now, another rookie. Plenty more examples.
Quote:
In comment 11991186 Gmen in 2012 said:
Quote:
This is another example of Coughlin's undying favoritism towards veterans.
Coughlin not playing rookies is such a fucking myth. It needs to be put to rest. You're not paying attention if you believe that. Why didn't Peyton Hills start over rookie Andre Williams if that was the case when Jennings went down? Richburg has been the starter as rookie for 10 games. 2011, opening starter at MLB was Greg Jones, a rookie. OBJ is starting right now, another rookie. Plenty more examples.
Thank you TomTom. That whole narrative of TC "favors vetrans" and "doesn't play rookies" is beyond stale. It's just plain false. And Stupid.
He got invaluable experience in the first half of the season at G only because Snee was unable to go and Schwartz got hurt. He has not played well the last couple of weeks, most likely due to his bad injury and hitting the rookie wall.
You guys are criticizing TC for doing whats best for the kids health and confidence. Let him rest up, get healthy, if Snyder sucks really bad, you stick Richburg back in there.
Quote:
In comment 11991186 Gmen in 2012 said:
Quote:
This is another example of Coughlin's undying favoritism towards veterans.
Coughlin not playing rookies is such a fucking myth. It needs to be put to rest. You're not paying attention if you believe that. Why didn't Peyton Hills start over rookie Andre Williams if that was the case when Jennings went down? Richburg has been the starter as rookie for 10 games. 2011, opening starter at MLB was Greg Jones, a rookie. OBJ is starting right now, another rookie. Plenty more examples.
I would love hear more examples of Coughlin actually letting a rookie go into the season as a starter - because I don't think they exist. Consistently in every case where a rookie touches the field as a starter, even in the examples you mentioned, at least 1 or 2 veterans ahead of them on the depth chart had to go down with an injury before they started getting touches.
Remember that the Giants attempted to bring Chris Snee back this season to play (who do you think was influencing that decision?) If Snee's body didn't disintergrate over the summer he'd probably be starting over Richburg. Also, if Coughlin decided to give Peyton Hillis the starting job over Williams after the preseason that he had TC would have deserved to be fired on the spot. There's no reason to give him credit for making such an obvious decision after Jennings got hurt.
Quote:
In comment 11991277 ImaGiant86 said:
Quote:
In comment 11991186 Gmen in 2012 said:
Quote:
This is another example of Coughlin's undying favoritism towards veterans.
Coughlin not playing rookies is such a fucking myth. It needs to be put to rest. You're not paying attention if you believe that. Why didn't Peyton Hills start over rookie Andre Williams if that was the case when Jennings went down? Richburg has been the starter as rookie for 10 games. 2011, opening starter at MLB was Greg Jones, a rookie. OBJ is starting right now, another rookie. Plenty more examples.
I would love hear more examples of Coughlin actually letting a rookie go into the season as a starter - because I don't think they exist. Consistently in every case where a rookie touches the field as a starter, even in the examples you mentioned, at least 1 or 2 veterans ahead of them on the depth chart had to go down with an injury before they started getting touches.
Remember that the Giants attempted to bring Chris Snee back this season to play (who do you think was influencing that decision?) If Snee's body didn't disintergrate over the summer he'd probably be starting over Richburg. Also, if Coughlin decided to give Peyton Hillis the starting job over Williams after the preseason that he had TC would have deserved to be fired on the spot. There's no reason to give him credit for making such an obvious decision after Jennings got hurt.
Gibril Wilson was an opening day starter in 2004 as rookie. Devon Kernard is starting right now. Kiwi was a starter as a rookie in 2006 remember the Titans/Vince Young game? Michael Johnson starter some games in 2007 at Safety. Brian Keihl Starter games at LBer in 2008, had int vs the Steelers. Aaron Ross starter games as rookie in 2007, pick 6 vs the jets, how great was that. Plenty more. You also have to ask yourself who was the veteran playing there position?
gmen9892 said:
Probably a little of both. If the rookie is a high pick or great player, he'll play him (or at least give him a chance to show he can play, like Wilson in 2012 before falling flat on his face). But he clearly shows loyalty to veterans even when they are not performing. Both Reese and Mara have made comments that younger guys need to play more. Reese most recently said that about Moore, but remember in 2007, when the team was fading in the 2nd half, he told Coughlin that he needed to play younger guys more, and lo and behold Bradshaw saved the season.
Regarding Richberg being drafted with no expectation of playing, if that's true then Reese really has to go. The consensus of this past offseason is that with all the holes in the roster, Reese had to knock the ball out of the park with the draft. Using a 2nd round pick on a guy you want to groom for the future would be freaking negligent.
As it is now, including Richberg we have only 2 guys from the draft that have made any tangible impact. Kennard, though starting now, hasn't done much, and Williams had made no impact. So apart from Beckham, this draft has not done a whole hell of a lot for us this year. Stating the obvious I know...
Quote:
That whole narrative of TC "favors veterans" and "doesn't play rookies" is beyond stale. It's just plain false. And Stupid.
gmen9892 said:
Quote:
For all intents and purposes, Richburg was supposed to sit out this year and take over the C position in the near future.
Probably a little of both. If the rookie is a high pick or great player, he'll play him (or at least give him a chance to show he can play, like Wilson in 2012 before falling flat on his face). But he clearly shows loyalty to veterans even when they are not performing. Both Reese and Mara have made comments that younger guys need to play more. Reese most recently said that about Moore, but remember in 2007, when the team was fading in the 2nd half, he told Coughlin that he needed to play younger guys more, and lo and behold Bradshaw saved the season.
Regarding Richberg being drafted with no expectation of playing, if that's true then Reese really has to go. The consensus of this past offseason is that with all the holes in the roster, Reese had to knock the ball out of the park with the draft. Using a 2nd round pick on a guy you want to groom for the future would be freaking negligent.
As it is now, including Richberg we have only 2 guys from the draft that have made any tangible impact. Kennard, though starting now, hasn't done much, and Williams had made no impact. So apart from Beckham, this draft has not done a whole hell of a lot for us this year. Stating the obvious I know...
Bradshaw played in that Bills game when they had the lead and he finished it off. He also played because Derrick Ward broke his leg, and Ruben Droughens got hurt as well. I'm not sure he saved that season. He played great in the post season but I'm pretty sure no one told Coughlin to play him.
Too, he's got a significant leg injury that's damaged his performance level.
Was that before or after signing Walton to a pretty significant contract?
Quote:
That whole narrative of TC "favors veterans" and "doesn't play rookies" is beyond stale. It's just plain false. And Stupid.
gmen9892 said:
Quote:
For all intents and purposes, Richburg was supposed to sit out this year and take over the C position in the near future.
Probably a little of both. If the rookie is a high pick or great player, he'll play him (or at least give him a chance to show he can play, like Wilson in 2012 before falling flat on his face). But he clearly shows loyalty to veterans even when they are not performing. Both Reese and Mara have made comments that younger guys need to play more. Reese most recently said that about Moore, but remember in 2007, when the team was fading in the 2nd half, he told Coughlin that he needed to play younger guys more, and lo and behold Bradshaw saved the season.
Regarding Richberg being drafted with no expectation of playing, if that's true then Reese really has to go. The consensus of this past offseason is that with all the holes in the roster, Reese had to knock the ball out of the park with the draft. Using a 2nd round pick on a guy you want to groom for the future would be freaking negligent.
As it is now, including Richberg we have only 2 guys from the draft that have made any tangible impact. Kennard, though starting now, hasn't done much, and Williams had made no impact. So apart from Beckham, this draft has not done a whole hell of a lot for us this year. Stating the obvious I know...
I think the plan is, as it should be for all rookies, to draft them to be a starter for the next 5-10 years. If they end up starting from Day 1, it is because they have so much talent that they forced the coaching staff's hand. Fact of the matter is, Richburg did end up playing from Day 1 by doing this, just not at the position he was drafted for.
He will be our starting C next year at some point, book it. As for this year, why keep forcing him out there if he is playing worse and clearly ailing? What benefit does that give anyone?
Considering this oline, he could have been saying that about the waterboy.
Too, he's got a significant leg injury that's damaged his performance level.
i don't mind resting him for reason #2 at all.
re: reason #1, even if you are not playing at a high level for all 16 games as a rookie, i would think the playing time experience in the trenches would be invaluable. as well, as a pro athlete, they don't need to worry about their grades, essays and other academic requirements. and as a pro athlete, they are freak physical specimens that have more strength/speed/power/athleticism than normal 21-23 year olds. they can just focus on being the best football player they can be leveraging the resources that the team has to ensure they are in peak condition for sundays.
Quote:
most are not fully equipped out of the gate to perform well for a full season.
Too, he's got a significant leg injury that's damaged his performance level.
i don't mind resting him for reason #2 at all.
re: reason #1, even if you are not playing at a high level for all 16 games as a rookie, i would think the playing time experience in the trenches would be invaluable. as well, as a pro athlete, they don't need to worry about their grades, essays and other academic requirements. and as a pro athlete, they are freak physical specimens that have more strength/speed/power/athleticism than normal 21-23 year olds. they can just focus on being the best football player they can be leveraging the resources that the team has to ensure they are in peak condition for sundays.
As a fan I don't disagree. But, I'm aware the coaches don't remotely think in the same manner, therefore, I don't bother wasting the energy wondering why they do what they do.
Still, I'm guessing that it still holds true that it takes a year as a pro to get used to the pace and what it takes to get ready while not wearing oneself out.
It's been alluded to here but there are so many factors, injury included, that go into a decision like this.
Of course people are just using it to further their agenda (fire the coaches) so they're happy to assume that the benching is for a very narrow reason, if it even is a benching.
Quote:
In comment 11991601 JonC said:
Quote:
most are not fully equipped out of the gate to perform well for a full season.
Too, he's got a significant leg injury that's damaged his performance level.
i don't mind resting him for reason #2 at all.
re: reason #1, even if you are not playing at a high level for all 16 games as a rookie, i would think the playing time experience in the trenches would be invaluable. as well, as a pro athlete, they don't need to worry about their grades, essays and other academic requirements. and as a pro athlete, they are freak physical specimens that have more strength/speed/power/athleticism than normal 21-23 year olds. they can just focus on being the best football player they can be leveraging the resources that the team has to ensure they are in peak condition for sundays.
As a fan I don't disagree. But, I'm aware the coaches don't remotely think in the same manner, therefore, I don't bother wasting the energy wondering why they do what they do.
That's not to suggest you aren't aware, poorly written on my part.
Oh shit! Here comes the Zach Martin Posse!
In Saturday's Reading (greatly appreciated from Defenderdawg), PFF states that Richburg is the 8th best LG in pass-blocking.
OK but in the same article, they reviewed other rookies, as follows:
Bryan Stork Patriots starting C 4th Round pick: -0- sacks.
Corey Linsley.starting C Packers 5th Round 10th best pass-blockng C.
Travis Swanson drafted as C but starting LG Lions 3d Round pick: -0- sacks.
Brandon Linder starting OG Jaguars 3d Round pick: 8th best OG.
I agree that it's too early to pass judgment on Richburg career but I wrote when he was drafted that he was drafted too high- too small and not pro-strong.
If we wanted a C, we could have drafted one in the 4th or 5th Rounds and drafted someone else in the 2d Round and still wound up with a starting rookie C playing at a high level. For example, Stephon Tuitt, drafted by the Steelers in the 2d Round, would have been available to the Giants; he's rated a top 15 DE.
You're as good as your weakest link. Walton and Jerry haven't been very good at all, and it makes everyone else look bad for it.
Schwartz
Mosley
Pugh
Brewer
Richburgh
Can't be surprised when 3rd/4th stringers struggle.
Boy, the Giants really screwed that one up. I guess it's only players drafted by other teams that get the benefit of the doubt, huh?
Once they took Beckum, OL was a must in the 2nd. I like Richburg a lot yet think, like Pugh, the Giants went need over BAP.
Plus I was using Tuitt as an example. There are a lot of other very good rookies drafted after Richburg who are playing well.
I'm still sticking to my main point: IMO Richburg was drafted way too high.
I guess we'll have to wait and see how Richburg's career progresses vs. other rookie OL drafted after him.
BTW at the time of this year's draft I wrote on BBI that IMO Richburg was drafted way too high. What was your evaluation?
BTW I also wrote at the time that I could not understand the drafting of Berhe and Bennett Jackson as DBs. My reasoning was that as a result of the FA signings plus the DBs already on the roster, there were other positions where rookies should have been drafted. Despite the fact that we're decimated at Safety, Demps and Stevie Brown are playing ahead of Berhe and Jackson is not on the roster, with Mike Davis, Chykie Brown and Chandler Fenner there instead. Zach Fulton, drafted immediately after Bennett Jackson, would have been a nice addition to the OL.
Do you think Berhe and Jackson were good choices?