and the dominos fall into place. all the sudden this Line doesn't look too bad. obviously schwartz needs to be healthy but i was impressed w/him in his brief regular season play
...is horrid and needs to be rebuilt. That said, I think that the best way to ensure that this team makes some noise next year is to build a real o-line. Even one that performs at league average would do wonders for the team.
If the O line sucks again next year it would be criminal.
when it comes to his take on the Giants. But I think he is wrong here. Giants have two young guys and high priority FA on that line right now.
FO has to assume they were good picks, and go forward accordingly. It would be a shame to miss out on some of these receivers and pass rushers that might be available by overloading in one area.
a bit but the point is Reese has been willfully blind to this need for years and he better wake up. This patchwork process has failed miserably. He better start with Scherff or Peat at 9 and go from there.
This is a myth. Reese and the Giants haven't been blind to anything. They've been ineffective, which arguably is worse.
2014 - Weston Richburg - C - 2nd round pick
2013 - Justin Pugh - OT - 1st round pick
2013 - Eric Herman - OG - 7th round pick
2012 - Brandon Mosley - OL - 4th round pick
2012 - Matt McCants - OL - 7th round pick
2011 - James Brewer - OT - 4th round pick
2010 - MItch Petrus - OG - 5th round pick
2009 - Will Beatty - OT - 2nd round pick
Plus free agents (off the top of my head): Geoff Schwartz, John Jerry, J.D. Walton, David Baas.
This isn't "patchwork." It's a team expending huge resources, both in cash and draft picks, to maintain and upgrade its line. The problem isn't lack of attention or lack of resources, it's that most of those moves have failed.
I'd be happier if it really was a problem of inattention. It's worse to see the team blowing pick after pick on OL prospects who never amount to anything, and on free agents who leave you thinking "Oh, THAT's why he was allowed to walk."
I wonder how much film Mike has studied of the Giants
Presuming Pugh is moving inside, you have one OG. Schwartz mans the other OG. That moves Richburg to C. three spots are set to the point that you can't plan on replacing them just yet. On paper, they are the future inside. you don't spend premium picks as a backup plan for a plan you haven't even tried yet.
IF you move Pugh, that leaves no one at RT. So you need an acquisition. If you leave Pugh at RT, you still need an acquisition for OG. either way, only one.
Beatty is the wildcard. they know what they have. If it's good enough, we have LT locked up. If it's not, draft a player to replace him after another year. that player is a backup for this year.
I wouldn't be upset at spending 3 premium picks on OL, but I also don't think it's necessary unless Giants are not sold on one of Schwartz, Richburg, Pugh, and all three have been premium picks over the last 2 years.
nice post. I could argue that they've tried to get too cute in bringing in low draft picks, and marginal FA, so except for the last couple years, they haven't spent massive amounts on OL. but they tried, and failed spectacularly, jury still being out on the last 2 years.
As I've stated multiple times, I'm a firm believer that the position coaches get some significant input in acquisitions in their area. So, what does this say about McNally? that his input is bad over the last 5 or more years, or that they ignore him?
Said Pugh was moving anywhere, what was said was that they are considering it, and that it could be an option depending on what players were added, nothing more then that, and it is also true that Pugh wants to remain at right tackle, so lets not make it a given because that is total bullshit.
that this O-line does not need an overhaul. The running game for this team has been subpar for the past few years. I cannot remember the last time we were able to push the pile forward and gain a yard when we need it. I cannot remember the last time a defense feared our running game and had to stack the box to stop it.
IMO, only Pugh and Richburg should feel comfortable as starters. The others may end up starting for us but this does not mean that their performance and production is adequate.
we need to spend 3 of those 6 "premium acquisitions" on OL. I think two is a more fair #...1 FA and 1 draft pick, and then maybe pick up another low priced vet FA and spend a later draft pick on one. We aren't THAT far away from a solid OL. As long as Schwartz is back healthy, 4 of our 5 starters are set and pretty solid. We do need to acquire 2 guys that are good enough to start right away, which means we would have 6 "starter quality" type OL, and then need to continue to build our depth. Haven't hit on a late (4th or later) round lineman in a while...need to get better there.
was glaring last year. Schwartz was better than Pugh in the short time he played RT and he's a failed RT. And a failed LG too. Schwartz needs to play RG if he can play. That leaves LG or RT for Pugh. But if Pugh plays as poorly next year at either as he did in 2014 he's a problem. He was average at best his rookie year and worse last year supposedly due to playing hurt. Richburg playing LG was below average last year. Walton was even worse at center. If Richburg is just a decent NFL starter at center thats a huge upgrade. If Pugh is a decent NFL starter anywhere on the line that's an upgrade. If there isn't major improvement on the OL next year it will be 6 out 7 with no playoffs. A strong OL fixes the whole team.
a bit but the point is Reese has been willfully blind to this need for years and he better wake up. This patchwork process has failed miserably. He better start with Scherff or Peat at 9 and go from there.
Let's see, we've spent 2 second rounders, a first rounder and one last year's big FA acquisition on the o-line. We draft at least one every. How is that being "willfully blind"?
Repeating the same stupidity over and over again doesn't degrade its continued stupidity.
What he is saying is that the oline has to he what it was and can't use injuries as an excuse. If it takes 3 premium players, so be it but getting the oline to control the game is job 1.
By the way, people are making assumptions that Richburg is an NFL ready center and Pugh is a NFL ready guard. Possibly. They're assuming Schwartz will come all the way back and Beatty will stay healthy. Maybe. But, if they are niot, then what happens? I think that's Francesa'd point
to fix the OL good luck. There's not one guy out of those four that's above average. There'a also zero history of the Giants OL coach improving players. There better be more than that.
the guess would be in the Giants' braintrust is "how well" the Giants are "set" at the OTs.
- They don't seal very well, therefore the Giants don't run outside the Ts very well, and screens are inconsistent, at best (part of the problem is the lack of an everyday, good blocking TE)
- They are not maulers and Giants don't run off or inside T very well, neither Beatty nor Pugh is powerful, being "technicians", at best (part of the problem is the lack of effective play at OGs)
- Their pass protection improved in 2014, in part because of BM's scheme to get the ball out of Eli's hand faster, but each can be crashed or vulnerable to outside rush
One can say the Giants "are set at the tackles", but the question is how high the the quality. I would argue the quality is mediocre and is an area of the roster that can and should be upgraded, at one, if not both Ts, via FA and draft.
This is not to say I agree with Francessa, because his statement is absurd, not because the team doesn't need to upgrade at multiple positions, but because there are so many other roster weaknesses that also must be addressed.
either RT or LG and Pugh moves depending on who it is.
Jones is the new top C/G backup probably.
We need to draft a LT to groom behind Beatt. It likely won't be at 9 but I could easily see 40 (maybe Jake Fisher). Beatty is NOT the long term answer and it's in our interest to draft his successor.
RE: The hysteria over the OL continues. Complete garbage.
would be an OL or DL at #9 then the opposite at 40 then WR or RB whoever grades out better. We have a boatload of holes to fill, but as stated an OL addition either at 9 or 40 along with a F/A signing on the OL and we should be fine.
They will add a RT or LG. And, that player doesn't have to be the #9 overall pick.
Agreed. If there was a blue-chip OL with elite LT ability, I could see them going here at 9. The only guy that could be that is Peat IMV and don't know if he ranks that high on their board.
Reese has ignored the Oline? 2 years ago the number 1 pick last year their number 2 pick and first FA were Oline. Do you people write this stuff thinking we are all brain dead and will swallow the crap you write?
Best OL they have had had Deihl - a 5th rd pick, Suebert - UDFA, O'Hara - UDFA and castoff, Snee - second rd pick and McKenzie - 3rd rd pick and castoff
Enough of this notion that only high draft picks on the OL will work. NE won the SB with 2 UDFA G's and a 4th rd C.
For all the unlimited praise the Cowboys OL gets, somehow they managed to give up the same amount of sacks as the Giants OL while having 160 less pass attempts
If you want to get rid of Beatty and draft his replacement at 9, the guy is not going to play as a rookie. There is no OL right now who is capable of coming in to play LT from the draft
Schwartz is a big deal because he can move guys off the ball. Richburg going to his natural position and replacing Walton is a big deal. Find another G in FA and draft and OL in the 2nd rd
The only OL I draft at 9 is Peat - and he may not play as a rookie
The Giants most pressing offensive line need is a RT
in the mold of McKenzie. A RT like McKenzie would instantly upgrade the running game. In my opinion, Pugh is a little too small to be a top flight RT. I like him at guard, especially LG, because I think he's quick enough to pull on running plays.
Giants interested in RT/G Jeremiah Poutasi according to his agent..........nicknamed baby Iupati
never heard of him but he has 20+ interviews lined up.....scouts have identified him as a solid football player that may have to kick inside to G like lots of college Ts
Like it or not, seems to me the Giants have 1 hole to fill on the starting O-Line. Have to believe given where they sit right now, Beatty, Richburg, Schwartz and Pugh are all penciled in as starters. Who knows what they do in F/A. But given that line-up, to think they will spend 3 premium picks on the line is naive.
Not sure why you think Beatty wouldnt start. He wasn't remotely a problem last season.
I agree. Not sure what in my post you interpreted as me saying Beatty will be benched.
Like it or not, seems to me the Giants have 1 hole to fill on the starting O-Line. Have to believe given where they sit right now, Beatty, Richburg, Schwartz and Pugh are all penciled in as starters. Who knows what they do in F/A. But given that line-up, to think they will spend 3 premium picks on the line is naive.
Not sure why you think Beatty wouldnt start. He wasn't remotely a problem last season.
I agree. Not sure what in my post you interpreted as me saying Beatty will be benched.
Like it or not, seems to me the Giants have 1 hole to fill on the starting O-Line. Have to believe given where they sit right now, Beatty, Richburg, Schwartz and Pugh are all penciled in as starters. Who knows what they do in F/A. But given that line-up, to think they will spend 3 premium picks on the line is naive.
Not sure why you think Beatty wouldnt start. He wasn't remotely a problem last season.
I agree. Not sure what in my post you interpreted as me saying Beatty will be benched.
Whoops! I see now that I misread it. My mistake.
no worries. I had to go back and read it to make sure I wrote it properly.
Because it creates headlines. The Giants top 6 needs at this point, in order of importance, are something like:
1. Resign JPP or replace with pro bowl caliber DE
2. OG or RT starter (FA)
3. A playmaker at a skill position on offense. WR or impact RB
4. Starting safety
5. starting OLB
6. Depth at OG, OT, safety, DT and LB (not starters). They will bring in draftees and vet minimum guys to compete as backups
You are really looking at 1-2 priority oline since other needs do come into play. If you stack the o line with three priorty signees and draft picks then you will field a lousy D and will have only one offensive playmaker. That is not a balanced approach to meeting roster needs.
and Schwartz comes back ready, I'd like a big nasty G who can maul and provide stability to the C And T positions on doubles, traps, pulls, screens and pass blocking. Look to FA for some experienced depth after that.
This is why I like drafting Scherff and kicking him inside.
I agree with everything except the last sentence. You don't spend the #9 overall pick on a guard in the modern NFL -- unless, maybe, you think he is going to be the best guard in the NFL for about 10 years to come, and a possible HOFer. Hard to predict that though.
You can get a big nasty guard who can maul in the 2nd. (That's where they got Snee.)
i'm very high on richburg at C
If the O line sucks again next year it would be criminal.
FO has to assume they were good picks, and go forward accordingly. It would be a shame to miss out on some of these receivers and pass rushers that might be available by overloading in one area.
This is a myth. Reese and the Giants haven't been blind to anything. They've been ineffective, which arguably is worse.
2014 - Weston Richburg - C - 2nd round pick
2013 - Justin Pugh - OT - 1st round pick
2013 - Eric Herman - OG - 7th round pick
2012 - Brandon Mosley - OL - 4th round pick
2012 - Matt McCants - OL - 7th round pick
2011 - James Brewer - OT - 4th round pick
2010 - MItch Petrus - OG - 5th round pick
2009 - Will Beatty - OT - 2nd round pick
Plus free agents (off the top of my head): Geoff Schwartz, John Jerry, J.D. Walton, David Baas.
This isn't "patchwork." It's a team expending huge resources, both in cash and draft picks, to maintain and upgrade its line. The problem isn't lack of attention or lack of resources, it's that most of those moves have failed.
I'd be happier if it really was a problem of inattention. It's worse to see the team blowing pick after pick on OL prospects who never amount to anything, and on free agents who leave you thinking "Oh, THAT's why he was allowed to walk."
Presuming Pugh is moving inside, you have one OG. Schwartz mans the other OG. That moves Richburg to C. three spots are set to the point that you can't plan on replacing them just yet. On paper, they are the future inside. you don't spend premium picks as a backup plan for a plan you haven't even tried yet.
IF you move Pugh, that leaves no one at RT. So you need an acquisition. If you leave Pugh at RT, you still need an acquisition for OG. either way, only one.
Beatty is the wildcard. they know what they have. If it's good enough, we have LT locked up. If it's not, draft a player to replace him after another year. that player is a backup for this year.
I wouldn't be upset at spending 3 premium picks on OL, but I also don't think it's necessary unless Giants are not sold on one of Schwartz, Richburg, Pugh, and all three have been premium picks over the last 2 years.
you don't spend premium picks on backups.
As I've stated multiple times, I'm a firm believer that the position coaches get some significant input in acquisitions in their area. So, what does this say about McNally? that his input is bad over the last 5 or more years, or that they ignore him?
Anything he says about the intricacies of building teams, positioning players, trades, Free Agency, etc should be taken with a healthy grain of salt.
and a side of diet coke
Is it a myth?
Quote:
is completely overstated.
Is it a myth?
Really. What myth? TC said himself on the Francesa show that it's a possibility.
IMO, only Pugh and Richburg should feel comfortable as starters. The others may end up starting for us but this does not mean that their performance and production is adequate.
TC is very strategic. He said what he said for a reason.
Repeating the same stupidity over and over again doesn't degrade its continued stupidity.
By the way, people are making assumptions that Richburg is an NFL ready center and Pugh is a NFL ready guard. Possibly. They're assuming Schwartz will come all the way back and Beatty will stay healthy. Maybe. But, if they are niot, then what happens? I think that's Francesa'd point
Beatty
Pugh
Richburg
Schwartz
They will add a RT or LG. And, that player doesn't have to be the #9 overall pick.
- They don't seal very well, therefore the Giants don't run outside the Ts very well, and screens are inconsistent, at best (part of the problem is the lack of an everyday, good blocking TE)
- They are not maulers and Giants don't run off or inside T very well, neither Beatty nor Pugh is powerful, being "technicians", at best (part of the problem is the lack of effective play at OGs)
- Their pass protection improved in 2014, in part because of BM's scheme to get the ball out of Eli's hand faster, but each can be crashed or vulnerable to outside rush
One can say the Giants "are set at the tackles", but the question is how high the the quality. I would argue the quality is mediocre and is an area of the roster that can and should be upgraded, at one, if not both Ts, via FA and draft.
This is not to say I agree with Francessa, because his statement is absurd, not because the team doesn't need to upgrade at multiple positions, but because there are so many other roster weaknesses that also must be addressed.
Jones is the new top C/G backup probably.
We need to draft a LT to groom behind Beatt. It likely won't be at 9 but I could easily see 40 (maybe Jake Fisher). Beatty is NOT the long term answer and it's in our interest to draft his successor.
I don't think the Giants will necessarily draft an OL in the top 3 as long as they've signed a decent starting FA G or T and a backup or two.
Thank you. An island of reason in a sea of panic
Beatty
Pugh
Richburg
Schwartz
They will add a RT or LG. And, that player doesn't have to be the #9 overall pick.
Agreed. If there was a blue-chip OL with elite LT ability, I could see them going here at 9. The only guy that could be that is Peat IMV and don't know if he ranks that high on their board.
Francesa said that about Manziel? What prompted him to say that? Did he think Manziel was the next Russell Wilson?
Dynamite drop in, micky.
Enough of this notion that only high draft picks on the OL will work. NE won the SB with 2 UDFA G's and a 4th rd C.
For all the unlimited praise the Cowboys OL gets, somehow they managed to give up the same amount of sacks as the Giants OL while having 160 less pass attempts
If you want to get rid of Beatty and draft his replacement at 9, the guy is not going to play as a rookie. There is no OL right now who is capable of coming in to play LT from the draft
Schwartz is a big deal because he can move guys off the ball. Richburg going to his natural position and replacing Walton is a big deal. Find another G in FA and draft and OL in the 2nd rd
The only OL I draft at 9 is Peat - and he may not play as a rookie
never heard of him but he has 20+ interviews lined up.....scouts have identified him as a solid football player that may have to kick inside to G like lots of college Ts
Quote:
Like it or not, seems to me the Giants have 1 hole to fill on the starting O-Line. Have to believe given where they sit right now, Beatty, Richburg, Schwartz and Pugh are all penciled in as starters. Who knows what they do in F/A. But given that line-up, to think they will spend 3 premium picks on the line is naive.
Not sure why you think Beatty wouldnt start. He wasn't remotely a problem last season.
I agree. Not sure what in my post you interpreted as me saying Beatty will be benched.
Quote:
In comment 12153672 Bernie said:
Quote:
Like it or not, seems to me the Giants have 1 hole to fill on the starting O-Line. Have to believe given where they sit right now, Beatty, Richburg, Schwartz and Pugh are all penciled in as starters. Who knows what they do in F/A. But given that line-up, to think they will spend 3 premium picks on the line is naive.
Not sure why you think Beatty wouldnt start. He wasn't remotely a problem last season.
I agree. Not sure what in my post you interpreted as me saying Beatty will be benched.
Whoops! I see now that I misread it. My mistake.
Quote:
In comment 12153682 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
In comment 12153672 Bernie said:
Quote:
Like it or not, seems to me the Giants have 1 hole to fill on the starting O-Line. Have to believe given where they sit right now, Beatty, Richburg, Schwartz and Pugh are all penciled in as starters. Who knows what they do in F/A. But given that line-up, to think they will spend 3 premium picks on the line is naive.
Not sure why you think Beatty wouldnt start. He wasn't remotely a problem last season.
I agree. Not sure what in my post you interpreted as me saying Beatty will be benched.
Whoops! I see now that I misread it. My mistake.
no worries. I had to go back and read it to make sure I wrote it properly.
1. Resign JPP or replace with pro bowl caliber DE
2. OG or RT starter (FA)
3. A playmaker at a skill position on offense. WR or impact RB
4. Starting safety
5. starting OLB
6. Depth at OG, OT, safety, DT and LB (not starters). They will bring in draftees and vet minimum guys to compete as backups
You are really looking at 1-2 priority oline since other needs do come into play. If you stack the o line with three priorty signees and draft picks then you will field a lousy D and will have only one offensive playmaker. That is not a balanced approach to meeting roster needs.
This is why I like drafting Scherff and kicking him inside.
You can get a big nasty guard who can maul in the 2nd. (That's where they got Snee.)
O-line has become an obsession around here.
I forget who it was that said the best defense is a withering offense. Might've been some guy name of Lombardi.
Premium picks:
2 OL
2 Safeties
1 D-line
1 LB
Second tier
OL Depth at least 1
DL depth at least 1
TE depth 1
LB depth at least 1
This would adjust slightly if WR is BPA at #9 or #40
Mike Bless.