Paul Dottino seems to be on board with Mathis

I wish it was that simple to make happen.

for the organization, so maybe there are behind-the-scenes talks with Mathis

I think a lot of BBI'ers would feel better about Mathis being here, but my impression of his game is that he really is more of a LG-type than RG. They are not going to move Pugh from LG.

I think Mathis' game has been a little inflated here because of his name. It would like if another team signed Snee a couple of years ago and their fans would be like "woo, we got a Pro Bowler!"

the loss of a single lineman means there aren't enough linemen. That's a problem, because linemen get hurt all the time.

I know the Giants seem determined to move Pugh to LG but I don't really understand why.

makes the cohesion on the left a huge question mark. It also moves Pugh out of his best position. This can essentially weaken the whole line and not just the left or right side. I'd leave it alone and may the best player not named Pugh take the job at RT.

As for Mathis, i'm fine with bringing him in but who knows the price. I'll let those chips fall over the next couple weeks, no sense guessing what Reese will do.

In comment 12422446 81_Great_Dane said:

Quote:

the loss of a single lineman means there aren't enough linemen. That's a problem, because linemen get hurt all the time. I know the Giants seem determined to move Pugh to LG but I don't really understand why.

They've been saying he probably translates best as a guard since the day he was drafted. I don't think it's that hard to see.

In comment 12422446 81_Great_Dane said:

Quote:

the loss of a single lineman means there aren't enough linemen. That's a problem, because linemen get hurt all the time. I know the Giants seem determined to move Pugh to LG but I don't really understand why.

Probably because Mathis would be a 1 year rental and Pugh is a future piece. Constantly moving these guys just isn't a wise decision. Can it work? Sure. But with Mathis' supposed cost I'm not sure the Giants want to go down that road.

the Giants were about $4.8 million under the cap before Meriweather was signed. They don't need to re-structure Eli to sign a 34-year old guard.

Stopped being great in 2010. If a team signed him in 2011, it would be relevant.

Mathis is coming off three seasons where he has performed positively; two of the seasons (sans injuries) he was one of the top OL in the league.

But I do see them wanting to keep Pugh at LG so I don't foresee it happening. Schwartz will be used either RG or RT and they'll use Jerry or Newhouse in the other spot. I would love to see Mathis here, but I don't see it likely happening. A 2-3 incentive based deal is what I'd expect given his age - whomever signs him.

Rather

In comment 12422443 dpinzow said:

Quote:

for the organization, so maybe there are behind-the-scenes talks with Mathis

dpinzow,

Normally I would agree with this, but in recent years, Dottino's inside scoops or being used as a mouthpiece by the organization seems to have taken a hit, at least as far as personnel changes. For many years, the Giants used some of their veteran beat writers as someone who they would leak info to in order to get the message out they wanted (Vinny DiTrani a main example). Dottino seemed to get that mantle after DiTrani retired and he got some of this information.

Now, the other side of the coin. The Giants have been putting not so subtle messages out there that they expect more from the offensive line they have in place. Remember, this is a team with 3 high draft picks, a well compensated tackle who is hurt, and a highly paid free agent guard. That's a lot of money / draft stock put in the offensive line. Last week O'Hara gave them crap about toughness and playing together. Today you have Dottino talking about Mathis. It could very well be that the Giants organization is using the media and former players to spur on the current crop of offensive lineman to get it together and produce. They know full well all these guys are on twitter and Facebook and their families relay these rumors to them as well.

if Schwartz-Newhouse works, great, if not, bring on Mathis. John Jerry cannot be a starting player for this team.

only when they sign Mathis. It goes against all they've been trying to accomplish to date.

He is the best RT on the team, period. It sucks that there isn't a better one but he may need to play RT this year until they can actually upgrade that position so that they can move him to RG.

B in ALB made a great point on the other camp thread that having Mathis next to the rookie in Flowers could be invaluable to him and even the other young Oline men on the team.

Flowers -- Mathis -- Richburg -- Schwartz -- Pugh

That's the best alignment to give the Giants any shot this year.

In comment 12422444 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

I think a lot of BBI'ers would feel better about Mathis being here, but my impression of his game is that he really is more of a LG-type than RG. They are not going to move Pugh from LG. I think Mathis' game has been a little inflated here because of his name. It would like if another team signed Snee a couple of years ago and their fans would be like "woo, we got a Pro Bowler!"

Eric - that is why I have been shooting down most of the calls for Mathis. Almost all of them seem to require either moving Schwartz to RT (he's not a OT) or Pugh to RT (the Giants are not moving him).

Now, i am reading Mathis is really only a LG. If that's the case, then they aren't signing him. If he can play RG, they are still down a RT and I don't think they are benching a healthy Schwartz.

In comment 12422463 Toth029 said:

Quote:

Stopped being great in 2010. If a team signed him in 2011, it would be relevant. Mathis is coming off three seasons where he has performed positively; two of the seasons (sans injuries) he was one of the top OL in the league. But I do see them wanting to keep Pugh at LG so I don't foresee it happening. Schwartz will be used either RG or RT and they'll use Jerry or Newhouse in the other spot. I would love to see Mathis here, but I don't see it likely happening. A 2-3 incentive based deal is what I'd expect given his age - whomever signs him.

I think Mathis has been beat up recently...didn't he miss a bunch of games last year?

The depth situation is scary on the Giants. If Pugh or Flowers or Richburg tear an ACL...

In comment 12422451 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

makes the cohesion on the left a huge question mark. It also moves Pugh out of his best position. This can essentially weaken the whole line and not just the left or right side. I'd leave it alone and may the best player not named Pugh take the job at RT. As for Mathis, i'm fine with bringing him in but who knows the price. I'll let those chips fall over the next couple weeks, no sense guessing what Reese will do.

that makes you a horrible gm.

Pugh has never started lg and his output is unknown. To not sign who would immediately be the best o lineman on the team to keep a guy who never played lg at lg is absurd.

Coming off injury. The other day i was on board but the more I think about it, I would shatter my tv if we paid him and he got injured or played like Snee in his final year. Which both are very possible.

because putting Pugh at his best position isn't worth passing up an opportunity to improve overall heading into the season. If Mathis' $ demands are way out of control, there's no excuse to not bring in Boothe & Long. Maybe even Cherilus or Justin Blalock? Gotta imagine they'd all be cheaper.

Bottomline, I don't want to hear about Gettis and Mosley needing to step up. The Giants need to step up and stop asking guys who haven't proven anything to step up. There are enough guys out there that all of our active lineman can at least be guys who have been starting caliber players in the recent past (other than Flowers).

Give me these 9 OL (Beatty being 10) and at least you have some options:
Flowers (LT), Pugh (G or RT), Richburg (C), Blalock (G), Schwartz (G or RT), Long (T), Boothe (C, G, RT), Newhouse (G or RT), Jerry (G)

In comment 12422444 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

I think a lot of BBI'ers would feel better about Mathis being here, but my impression of his game is that he really is more of a LG-type than RG. They are not going to move Pugh from LG. I think Mathis' game has been a little inflated here because of his name. It would like if another team signed Snee a couple of years ago and their fans would be like "woo, we got a Pro Bowler!"

"They are not moving Pugh from guard" is very underwhelming logic to me.

We need this offense to be good this year, you don't risk that because you are trying to fit a first round pick to a certain position when like many including myself have been harping on as a problem for years. Besides, it is a new position, and Flowers was forced into a role that might be a little beyond him. Isn't having a pro bowl veteran next to Flowers not a bad idea in light of that?

Year after year i've seen the same logic "we aren't as bad on the OL as you think" then the season starts and it's the same old ineffective play. I'd much rather eat crow and say maybe he was a little past his prime or "hey we have more depth than we thought" at the end of the year than another season where the offense under performs.

...and plan to keep him there (meaning Beatty is a backup if/when he returns). Even then, you end up with two LGs.

Old, square peg in a round hole.

ding ding.

are that, one, you still have a potential gaping hole at RG 9assuming Schwartz isn't healthy) and two, it has already been determined that Pugh is not best suited for RT (or the right side altogether). The left side of the line looked pretty good and should only get better. The right side is a big question mark based on injury and talent. Personally, I agree with Eric in that Newhouse didn't play poorly. If he reverts to his play prior to last year, he is a decent RT. Is Pugh going to be much better than that?

A healthy Mathis is clearly better than Pugh at LG, but it doesn't solve either hole on the right side. And, there is no guarantee he is healthy enough to play at a high level given his age.

are still available.

and Blalock. Warts, age, lack of want-to play.

In comment 12422454 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

In comment 12422446 81_Great_Dane said: Quote: the loss of a single lineman means there aren't enough linemen. That's a problem, because linemen get hurt all the time. I know the Giants seem determined to move Pugh to LG but I don't really understand why. Probably because Mathis would be a 1 year rental and Pugh is a future piece. Constantly moving these guys just isn't a wise decision. Can it work? Sure. But with Mathis' supposed cost I'm not sure the Giants want to go down that road.

Also, Mathis would not be a 1 year rental. He wants the years as well as the dollars. You'd have to believe he could play at a high level for the next three or four years to sign him. I am guessing the Giants will not do that due to the cost, MCL injury last year and age most of all. Just my guess.

In comment 12422441 Ten Ton Hammer said:

Quote:

I wish it was that simple to make happen.

Clearly you haven't read half of BBI, ha.

for at least two seasons. the air freshener in TC's office is more plugged in. this feels like pure speculation...at most.

In comment 12422504 Big Blue Blogger said:

Quote:

...and plan to keep him there (meaning Beatty is a backup if/when he returns). Even then, you end up with two LGs. Old, square peg in a round hole.

Its not like they would be disrupting some kind of chemistry if they move Schwartz to RT.

It would be if Mathis is only a LG (not sure if he is or isn't).

You'd have two LGs, a player at RT they want at RG (Geoff), and nowhere to play Beatty when he's healthy. More likely they go leaner and from within. Tend to doubt Mathis will be up for 1) changing positions or 2) playing for a bargain.

In comment 12422456 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

the Giants were about $4.8 million under the cap before Meriweather was signed. They don't need to re-structure Eli to sign a 34-year old guard.

in the Mathis conversation, this is a very important point. Re-upping Manning to make room here does not make sense and is risking future decisions (see Manning thread). And if we needed room, we'd be better off pulling the tender from JPP.

"When Schwartz comes back...." Like Schwartz is ever going to be on the field for more than two games at a time.

In comment 12422535 JonC said:

Quote:

You'd have two LGs, a player at RT they want at RG (Geoff), and nowhere to play Beatty when he's healthy. More likely they go leaner and from within. Tend to doubt Mathis will be up for 1) changing positions or 2) playing for a bargain.

and playing on a one year deal. can't see the Giants signing him on a 3rd deal that I am sure he is looking for.

this year are not yet supported by the available evidence. His injury was disabling, surgery result and recovery remain uncertain, he is still very restricted and limited. We cannot count on him, not yet.

he's expected to go live this week, that and his cap hit say he'll be in the lineup in Dallas.

given Schwartz's lack of playing time. I wouldn't be surprised if Schwartz is moved to RT, but I'm not sure that Mathis is in the teams longer term interest.

I'm also sure he'll be in street clothes by Buffalo.

In comment 12422547 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

I'm also sure he'll be in street clothes by Buffalo.

optimist.....

but an answer to hedge him from potential injury isn't likely to emerge from a couch, as many here suggest. It's unrealistic. Further, NYG typically doesn't flush veterans unless they believe it's time to turn the page, and Geoff's still a relatively young dude. They're mindful of how such situations are viewed by agents/players around the league.

left to right: Flowers, Pugh, Richburgh, Shwartz, and Newhouse to be it for this season, barring injury. Jerry to fill in if so. They don't seem as concerned as fans and media are.

That's what they want, four positions set with RT held by Newhouse until Beatty's healthy and potentially added to the mix. One change. Left side showed some promise the other night.

The way the Giants like to operate has not worked for years now. With a upper echelon QB who hasn't missed a start in his entire career, they've missed the playoffs three straight years and look for all the world like they're going to make it four straight this season.

I'd agree their approach isn't working, but the talent needs to be acquired during the offseason when the talent is available, and fits are intact. Mathis, for example, is 34 and forces musical chairs midstream.

talent available now is suspect.

In comment 12422561 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

The way the Giants like to operate has not worked for years now. With a upper echelon QB who hasn't missed a start in his entire career, they've missed the playoffs three straight years and look for all the world like they're going to make it four straight this season.

it may be the problem but clearly the Giants don't see it as a problem because they continue to execute the same strategy. which I guess may be scarier if the model does not work and they are sticking to it.

to add to Matt in SGS post re. FO strong expectation that the OL man up you have TC's comment today that "we need to know we can rely on Schwartz"

Jon, re. your "ding, ding" to BBB's comment that signing Mathis only makes sense if one assumes Schwartz goes to RT...
not necessarily: if he stays put at RG and FO is so sold on Mathis that they move on him and insert him at LG, then Pugh moves back to RT, one assumption is as (in)valid as the other, is it not? As a poster said, it's not as if Pugh is a long term starter at LG. The other side of the coin: yes, slotting in Mathis on the left side disrupts G-T combos/cohesion on both sides.

In terms of Pugh as a guard vs. tackle: he did seem overwhelmed (injured?) at RT last year, but if his mobility and feet are his best assets--certainly he's not a road grader/powerhouse guard type--what is the handicapping of playing him at LG rather than RT? Are Giants looking to reclaim the power sweep with the guards pulling?

but Jerry being the primary backup, especially with Schwartz' history. But, I'm also not sure signing Mathis and juggling the OL is also the right answer given Mathis' age and injury.

That's what concerns me also.

For better or worse, the decision to kick Pugh to LG was made months ago, and they've been building around that as a core component. They want more size at the tackles.

but he is too optimistic about the giants. he think they can win every game. I can't tell if he is mentioning mathis as something he wants or is an actual possibility.

than John Jerry and Marshall Newhouse. Talk about suspect. The only way Newhouse looks good is in comparison with Charles Brown.

Scary thought - Sean Locklear is the best veteran OL they've brought in for about five years now.

has the benefit of being in the system for some time, it's better than signing in mid-August.

In comment 12422451 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

makes the cohesion on the left a huge question mark. It also moves Pugh out of his best position. This can essentially weaken the whole line and not just the left or right side. I'd leave it alone and may the best player not named Pugh take the job at RT. As for Mathis, i'm fine with bringing him in but who knows the price. I'll let those chips fall over the next couple weeks, no sense guessing what Reese will do.

Why is Pugh's best position LG ? He has not played a down in the NFL at that spot to my knowledge ( during the regular season ).

That it is easier to give help to an over matched tackle than it is to an over matched guard.

Part of it, supposedly, is that he is really more comfortable on the left side. I believe he played LT exclusively at Syracuse. The other part is that they felt he might be better suited to play OG. The former is why he is not likely to be moved from LG to RG. However, if needed I think he is still a better option at RT than anyone else they have. I have issue, though, with moving him after he has worked almost exclusively at Lg for months.

I'm just not sure it is the heal all tonic some are making it out to be for a number of reasons. Playing him at LG means Pugh goes back to RT. That isn't terrible, but still not ideal. Playing Pugh at RG also isn't ideal. Moving Schwartz to RT makes no sense to me.

I think the only way this move works is with Mathis at LG and Pugh at RT. But, RG is still a big problem if Schwartz can't go. It is also unclear, at this point, if Pugh is a significant upgrade over Newhouse at RT.

people saying Pugh isn't a LG have been completely ignoring what has happened this summer since OTA's...Pugh has been kicking butt at both LT and LG. He's more naturally suited to the left side...that's where he played his entire college career. He loves being over there.

He's out best OL right now at LG.

do you guys think Coughlin and Flaherty kept Pugh at LG even after Beatty tore his pectoral? All of the beat writers were shocked by that.

way I see them moving Pugh is if Flowers sucks at LT.

nothing's wrong with him
Evan Mathis - ( New Window )

Thank you again for being a voice of reason. I honestly believe this is a big reason they aren't signing Mathis as a stop gap. They think Pugh will be a very good LG and so far he has looked good by all reports.

I don't think it is impossible. I'm just not sure how it would work out.

I agree with those who say John Jerry is a problem. So I guess you could move Pugh or Mathis to RG. Or Pugh back to RT.

Let Flowers get acclimated by playing RT and sign Mathis to play LG.

What about the $15M we are saving by not signing JPP, $5M of that can be deployed to the O-line

and barely younger than David Diehl.

If we are going to pursue an add'l offensive lineman, I'd hope we'd pursue someone younger that won't break down, end up on IR, which is what I fear.

I think it would be a bad idea to move Flowers to RT at this point unless he is struggling. Shifting sides means getting used to everything backwards...it would set his development back.

if Flowers and Pugh are the long term answers on the left side, you don't shift Pugh back to the right to solve a problem on that side. To me, the key is Schwartz. If he can't be counted on, the line is in trouble this year.

In this offense i think they want to work inside out. They want the strength to be inside because we want to pound the rock inside. They want the inside strong because it is the best way for this offense to function with the quick throws. Putting Pugh at LG and having Schwartz at RG should have solidified the interior of our OL with Richburg at C. Pugh is very athletic so he can handle G. When he pulls he can really help out with Schwartz and Flowers on the right. When Beatty got hurt that changed a lot. Flowers was moved from RT to LT. If this was Gilbride's offense i would bet anything they would have kept Flowers at RT and moved Pugh to LT while trying to figure out the LG spot. When Beatty got healthy then they would slide Pugh to LG and Beatty to LT. The biggest problem is that Schwartz hasnt really practiced. So, you arent just tryimg to weather the storm with Beatty but you are trying to see what your options are if Schwartz cant to. There are so many moving pieces and the Giants dont want that.

Something else that gets overlooked is where these players play. DD played basically everywhere on our line. However, when he went from, I think LG to RT in the same year he was awful. The next year I think he went to LT and we were all concerned but he did well. One, a player no matter how good needs quality reps at the position they will play. Two, from my experience most of the time, not all the time, it is easier to stay on one side of the line than at one position. What i mean by that is it is easier to go from LG to LT than it is to go from LG to RG. Some players are just so accustomed to the stance, the inside arm stabbing DL, the footwork, the kickslide, etc. done a certain way. I attribute it to throwing righty your whole life and then being asked to throw lefty at the highest level of play. It isnt easy. It isnt natural. Now, maybe throwing isnt the right analogy but I think hitting is. Some batters are just righties, some are just lefties, and some are switch hitters. Even the switch hitters have a better side of the plate. The same goes for linemen.

Because of this, I see why Pugh was moved to LT for a practice but not RT. Can he play RT? Yes but it has been two years since he has played on the left side so he needs the reps. Flowers has played on the left side so it is appropriate that he goes to left tackle. It will be the shortest learning curve for him.

When Beatty comes back, what do we do? Well, that is a long way away so they will deal with that when it occurs. Im curious to see what happens. Most likely Beatty would go to LT and Flowers to RT but I think that is a mistake midseason. That will be very diffiult on Flowers. In a perfect world that would be what happens. I wouldnt be surprised to see Beatty go to RT although it isn't his strongest position. The reason I think this has a better chance at happening is because he hurt his chest not his legs. He has more time to learn the footwork for RT than Flowers does. Flowers is a rookie learning a new offense. Are you really going to overwhelm him with learning two different positions, two different sets of kickslides, stabbing with his right arm to his left arm while he is still worried about his hand placement? I wouldn't. I would have Beatty working on this for two months before he comes of the PUP and plays.

I am very concerned about the right side of the line. People keep pointing out that Beatty will be back and Schwartz is practicing. Well, that is if we are 100% healthy. What if we aren't? That is why I am in favor of trying to sign Mathis, Long, or whoever can better this team. The fact that Jerry and Newhouse are our next OL in is worrisome no matter how well Newhouse played against Cincinnati. I need, we need to see more than that. Now, hopefully Jerry and Newhouse prove us wrong and seize the opportunity and we become a dominant line. Yippee. There is still room on this team for more quality players and I would like to see something happen. I know it is easier said than done but we cant shit away another season because we were keeping our fingers crossed that players who have never done anything will suddenly get it done.

In comment 12422688 Trainmaster said:

Quote:

and barely younger than David Diehl. If we are going to pursue an add'l offensive lineman, I'd hope we'd pursue someone younger that won't break down, end up on IR, which is what I fear.

Dude is good though. The NFL is a win now league. Fuck youth. Get a guy in here that can play at a high level. we won two Super Bowls with guys his age. And went to another one against Baltimore with guys older than him.

(Flowers, Gettis, Richburgh, Schwartz, Pugh), I would play Pugh at LT and Flowers at RT. Flowers is a road grader and I'm not convinced he's agile enough to play LT.