before their 1st contract expires? They seem to always let those 2nd round picks to expire and explore the free agent market. The Eagles seem to extend their good young players a year or two early and get bargains. Wish the Giants would do that more often.
They could've kept LJ, but then you're digging into a philosophical question about when to exceed value placed on a player. I'd exceed it to retain Hankins, for example, but apparently the sentiment wasn't there for LJ.
before their 1st contract expires? They seem to always let those 2nd round picks to expire and explore the free agent market. The Eagles seem to extend their good young players a year or two early and get bargains. Wish the Giants would do that more often.
Giants players haven't survived long enough to get to contract #2.
Why? I can see them drafting another DT high in 2016 unless Bromley really comes on.
Because they were similar players and with Linval they would probably want more of a penetrating DT next to him. In hindsight I think they would be great next to each other but leading up to the draft Hankins was a plugger whi gets worn down during games. He got worn down because he never came off the field. I think the Giants have their premium poaitions where they would draft a player even if they had studs there already and that is WR, DE, and CB. When it comes to DT they value it high but more for the penetrating type. If Josephy was here I just dont see them spending a second round pick on Hankins.
Why let a 2nd rounder who proved he could perform at a high level go, only to draft another to replace him, when we could have had both and been able to stop being gashed up the middle consistently?
RE: Eric, I've been saying that since we let him go.
Why let a 2nd rounder who proved he could perform at a high level go, only to draft another to replace him, when we could have had both and been able to stop being gashed up the middle consistently?
Yup, just seems like you are spinning your wheels.
If the player is on the downside (Nicks), no issues. But a young, ascending player?
the Giants have one of the lowest cash payrolls in the NFL. Is that accurate? How many years has that been the case? Do the Giants have cash flow issues? Is that possible. There have been rumors the Jets do with their new stadium debt and that Idzik was taking the rap for Woody refusing to spend money last year. Whatever the reason the Giants really struggle to sign their own players and the free agents they've signed since the new stadium has opened have been dumpster dives. I guess DRC is the exception. Any others?
sure looks like they should have done so, especially given all the money as Eric notes that was sunk into players who didn't produce. Joseph was a known quantity. Reese has done a good job replacing run stuffing DTs. Cofield was replaced by Joseph who was replaced by Hankins. But he didn't realize the need for two great run stuffing DTs.
Coughlin had Henderson and Stroud at Jacksonville IIRC. You'd think he would have been able to convince Reese of the importance of keeping Joseph. Or maybe he agreed with him.
This game is won in the trenches. You must run and stop the run. We'd be much better at the latter with Hankins and Joseph.
My understanding is that Hankins is more the 3-technique penetrator now.
I would have liked to have a front with Joseph and Hankins next to each other, not Kuhn and Hankins.
I agree but that is now after we have seen what he can do. Nobody had him as a 3 tech until this past year. And, like I said, I think Hankins and Joseph would be great next to each other. I just think they took Hankins because there was value and need there. If we had Joseph the need wouldnt have been there. At least not as much of a need.
So we moved on from horrible drafting to horrible FA aquisition
not really sure I understand how they evaluated him. The Vikes gave him around 13 mil guaranteed over 5 years. IIRC a lot of that money was in the first two years of the deal, a large roster bonus as opposed to a signing bonus, which must be pro-rated over the life of the contract. But even so, it was still very doable.
The failure (or decision, if you want to mince words) to retain Joseph is one of their biggest mistakes over the last few seasons. They used a premium pick on Joseph and helped him develop. He became an above average run stopper and flashed some pass rushing, pocket collapsing ability. He was reliable (only missed 2 games in 3 seasons as a full time starter) and actually very productive for a NT-type, averaging over 50 tackles and 3 sacks a season. Then they simply let him walk and made no significant effort to sign him. If they don't value 1 tech DTs then why draft one that high? Isn't the point to draft and groom young talent? That's very poor roster management IMO.
If I had to guess they probably felt Hankins was the future of the position and that they could get by with a combination of Jenkins, Patterson, Kuhn, etc beside him. Obviously the results haven't been good with the run D plummeting to the bottom of the league last year. They played the Cofield situation the same way..."why pay him with Linval waiting in the wings?". I don't understand the affinity for below average-to-average veterans this FO has and this time it's really bitten them in the ass. You put Linval next to Big Hank and it not only becomes a position of strength, they'd have one of the best DT tandems in the league. They would've manned the middle much like the Wiliams's in Minnesota awhile back. It would've been quite a task to run right at the middle of the D. Instead they have Kuhn, whose mere presence on the roster ranks alongside Amelia Earhart and Stonehenge as one of the worlds great mysteries, and Bromley, who has had a nice summer but who is still really an unknown.
If you had to rank the Giants worst roster management decisions over the last decade letting Linval walk for 12.5 guaranteed has got to be near or at the top of the list.
Why? I can see them drafting another DT high in 2016 unless Bromley really comes on.
Eric, you are right here. Lineal and Hankins would have been a great DT tandem. They should have redone Eli'so deal last year and made us competitive then and now. Imagine this roster with another $10+ mill to spend the last 2 years
Linval was a good run stopper but got limited penetration on passing plays. Good player, not a great one.
Plus, they had to do something with the OL. As it tuned out Schwartz was injured and Walton was not very good. But fixing the OL was more of a priority than signing a B+ DT.
The real problem, of course, was all the dead money that went to Snee and Baas. But back in 2012, I think most Giant fans were in favor of restructuring those guys, which is what the Giants did and how they got themselves in trouble. But hindsight as they say is 20/20
before their 1st contract expires? They seem to always let those 2nd round picks to expire and explore the free agent market. The Eagles seem to extend their good young players a year or two early and get bargains. Wish the Giants would do that more often.
Totally agree. TC typically lets rookies ride the bench and uses them the 3rd and 4th years. By then, if they're good, we cannot afford to keep them.
we spend millions instead on Schwartz ($17 million), Walton ($5 million), Demps ($1 million), Thurmond ($3 million), McClain ($4.1 million), Paysinger ($1.4 million), Hillis ($1.8 million), Patterson ($900,000), Beason ($17 million), Stevie Brown ($3 million), Robert Ayers ($4 million)...not to mention John Jerry, Charlie Brown, Mario Manningham, Trindon Holliday, Josh Freeman, Rusty Smith, Adam Snyder, etc.?
Don't like all these examples. Ayers is making 1.2 million this year and is arguably our best DL. Thurmond looked good but got hurt. Schwartz is making only 1.6 this year and looks solid when healthy. Holliday got hurt but looked promising as well. McClain was a horrible signing though.
RE: So we moved on from horrible drafting to horrible FA aquisition
This is what makes the decision even more puzzling. From 2009-2014 Reese and company have really struggled with the draft. While they've had some nice hits like Pugh, Richburg, and Beckham, nearly half (45% rounded off, I believe) of their picks are out of the league. Not moved on to other teams, not developing as a backup, straight up out of the NFL. It ranks among the leagues worst rates. So it stands to reason that when they do hit on a player like Jospeh, a guy they used a high pick on and developed, they would make every effort to retain him. After all, you still build your team via the draft, right? But to hell with conventional wisdom, let one of the handful of truly good players you've drafted in the last 5 years walk for what was a relatively low, easy to match deal. Hell, Joseph even want d to stay here.
Instead, on the eve of week 1, we're left praying Kuhn somehow stops being a turnstile.
not really sure I understand how they evaluated him. The Vikes gave him around 13 mil guaranteed over 5 years. IIRC a lot of that money was in the first two years of the deal, a large roster bonus as opposed to a signing bonus, which must be pro-rated over the life of the contract. But even so, it was still very doable.
The failure (or decision, if you want to mince words) to retain Joseph is one of their biggest mistakes over the last few seasons. They used a premium pick on Joseph and helped him develop. He became an above average run stopper and flashed some pass rushing, pocket collapsing ability. He was reliable (only missed 2 games in 3 seasons as a full time starter) and actually very productive for a NT-type, averaging over 50 tackles and 3 sacks a season. Then they simply let him walk and made no significant effort to sign him. If they don't value 1 tech DTs then why draft one that high? Isn't the point to draft and groom young talent? That's very poor roster management IMO.
If I had to guess they probably felt Hankins was the future of the position and that they could get by with a combination of Jenkins, Patterson, Kuhn, etc beside him. Obviously the results haven't been good with the run D plummeting to the bottom of the league last year. They played the Cofield situation the same way..."why pay him with Linval waiting in the wings?". I don't understand the affinity for below average-to-average veterans this FO has and this time it's really bitten them in the ass. You put Linval next to Big Hank and it not only becomes a position of strength, they'd have one of the best DT tandems in the league. They would've manned the middle much like the Wiliams's in Minnesota awhile back. It would've been quite a task to run right at the middle of the D. Instead they have Kuhn, whose mere presence on the roster ranks alongside Amelia Earhart and Stonehenge as one of the worlds great mysteries, and Bromley, who has had a nice summer but who is still really an unknown.
If you had to rank the Giants worst roster management decisions over the last decade letting Linval walk for 12.5 guaranteed has got to be near or at the top of the list.
Absolutely correct. They let a proven player who they had developed leave because of a misguided belief that they could get by with journeyman at the other DT spot. This was done for an amount of money they could have afforded.
But I was shot down by a lot "no way is LJ worth that sort of money he is looking to get" posts. Funny thing by some on this very thread saying now how we should have kept him. There was also a lot of not great cap utilization and a bunch of keeping money for Eli and JPP posts.
But it's a legitimate criticism that'll he'll always go with the old vet over the unknown. His decision to reshape the OL when O'Hara got healthy in '10 was horrible.
I would agree. Instead of pairing him with Hankins,
I think we should have kept Joseph and perhaps Tuck. Lineal had a cap number of $6.6m which would not have been easy to match but was possible.
I wonder if the decision was heavily influenced by Fewell who emphasised the secondary.
Considering how Coughlin likes to stop the run, we should have kept Tuck over Kiwanuka.
As far as Lineal goes,$31.25m over 5 years is decent for a good young DT. Sure we would have had to compromise elsewhere but we would have a very strong front, leaving our LBs free to make plays.
I've mentioned Linval Joseph in several posts in my (short) tenure on this board. He's an example that gets to the point that cap management is as important as hitting on draft picks, because the clock ticks on rookie contracts.
Could the Giants have afforded Joseph if they made him a priority? Sure. Would it have been a good idea? Possibly, although I didn't follow him closely in 2014.
But the most pertinent question to me is: where are the Giants spending the big bucks that causes them to feel constrained when it comes to a player like Joseph? And are they getting the bang for those big bucks that they should be getting?
Dollars are dollars whether they are free agent or retention. Giants have $50 million in 2015 cap devoted to Eli, JPP, Victor Cruz and Will Beatty. Even if they were all healthy, and as much as they are justifiably loved/liked/appreciated for past efforts, I don't think the 2015 versions of those players would be supplying the appropriate return.
Once a large portion of cap is devoted to a few players, management will feel constrained to spread the remaining cap funds. Mistakes are going to be made in that regard and it is entirely fair to criticize the mistakes. But it is the large dollar commitments that set the stage and are the most appropriate focus of the greatest scrutiny.
and drafting DT and DT in the 2nd round limits the other positions they could have covered in the draft. They should resign ascending 1st contract players a year or two early like the Eagles do. Don't keep letting good players get to the free agent year.
Should have signed Martellus Bennett too to avoid Donnell and his fumbles .
What a disaster.
Why? I can see them drafting another DT high in 2016 unless Bromley really comes on.
War Bromley?!
Giants players haven't survived long enough to get to contract #2.
The only ones were cruz and Joseph.
30th rated DT/NT.
I know people hate PFF, but I didn't watch the Vikings often and I doubt anyone else did enough to have a solid opinion on how he played.
So consider this a data point, and then everyone can rail about how bad PFF sucks.
I am when you let a second-round pick who was a very good player leave when his first contract is up and a huge void is left by his departure.
I think that is a conversation worth having.
Quote:
going to play Monday Morning QB for the next freaking 6 months?
I am when you let a second-round pick who was a very good player leave when his first contract is up and a huge void is left by his departure.
I think that is a conversation worth having.
In that case, perhaps we should have kept Cofield?
I don't understand letting good high round picks leave before their second contract.
Quote:
Then I doubt we draft Hankins.
Why? I can see them drafting another DT high in 2016 unless Bromley really comes on.
Because they were similar players and with Linval they would probably want more of a penetrating DT next to him. In hindsight I think they would be great next to each other but leading up to the draft Hankins was a plugger whi gets worn down during games. He got worn down because he never came off the field. I think the Giants have their premium poaitions where they would draft a player even if they had studs there already and that is WR, DE, and CB. When it comes to DT they value it high but more for the penetrating type. If Josephy was here I just dont see them spending a second round pick on Hankins.
I would have liked to have a front with Joseph and Hankins next to each other, not Kuhn and Hankins.
Quote:
going to play Monday Morning QB for the next freaking 6 months?
I am when you let a second-round pick who was a very good player leave when his first contract is up and a huge void is left by his departure.
I think that is a conversation worth having.
Let Bromley play before saying it's such a huge void.
As a rookie Linval played 62 snaps.
For comparison, Hankins played 195 in 2013 and Bromley played 113 last year.
Some of that is a function of the players ahead of them in the rotation, but some times we forget it takes the rookies time to develop.
I thought Bromley looked much better in pre-season.
Yup, just seems like you are spinning your wheels.
If the player is on the downside (Nicks), no issues. But a young, ascending player?
Coughlin had Henderson and Stroud at Jacksonville IIRC. You'd think he would have been able to convince Reese of the importance of keeping Joseph. Or maybe he agreed with him.
This game is won in the trenches. You must run and stop the run. We'd be much better at the latter with Hankins and Joseph.
I would have liked to have a front with Joseph and Hankins next to each other, not Kuhn and Hankins.
I agree but that is now after we have seen what he can do. Nobody had him as a 3 tech until this past year. And, like I said, I think Hankins and Joseph would be great next to each other. I just think they took Hankins because there was value and need there. If we had Joseph the need wouldnt have been there. At least not as much of a need.
The failure (or decision, if you want to mince words) to retain Joseph is one of their biggest mistakes over the last few seasons. They used a premium pick on Joseph and helped him develop. He became an above average run stopper and flashed some pass rushing, pocket collapsing ability. He was reliable (only missed 2 games in 3 seasons as a full time starter) and actually very productive for a NT-type, averaging over 50 tackles and 3 sacks a season. Then they simply let him walk and made no significant effort to sign him. If they don't value 1 tech DTs then why draft one that high? Isn't the point to draft and groom young talent? That's very poor roster management IMO.
If I had to guess they probably felt Hankins was the future of the position and that they could get by with a combination of Jenkins, Patterson, Kuhn, etc beside him. Obviously the results haven't been good with the run D plummeting to the bottom of the league last year. They played the Cofield situation the same way..."why pay him with Linval waiting in the wings?". I don't understand the affinity for below average-to-average veterans this FO has and this time it's really bitten them in the ass. You put Linval next to Big Hank and it not only becomes a position of strength, they'd have one of the best DT tandems in the league. They would've manned the middle much like the Wiliams's in Minnesota awhile back. It would've been quite a task to run right at the middle of the D. Instead they have Kuhn, whose mere presence on the roster ranks alongside Amelia Earhart and Stonehenge as one of the worlds great mysteries, and Bromley, who has had a nice summer but who is still really an unknown.
If you had to rank the Giants worst roster management decisions over the last decade letting Linval walk for 12.5 guaranteed has got to be near or at the top of the list.
Should have signed Martellus Bennett too to avoid Donnell and his fumbles .
THIS
Quote:
Then I doubt we draft Hankins.
Why? I can see them drafting another DT high in 2016 unless Bromley really comes on.
Eric, you are right here. Lineal and Hankins would have been a great DT tandem. They should have redone Eli'so deal last year and made us competitive then and now. Imagine this roster with another $10+ mill to spend the last 2 years
Plus, they had to do something with the OL. As it tuned out Schwartz was injured and Walton was not very good. But fixing the OL was more of a priority than signing a B+ DT.
The real problem, of course, was all the dead money that went to Snee and Baas. But back in 2012, I think most Giant fans were in favor of restructuring those guys, which is what the Giants did and how they got themselves in trouble. But hindsight as they say is 20/20
Totally agree. TC typically lets rookies ride the bench and uses them the 3rd and 4th years. By then, if they're good, we cannot afford to keep them.
Don't like all these examples. Ayers is making 1.2 million this year and is arguably our best DL. Thurmond looked good but got hurt. Schwartz is making only 1.6 this year and looks solid when healthy. Holliday got hurt but looked promising as well. McClain was a horrible signing though.
This is what makes the decision even more puzzling. From 2009-2014 Reese and company have really struggled with the draft. While they've had some nice hits like Pugh, Richburg, and Beckham, nearly half (45% rounded off, I believe) of their picks are out of the league. Not moved on to other teams, not developing as a backup, straight up out of the NFL. It ranks among the leagues worst rates. So it stands to reason that when they do hit on a player like Jospeh, a guy they used a high pick on and developed, they would make every effort to retain him. After all, you still build your team via the draft, right? But to hell with conventional wisdom, let one of the handful of truly good players you've drafted in the last 5 years walk for what was a relatively low, easy to match deal. Hell, Joseph even want d to stay here.
Instead, on the eve of week 1, we're left praying Kuhn somehow stops being a turnstile.
The failure (or decision, if you want to mince words) to retain Joseph is one of their biggest mistakes over the last few seasons. They used a premium pick on Joseph and helped him develop. He became an above average run stopper and flashed some pass rushing, pocket collapsing ability. He was reliable (only missed 2 games in 3 seasons as a full time starter) and actually very productive for a NT-type, averaging over 50 tackles and 3 sacks a season. Then they simply let him walk and made no significant effort to sign him. If they don't value 1 tech DTs then why draft one that high? Isn't the point to draft and groom young talent? That's very poor roster management IMO.
If I had to guess they probably felt Hankins was the future of the position and that they could get by with a combination of Jenkins, Patterson, Kuhn, etc beside him. Obviously the results haven't been good with the run D plummeting to the bottom of the league last year. They played the Cofield situation the same way..."why pay him with Linval waiting in the wings?". I don't understand the affinity for below average-to-average veterans this FO has and this time it's really bitten them in the ass. You put Linval next to Big Hank and it not only becomes a position of strength, they'd have one of the best DT tandems in the league. They would've manned the middle much like the Wiliams's in Minnesota awhile back. It would've been quite a task to run right at the middle of the D. Instead they have Kuhn, whose mere presence on the roster ranks alongside Amelia Earhart and Stonehenge as one of the worlds great mysteries, and Bromley, who has had a nice summer but who is still really an unknown.
If you had to rank the Giants worst roster management decisions over the last decade letting Linval walk for 12.5 guaranteed has got to be near or at the top of the list.
Absolutely correct. They let a proven player who they had developed leave because of a misguided belief that they could get by with journeyman at the other DT spot. This was done for an amount of money they could have afforded.
What a disaster.
So does that mean you're gonna disappear for the next several months and then come back to grace us with your presence when draft talk starts?
Joseph was a draft pick they let go that they should have held onto. Robinson and others were draft picks they held onto but should have let go.
I wonder if the decision was heavily influenced by Fewell who emphasised the secondary.
Considering how Coughlin likes to stop the run, we should have kept Tuck over Kiwanuka.
As far as Lineal goes,$31.25m over 5 years is decent for a good young DT. Sure we would have had to compromise elsewhere but we would have a very strong front, leaving our LBs free to make plays.
Could the Giants have afforded Joseph if they made him a priority? Sure. Would it have been a good idea? Possibly, although I didn't follow him closely in 2014.
But the most pertinent question to me is: where are the Giants spending the big bucks that causes them to feel constrained when it comes to a player like Joseph? And are they getting the bang for those big bucks that they should be getting?
Dollars are dollars whether they are free agent or retention. Giants have $50 million in 2015 cap devoted to Eli, JPP, Victor Cruz and Will Beatty. Even if they were all healthy, and as much as they are justifiably loved/liked/appreciated for past efforts, I don't think the 2015 versions of those players would be supplying the appropriate return.
Once a large portion of cap is devoted to a few players, management will feel constrained to spread the remaining cap funds. Mistakes are going to be made in that regard and it is entirely fair to criticize the mistakes. But it is the large dollar commitments that set the stage and are the most appropriate focus of the greatest scrutiny.