You know that the league and fans keep score, the literal score in games, and the final record. These guys are bodies until they prove they can be winners. This is all crazy talk.
Reese can draft well in the first two rounds, his problem is rounds 3-7 where he constantly strikes out.
Tommy, % wise, not a lot of round 3-7 players become starters in this league. I think Reese & Co.'s overall draft philosophy has changed about 3 years ago, looking more for production than pure athleticism.
We probably have about the same success rate now with late round picks as other teams. We tend to know about "our" guys and have never heard of these guys from other teams.
Giants really have to rethink their philosophy in those rounds
Too many projects: Robinson, Mosely, Brewer, Barden
Instead of taking projects at premium positions, such as OT and WR, why not draft safeties, guards, centers, ILB--positions where you can productive players who will come in and contribute right away.
Even if guys like Brewer and Robinson had developed, they would have become free agents just about the time they were getting good. Middle rounds, you should be looking for bang for your buck. You don't need a star. Just guys who can be good solid players who cost very little.
I too thought the 2013 draft was "good to very good". All that's left is Pugh, Hankins, Moore, and Nassib. Hankins is a stud no doubt but I was hoping to see more from Pugh by now. He was at best average his rookie year then regressed into a turnstile his second year. Now he's playing a position where many felt he'd excel but I just don't see it. I'm hoping to see more dominance from him in the second half leading into 2016. Rounding out the remaining players still on the roster from that draft has Moore a walking personal foul waiting to happen and a self described moron and Nassib hasn't proven anything other than the ability to survive behind OL dreck during second halves of preseason games each August. I'd imagine he'd prefer to move on once his deal expires.
Giants really have to rethink their philosophy in those rounds
Too many projects: Robinson, Mosely, Brewer, Barden
Instead of taking projects at premium positions, such as OT and WR, why not draft safeties, guards, centers, ILB--positions where you can productive players who will come in and contribute right away.
Even if guys like Brewer and Robinson had developed, they would have become free agents just about the time they were getting good. Middle rounds, you should be looking for bang for your buck. You don't need a star. Just guys who can be good solid players who cost very little.
The Giants have had the absurd notion that they can develop project players which has proven to be unfounded during the Coughlin era. That says something about the coaches that Coughlin employs under him as well as Coughlin himself.
I too thought the 2013 draft was "good to very good". All that's left is Pugh, Hankins, Moore, and Nassib. Hankins is a stud no doubt but I was hoping to see more from Pugh by now. He was at best average his rookie year then regressed into a turnstile his second year. Now he's playing a position where many felt he'd excel but I just don't see it. I'm hoping to see more dominance from him in the second half leading into 2016. Rounding out the remaining players still on the roster from that draft has Moore a walking personal foul waiting to happen and a self described moron and Nassib hasn't proven anything other than the ability to survive behind OL dreck during second halves of preseason games each August. I'd imagine he'd prefer to move on once his deal expires.
Lmao.
What is Nassib supposed to show? Please tell us.
He only plays in preseason games for a reason.
Why would we not resign him when his deal is up?
Reese made a smart move drafting him.
Our back up QB not commanding big dollars on the salary cap
Time to groom him with the hope he never plays while Eli is still a Giant.
Also....Pugh has played well for us this season. He's part of the reason the left side of the line is a strength.
NE is the exception but everything is designed to push teams to parity. Lombardi never had to work with a cap or free agency. His player's weren't hostage to injuries like the modern athlete.
I think you want Lombardi type dominance and that left with the trolley car.
I wonder when I hear "he's only good on the first and second rounds"
WHAT!!.
An awful lot of first round picks fail, it is no small thing to never fail. And you list Kennard and in the same sentence talk about lack of productivity in the late rounds. Our last superbowl team btw had two integral components in Williams and Hynoski and both were late late as well as being rookies.
I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the rest of the league has had multiple dogs among their first two picks. Sometimes I think The Jets hit at about fifty percent. And how many dogs did Accorsi pick in the top two?...just think Wisconsin running back, the one eyed DE, the safety, David Brown a cb or two and several others.
I honestly don't understand... "Yeah we won two superbowls in the decade but"....and/or "his first and second round picks are good but"...
"but" is not a conjunction, it's a nullifier and invalid in this instance.
If Reese has been and is doing an amazing, irreproachable job,
Coughlin and the coaching staff have largely been failing at theirs and/or Eli has been a bad QB for quite awhile, right?
Because people can't have it all ways, with what the Giants' objective track record is lately. Someone hasn't been doing their job very well; it's not all luck or randomness.
didnt say best team in the nfl. didn's say jerry resse is branch rickey. didn't say puppies are raining from the sky. just said 3 good drafts in a row.
Draft success is relative within the context of the other teams drafting within the same vicinity. Its lazy to conclude our last three drafts as successful without a better understanding of the "hit" rates of other teams, just as it would be lazy to deem the drafts unsuccessful otherwise.
Is NFL.com and PFF both rated our roster in the 20's (out of 32) this past summer. 3 good drafts or not, that has an indictment on somebody, no? At some point, we need to see the fruit of those drafts translate into a doing digit winning season, no? Chances are, based on our remaining schedule, the best we'll do this year is somewhere between 7-9 wins.
Is NFL.com and PFF both rated our roster in the 20's (out of 32) this past summer. 3 good drafts or not, that has an indictment on somebody, no? At some point, we need to see the fruit of those drafts translate into a doing digit winning season, no? Chances are, based on our remaining schedule, the best we'll do this year is somewhere between 7-9 wins.
Should read:
"Has to be an indictment...."
And
"double digit winning season"
He hasn't been great in Carolina yet that team lost their top receiver, isn't getting much out of Fuchess(whatever the rookie WR/TE name is) yet they win.
I get the feeling a lot of votes in that draft room haven't actually seen many of these players up close.
and quite simply a key reason why Giants are playing better football as of late.
These are good young players who were drafted early to be starters, and most importantly ARE STARTERS.
I agree that the developmental approach to drafting in the middle rounds is not working for the Giants, whether because Reese missed on the potential or the coaches missed on the development.
I agree that the developmental approach to drafting in the middle rounds is not working for the Giants, whether because Reese missed on the potential or the coaches missed on the development.
From my novice eye I have said for years the Giants OTA's are a joke.
Maybe they're doing more than the three OTA practices i attended but, IMO, it's just players talking/laughing on the sidelines whereas the play on the field is borderline backyard football. If there is teaching and development happening i wonder why these same players appear to start at square one when camp opens.
You simply ignore that point. Is Pitts poorly run or coached? Are their current struggles a result of poor coaching or poor drafting? Or does the cap, free agency, the increasingly important god of injuries, the draft position itself, and even strength of schedule mean that you are not going to be in top for long.
I wish you'd address that when you're critical.
I note the impact of signing your franchise QB too. A few years ago four teams made the playoffs with rookie QB's....because their QB's took up such little cap room.
Do you realize how abberant that was and that it confirmed what was happening.
The Ravens win a superbowl, are forced to sign their qb to a huge contract and decline immediately as Boldin (sp?) goes off to San Fran.
Look at the inherent advantages the SeaHawks have had. Years of being down means an accumulation of high draft picks, then they pay their QB next to nothing while Eli and Ben occupy almost 20 percent of their cap space leaving 80% for the other 52 players.
Now you throw in the randomness of injuries that impact more across the league every year.
That's the modern reality that you have to measure Pitts, The Ravens, Green Bay and New Orleans against...Or the teams that have won once and have franchise qb's tying up the cap.
Green Bay has a better QB, by all accounts a great front office and coaching, they have one superbowl and yet no one is looking to throw out their GM.
New Orleans won one superbowl with a better qb and now is in decline and also never won after giving Brees his 100 plus million...These are the standards you should look at.
I grant that New England is an anomoly, but in some ways maybe they prove the point...because they have a better qb than us and he occupies less cap space.
Giants really have to rethink their philosophy in those rounds
Would you rather trade it for all those years that our #1 didn't work out??
And this is a great point. Too many here either don't remember or never had to go through the regular failure of high draft picks. I'd much rather have relative regular success in Rounds 1,2, and usually 3 that miss on those premium picks but get lucky in later rounds with comparatively inferior quality.
they somehow managed to stay afloat, going 2-2, without their top tier QB so far this season despite all their supposed issues. Their "down" seasons in 2012 and 2013 were 8-8 and 8-8, being alive in serious playoff contention into December.
If they're what the Giants are supposed to be compared to, then the Giants come up quite short in that comparison.
And yes, stop with the cap talk. The cap isn't the Giants' problem, not now and not recently. Talent evaluation and/or development is, whether you want to put it at the FO's feet or the coaching staff's feet or some of both.
led team to draft with a eye to physical ability rather than production.
This combined with some poor choices and injuries has left this roster in the bottom half of the NFL talent wise especially on the defensive front 7.
Vacchino last week in the News said, "The safest place in the country on Sunday afternoons is behind the offensive line of any New York Giants opponent.
When people talk about league wide talent evaluation they wouldn't include the Giants as the team to follow IMO.
The Packers, Steelers, and Patriots blow the Giants away IMO. The Packers basically rely solely on the draft. Even the Bengals recently have been great talent evaluators and developers.
To me the Giants draft projects too often and then the coaching staff buries them for 3 years and they don't develop at all. Not sure if they would develop if given playing time but almost all these projects fail.
I could understand if it was a guy with an injury history, but when the jury is out on Kennard because he can't stay on the field, after staying healthy throughout college - we're basically saying that JR has to be able to predict the future.
In which case, I'd rather he turns his attention to my lotto numbers.
The drafts aren't what is making them great - the QB and coach and their ability to find players in FA who fit their system are
Draft wise absolutely they haven't been as good as they used to be. But evaluating talent and making it work? No one is better. They can pickup cast offs and old vets and somehow pull production out of them instantaneously.
The Steelers haven't had a losing season in 12 years and have been to the playoffs in 9 of those years - winning one superbowl. From 1992 to 2015 they have been more successful than the Giants (4 Superbowl appearances, 2 wins, Playoff appearances etc...).
The obviously aren't perfect in recent history and their drafting might not be perfect but they somehow succeed and seem to consistently.
We opened with 80 million next year, but that's before the Eli signing and without Prince or JPP. Now it about 40 million but still without an numbers for Prince, JPP and several others we will probably sign.
We let Graham (form Philly) and the safety from NE go because we couldn't sign them. We let Bennet and Joseph go.
Is it your point that the cap isn't an equalizer? Do you not see that tying up 20 million a year in a franchise qb compromises the talent you have? Lombardi would have lost dozens of players after his first superbowl if he had a cap to contend with. Winning itself raises salaries and causes cap restrictions.
recent picks such as Bell in round 2 and Bryant in 4 but they had plenty of Limas Sweed's too.
Problem here is people cherry pick the Giants bad picks. They rip on 3rd and 4th rounders or ignore the injuries to excellent picks. It's BS.
The stuff about the Giants trying to draft projects in mid rounds? Another fucking joke we hear around here on every thread.
Bryant was a great pick for the Steelers? That was a project based on measurables. All teams do it!
The no measurable/high production guys you want in round 3-5? They bust too.
There is no set formula.
TE Robinson? He was drafted at in round 4 based on measurables. It was a bet they could develop the guy. It didn't work. That doesn't make it a bad pick especially when you take a look at the next 15 guys drafted AFTER Robinson.
We opened with 80 million next year, but that's before the Eli signing and without Prince or JPP. Now it about 40 million but still without an numbers for Prince, JPP and several others we will probably sign.
We let Graham (form Philly) and the safety from NE go because we couldn't sign them. We let Bennet and Joseph go.
Is it your point that the cap isn't an equalizer? Do you not see that tying up 20 million a year in a franchise qb compromises the talent you have? Lombardi would have lost dozens of players after his first superbowl if he had a cap to contend with. Winning itself raises salaries and causes cap restrictions.
McCourty was offered more money by the Giants; he chose to take a little less to stay with the Patriots.
Paying Graham more than the Eagles came in at would have been a significant overpayment and something to criticize the Giants over, cap or no cap concerns.
We let Graham (form Philly) and the safety from NE go because we couldn't sign them. We let Bennet and Joseph go.
Is it your point that the cap isn't an equalizer? Do you not see that tying up 20 million a year in a franchise qb compromises the talent you have?
Perfect examples that don't understand the cap. The Giants made bids for Graham and were very aggressive with the New England safety yet the Eagles and Pats countered higher and resigned their own. That has nothing to do with limited cap space. Joseph already had a replacement in Hankins while the Giants clearly have botched the TE position and banked replacing him. None of those moves were due to lack of cap space.
The team's lack of talent is b/c there drafts stunk for years and not b/c Eli Manning makes more money. New England pays their QB a lot and simply drafts better than others and doesn't use many of their high picks on skill positions. New Orleans has cap issues not b/c of paying a QB more but b/c they did not replenish their stock of talent and opted to award awful contracts. The Ravens are injured and got old in several positions. The Steelers keep winning and just b/c they and 30 other teams didn't win the Super Bowl doesn't mean it's b/c they paid their QB too much. Look at Cincy and AZ, they pay their QB's well and are winning.
You can look at a potential draftees number of healthy plays/years etc, as well as any injuries, asses his body type and fitness regime (etc ahem) as well as a free agents injury history.
That said, 3x7 = 21 so 7 good players is a 30% pay off, not horrible, but we should shoot for far more.
[1]The Steelers haven't had a losing season in 12 years and have been to the playoffs in 9 of those years - winning one superbowl. From 1992 to 2015 they have been more successful than the Giants (4 Superbowl appearances, 2 wins, Playoff appearances etc...)[/i].
Do you want to include the Bradshaw years.? The Steelers have won two superbowls druing and around JR's tenure. That's comparable to us. Only I'd suggest that their wins were pedestrian and nothing comparable to ours.
But somehow they are great and we are chumps. And one poster even goes on about how much better the Packers have been. My god man, a better QB and one superbowl makes them infinitely better than our two superbowls. And the poster is comfortable writing that...such is his need to justify his position.
We are, arguably, the second best team of the decade, inarguably the third best team of the decade, but you guys make us look like cow patties in fields of clover.
because nothing is more fun to talk about failure around here. The home runs? who cares, we love the busts, it keeps us coming back here day after day after day to dwell on it
It's sad that I look at the bungles roster as superior to the
Giants. The steelers and bengals game is an actual football game. The Giants Saints game so far is literally Eli manning, beckham, Vereen and darkwa vs the New Orleans Saints. It's not like the saints are a powerhouse roster either.
didn't you get the memo?
Tommy, % wise, not a lot of round 3-7 players become starters in this league. I think Reese & Co.'s overall draft philosophy has changed about 3 years ago, looking more for production than pure athleticism.
We probably have about the same success rate now with late round picks as other teams. We tend to know about "our" guys and have never heard of these guys from other teams.
Too many projects: Robinson, Mosely, Brewer, Barden
Instead of taking projects at premium positions, such as OT and WR, why not draft safeties, guards, centers, ILB--positions where you can productive players who will come in and contribute right away.
Even if guys like Brewer and Robinson had developed, they would have become free agents just about the time they were getting good. Middle rounds, you should be looking for bang for your buck. You don't need a star. Just guys who can be good solid players who cost very little.
This is where the BBI IQ needs major improvement. News flash: The draft is a crapshoot. Find me a GM that routinely hits on rounds 3-7.
I triple dog dare you.
Too many projects: Robinson, Mosely, Brewer, Barden
Instead of taking projects at premium positions, such as OT and WR, why not draft safeties, guards, centers, ILB--positions where you can productive players who will come in and contribute right away.
Even if guys like Brewer and Robinson had developed, they would have become free agents just about the time they were getting good. Middle rounds, you should be looking for bang for your buck. You don't need a star. Just guys who can be good solid players who cost very little.
The Giants have had the absurd notion that they can develop project players which has proven to be unfounded during the Coughlin era. That says something about the coaches that Coughlin employs under him as well as Coughlin himself.
didn't you get the memo?
You're right. We have a winning record over the past three years.
Oh wait.
Lmao.
What is Nassib supposed to show? Please tell us.
He only plays in preseason games for a reason.
Why would we not resign him when his deal is up?
Reese made a smart move drafting him.
Our back up QB not commanding big dollars on the salary cap
Time to groom him with the hope he never plays while Eli is still a Giant.
Also....Pugh has played well for us this season. He's part of the reason the left side of the line is a strength.
We had a good draft this year though. No doubt in my mind. Last year wasn't too bad either.
Quote:
Reese can draft well in the first two rounds, his problem is rounds 3-7 where he constantly strikes out.
This is where the BBI IQ needs major improvement. News flash: The draft is a crapshoot. Find me a GM that routinely hits on rounds 3-7.
I triple dog dare you.
A TRIPLE DOG DARE !??? .... wooooaaaahhh.
It just got ugly.
NE is the exception but everything is designed to push teams to parity. Lombardi never had to work with a cap or free agency. His player's weren't hostage to injuries like the modern athlete.
I think you want Lombardi type dominance and that left with the trolley car.
I wonder when I hear "he's only good on the first and second rounds"
WHAT!!.
An awful lot of first round picks fail, it is no small thing to never fail. And you list Kennard and in the same sentence talk about lack of productivity in the late rounds. Our last superbowl team btw had two integral components in Williams and Hynoski and both were late late as well as being rookies.
I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the rest of the league has had multiple dogs among their first two picks. Sometimes I think The Jets hit at about fifty percent. And how many dogs did Accorsi pick in the top two?...just think Wisconsin running back, the one eyed DE, the safety, David Brown a cb or two and several others.
I honestly don't understand... "Yeah we won two superbowls in the decade but"....and/or "his first and second round picks are good but"...
"but" is not a conjunction, it's a nullifier and invalid in this instance.
Because people can't have it all ways, with what the Giants' objective track record is lately. Someone hasn't been doing their job very well; it's not all luck or randomness.
didnt say best team in the nfl. didn's say jerry resse is branch rickey. didn't say puppies are raining from the sky. just said 3 good drafts in a row.
Would you rather trade it for all those years that our #1 didn't work out??
Draft success is relative within the context of the other teams drafting within the same vicinity. Its lazy to conclude our last three drafts as successful without a better understanding of the "hit" rates of other teams, just as it would be lazy to deem the drafts unsuccessful otherwise.
Should read:
"Has to be an indictment...."
And
"double digit winning season"
I get the feeling a lot of votes in that draft room haven't actually seen many of these players up close.
These are good young players who were drafted early to be starters, and most importantly ARE STARTERS.
I agree that the developmental approach to drafting in the middle rounds is not working for the Giants, whether because Reese missed on the potential or the coaches missed on the development.
I agree that the developmental approach to drafting in the middle rounds is not working for the Giants, whether because Reese missed on the potential or the coaches missed on the development.
From my novice eye I have said for years the Giants OTA's are a joke.
Maybe they're doing more than the three OTA practices i attended but, IMO, it's just players talking/laughing on the sidelines whereas the play on the field is borderline backyard football. If there is teaching and development happening i wonder why these same players appear to start at square one when camp opens.
You simply ignore that point. Is Pitts poorly run or coached? Are their current struggles a result of poor coaching or poor drafting? Or does the cap, free agency, the increasingly important god of injuries, the draft position itself, and even strength of schedule mean that you are not going to be in top for long.
I wish you'd address that when you're critical.
I note the impact of signing your franchise QB too. A few years ago four teams made the playoffs with rookie QB's....because their QB's took up such little cap room.
Do you realize how abberant that was and that it confirmed what was happening.
The Ravens win a superbowl, are forced to sign their qb to a huge contract and decline immediately as Boldin (sp?) goes off to San Fran.
Look at the inherent advantages the SeaHawks have had. Years of being down means an accumulation of high draft picks, then they pay their QB next to nothing while Eli and Ben occupy almost 20 percent of their cap space leaving 80% for the other 52 players.
Now you throw in the randomness of injuries that impact more across the league every year.
That's the modern reality that you have to measure Pitts, The Ravens, Green Bay and New Orleans against...Or the teams that have won once and have franchise qb's tying up the cap.
Green Bay has a better QB, by all accounts a great front office and coaching, they have one superbowl and yet no one is looking to throw out their GM.
New Orleans won one superbowl with a better qb and now is in decline and also never won after giving Brees his 100 plus million...These are the standards you should look at.
I grant that New England is an anomoly, but in some ways maybe they prove the point...because they have a better qb than us and he occupies less cap space.
Quote:
Giants really have to rethink their philosophy in those rounds
Would you rather trade it for all those years that our #1 didn't work out??
And this is a great point. Too many here either don't remember or never had to go through the regular failure of high draft picks. I'd much rather have relative regular success in Rounds 1,2, and usually 3 that miss on those premium picks but get lucky in later rounds with comparatively inferior quality.
If they're what the Giants are supposed to be compared to, then the Giants come up quite short in that comparison.
And yes, stop with the cap talk. The cap isn't the Giants' problem, not now and not recently. Talent evaluation and/or development is, whether you want to put it at the FO's feet or the coaching staff's feet or some of both.
Morris
Marshall
Collins, Howard and Pepper
Elliott
Kratch
Sparks
Strahan
Sehorn
Gragg
Toomer
Barber (Eric advocated for that pick as I remember)
This combined with some poor choices and injuries has left this roster in the bottom half of the NFL talent wise especially on the defensive front 7.
Vacchino last week in the News said, "The safest place in the country on Sunday afternoons is behind the offensive line of any New York Giants opponent.
He's got a point.
joeinpa : 10:48 am : link : reply
led team to draft with a eye to physical ability rather than production.
The Giants have focused on team captains and guys with a lot of production in college - team leading tacklers, NCAA rushing leader, etc.
Have no clue where this comment is coming from or how it has left us weak.
The Packers, Steelers, and Patriots blow the Giants away IMO. The Packers basically rely solely on the draft. Even the Bengals recently have been great talent evaluators and developers.
To me the Giants draft projects too often and then the coaching staff buries them for 3 years and they don't develop at all. Not sure if they would develop if given playing time but almost all these projects fail.
Most of their offense was drafted years ago or was gotten via FA.
FA's:
Lewis
Amendola
Chandler
Lafell
Blount
Drafted:
Brady - 2000
Gronk - high draft pick
Edelman - 7th round 2009
The drafts aren't what is making them great - the QB and coach and their ability to find players in FA who fit their system are
In which case, I'd rather he turns his attention to my lotto numbers.
Most of their offense was drafted years ago or was gotten via FA.
FA's:
Lewis
Amendola
Chandler
Lafell
Blount
Drafted:
Brady - 2000
Gronk - high draft pick
Edelman - 7th round 2009
The drafts aren't what is making them great - the QB and coach and their ability to find players in FA who fit their system are
Draft wise absolutely they haven't been as good as they used to be. But evaluating talent and making it work? No one is better. They can pickup cast offs and old vets and somehow pull production out of them instantaneously.
The Steelers haven't had a losing season in 12 years and have been to the playoffs in 9 of those years - winning one superbowl. From 1992 to 2015 they have been more successful than the Giants (4 Superbowl appearances, 2 wins, Playoff appearances etc...).
The obviously aren't perfect in recent history and their drafting might not be perfect but they somehow succeed and seem to consistently.
From 1986 on Giants have 5 SB visits and 4 victories. We win!
We opened with 80 million next year, but that's before the Eli signing and without Prince or JPP. Now it about 40 million but still without an numbers for Prince, JPP and several others we will probably sign.
We let Graham (form Philly) and the safety from NE go because we couldn't sign them. We let Bennet and Joseph go.
Is it your point that the cap isn't an equalizer? Do you not see that tying up 20 million a year in a franchise qb compromises the talent you have? Lombardi would have lost dozens of players after his first superbowl if he had a cap to contend with. Winning itself raises salaries and causes cap restrictions.
Problem here is people cherry pick the Giants bad picks. They rip on 3rd and 4th rounders or ignore the injuries to excellent picks. It's BS.
The stuff about the Giants trying to draft projects in mid rounds? Another fucking joke we hear around here on every thread.
Bryant was a great pick for the Steelers? That was a project based on measurables. All teams do it!
The no measurable/high production guys you want in round 3-5? They bust too.
There is no set formula.
TE Robinson? He was drafted at in round 4 based on measurables. It was a bet they could develop the guy. It didn't work. That doesn't make it a bad pick especially when you take a look at the next 15 guys drafted AFTER Robinson.
Reese knows what he's doing.
We opened with 80 million next year, but that's before the Eli signing and without Prince or JPP. Now it about 40 million but still without an numbers for Prince, JPP and several others we will probably sign.
We let Graham (form Philly) and the safety from NE go because we couldn't sign them. We let Bennet and Joseph go.
Is it your point that the cap isn't an equalizer? Do you not see that tying up 20 million a year in a franchise qb compromises the talent you have? Lombardi would have lost dozens of players after his first superbowl if he had a cap to contend with. Winning itself raises salaries and causes cap restrictions.
McCourty was offered more money by the Giants; he chose to take a little less to stay with the Patriots.
Paying Graham more than the Eagles came in at would have been a significant overpayment and something to criticize the Giants over, cap or no cap concerns.
From 1986 on Giants have 5 SB visits and 4 victories. We win!
You can do it by General Manager if you feel I am cherry picking stats.
Tom Donahoe Steelers 1991 1999 General Manager/Director of Football Operations
Kevin Colbert Steelers 2000 2015 General Manager
George Young Giants 1979 1997 General Manager
Ernie Accorsi Giants 1998 2006 General Manager
Jerry Reese Giants 2007 2015 Senior VP/General Manager
We let Graham (form Philly) and the safety from NE go because we couldn't sign them. We let Bennet and Joseph go.
Is it your point that the cap isn't an equalizer? Do you not see that tying up 20 million a year in a franchise qb compromises the talent you have?
Perfect examples that don't understand the cap. The Giants made bids for Graham and were very aggressive with the New England safety yet the Eagles and Pats countered higher and resigned their own. That has nothing to do with limited cap space. Joseph already had a replacement in Hankins while the Giants clearly have botched the TE position and banked replacing him. None of those moves were due to lack of cap space.
The team's lack of talent is b/c there drafts stunk for years and not b/c Eli Manning makes more money. New England pays their QB a lot and simply drafts better than others and doesn't use many of their high picks on skill positions. New Orleans has cap issues not b/c of paying a QB more but b/c they did not replenish their stock of talent and opted to award awful contracts. The Ravens are injured and got old in several positions. The Steelers keep winning and just b/c they and 30 other teams didn't win the Super Bowl doesn't mean it's b/c they paid their QB too much. Look at Cincy and AZ, they pay their QB's well and are winning.
It's about drafting well.
You can look at a potential draftees number of healthy plays/years etc, as well as any injuries, asses his body type and fitness regime (etc ahem) as well as a free agents injury history.
That said, 3x7 = 21 so 7 good players is a 30% pay off, not horrible, but we should shoot for far more.
Do you want to include the Bradshaw years.? The Steelers have won two superbowls druing and around JR's tenure. That's comparable to us. Only I'd suggest that their wins were pedestrian and nothing comparable to ours.
But somehow they are great and we are chumps. And one poster even goes on about how much better the Packers have been. My god man, a better QB and one superbowl makes them infinitely better than our two superbowls. And the poster is comfortable writing that...such is his need to justify his position.
We are, arguably, the second best team of the decade, inarguably the third best team of the decade, but you guys make us look like cow patties in fields of clover.
Quote:
Reese can draft well in the first two rounds, his problem is rounds 3-7 where he constantly strikes out.
This is where the BBI IQ needs major improvement. News flash: The draft is a crapshoot. Find me a GM that routinely hits on rounds 3-7.
I triple dog dare you.
Don't bother