or even to take LBs in general. Where did this come from? Was it an Accorsi thing?
It's not like there is a history of poor first round LBs - since Jim Files in 1970 just Banks (84) and LT (81) are Giant first round LBs and those worked out OK. Since 1980, just Pepper (86), Kanavis McGee (91) and Sintim (09) are even second rounders. And going back to 2000 adds just Gerris Wilinson as a 3rd rounder (2006). Hell, since 2000 in 16 drafts the Giants have taken just 6 LBs in rounds 1 - 4 and just 6 more in rounds 5 - 7. There have been none at all in the past 4 drafts
If you watched yesterday's games you could see Kuechly, Ware, Davis, Miller and Collins all make game changing plays. So why do the Giants just ignore the position come draft day?
But he's not even as good as the 47th pick, David Harris. The Jets picked him. THe New York Jets.
But picks 16 and 17 were
GB - Justin Harrell - DT
Den - Jarvis Moss - DE
They retired in 2010 and 2011.
See?!!
Hindsight always 20/20 I thought he was impressive coming out of Texas, and I think his injuries killed him, but in terms of pure talent displayed on the field.....Wilson>Ross imo.
Quote:
but, that has to be a primary reason right there for not putting a premium on LB's. When we played a 3-4 ... you gotta believe the Giants put a premium on LB's. I think the scheme dictates ...
Does anyone know why we went to the 4-3 after having so much success in a 3-4? Is it at the discretion of the DC? HC? GM?
Not sure why we went to the 4-3 but the switch was in 1994 the year after LT retired and I can assume the switch was in the plans in 1993 since they selected Strahan in the 2nd round. In 94' Strahan basically took over for LT and played RDE. I think he had 7.5 sacks that year.
Our 3-4 LB shifted to the 4-3 with Bailey as WLB, Brooks as MLB and Corey Miller SLB. Having Hamilton as the LDE, Howard, and Fox as DT the switch was fairly smooth.
Thanks Rjanyg!
Ah ... memories.
Hey Jerry - Defense wins championships. : )
Just because the front office has not made an announcement does not mean that one can detect an obvious policy.
They do value certain positions higher than others. If a DE has a similar value to a LB you can bet your ass they take the DE, and they are likely correct to take the DE.
I would like to see more attention paid to MIKE but they seem to prefer a veteran in that position.
Maybe the bigger problem is finding any talent at DL or LB. Other than JPP, who is now compromised, what great draft picks at either DL have been made other than Hankins and long-gone L Joseph?
Of course he made an immediate difference. The difference was between no talent and some talent. He made a championship caliber defense, right?
Kiwi and Phillips were still legit NFL talents, and Ross was not. They both contributed way more than Ross ever did.
Again, where are these stud LB's we missed out on. And don't fucking say Von Miller, or Luke Kuechly.
Quote:
was because Reese couldn't trade up for Revis. We were locked into CB that draft because many here were screaming for Beason. Ross played well in the 2007 run and his career is similar to Kiwi's and Kenny Philips when you look at the big picture - solid contributors who never hit their ceilings for a variety of reasons.
Kiwi and Phillips were still legit NFL talents, and Ross was not. They both contributed way more than Ross ever did.
You may want to check your facts.
Quote:
In comment 12788374 Bobby Humphrey's Earpad said:
Quote:
was because Reese couldn't trade up for Revis. We were locked into CB that draft because many here were screaming for Beason. Ross played well in the 2007 run and his career is similar to Kiwi's and Kenny Philips when you look at the big picture - solid contributors who never hit their ceilings for a variety of reasons.
Kiwi and Phillips were still legit NFL talents, and Ross was not. They both contributed way more than Ross ever did.
You may want to check your facts.
Sorry ESPN.com doesn't count as facts. I actually watched the games...