Dan Graziano video blog - says Reese more likely to draft running back in the mid rounds like he has in 6 out the 9 drafts he's run because it's an oft injured position and Reese drafts for depth at running abck
Dan Graziano Video - Giants Likely to Draft Running Back - (
New Window )
This is sans a "super back" like an Adrian Peterson, who only come around once every 10 years or so.
I really hope this isn't true.
This is sans a "super back" like an Adrian Peterson, who only come around once every 10 years or so.
I really hope this isn't true.
It's true a 1000 yard RB is more the result of a good OL. Lets face it ever sine the league went to sixteen games a 1000 yard season isn't all that remarkable.
That doesn't mean a great RB can't be an impact player and win you games. One who pushes closer to 2000 yards in a season.
But it does make you wonder why he drafted Wilson, when he needed to rebuild the line in front of our RB's, at that time.....
While we do need a RB, not one of ours would be a starter on many other teams, we just have too many more important holes to fill before RB.....
His speed is something our current RBs certainly lack.
But it does make you wonder why he drafted Wilson, when he needed to rebuild the line in front of our RB's, at that time.....
While we do need a RB, not one of ours would be a starter on many other teams, we just have too many more important holes to fill before RB.....
I think Jennings would start on many teams
This is sans a "super back" like an Adrian Peterson, who only come around once every 10 years or so.
I really hope this isn't true.
Agree with this 100%. Between Jennings, Vereen, Darkwa, Williams and Rainey we have enough there to have a respectable running game. Jennings alone is a 1000 yard capable back. I'd rather they allocate the resources to OL, DB, DL
Quote:
a RB is a product of the O line....any serviceable back (not like an A. Williams) can have 1,000 yard season behind a good line. There are slight variations to that, based on the back, but not enough to waste a top 10 pick.
This is sans a "super back" like an Adrian Peterson, who only come around once every 10 years or so.
I really hope this isn't true.
It's true a 1000 yard RB is more the result of a good OL. Lets face it ever sine the league went to sixteen games a 1000 yard season isn't all that remarkable.
That doesn't mean a great RB can't be an impact player and win you games. One who pushes closer to 2000 yards in a season.
Not to be argumentative, but:
1977 (last year with 14 games); 9 RB's rushed for over 1,000
2015: 7 RB's rushed for over 1,000
the way the running game is being marginalized by the pass, makes 1,000 yards still an impressive feat.
I don't think a RB is a product of the OL, nor is the opposite true. a lot of factors come into play.
the quality of the OL
the quality of the RB
the play calling
the passing threat
the defense you're playing
how can you explain the Giants rushing for 33 yds against the Redskins than 208 against the Eagles
doesn't that kind of refute the RB vs OL argument?
Quote:
In comment 12909200 I Love Clams Casino said:
Quote:
a RB is a product of the O line....any serviceable back (not like an A. Williams) can have 1,000 yard season behind a good line. There are slight variations to that, based on the back, but not enough to waste a top 10 pick.
This is sans a "super back" like an Adrian Peterson, who only come around once every 10 years or so.
I really hope this isn't true.
It's true a 1000 yard RB is more the result of a good OL. Lets face it ever sine the league went to sixteen games a 1000 yard season isn't all that remarkable.
That doesn't mean a great RB can't be an impact player and win you games. One who pushes closer to 2000 yards in a season.
Not to be argumentative, but:
1977 (last year with 14 games); 9 RB's rushed for over 1,000
2015: 7 RB's rushed for over 1,000
the way the running game is being marginalized by the pass, makes 1,000 yards still an impressive feat.
I don't think a RB is a product of the OL, nor is the opposite true. a lot of factors come into play.
the quality of the OL
the quality of the RB
the play calling
the passing threat
the defense you're playing
how can you explain the Giants rushing for 33 yds against the Redskins than 208 against the Eagles
doesn't that kind of refute the RB vs OL argument?
That many teams often abandon the run because of the changing rules doesn't negate the fact that 1000 yards isn't very hard to accomplish.
With Elliot, this OLine would be fine, I am not saying we should draft him, he would be great for a type team with an inferior type QB that needs a great back to help out, I think this kid is special. I also think that Dallas or Philly will grab him. If it is Dallas, we are going to regret seeing that pick go in, with that OLine, with Bryant and if Romo stays healthy, that would be a very dangerous team.
I hope they [pass on him, but I fear they won't.
Quote:
In comment 12909237 steve in ky said:
Quote:
In comment 12909200 I Love Clams Casino said:
Quote:
a RB is a product of the O line....any serviceable back (not like an A. Williams) can have 1,000 yard season behind a good line. There are slight variations to that, based on the back, but not enough to waste a top 10 pick.
This is sans a "super back" like an Adrian Peterson, who only come around once every 10 years or so.
I really hope this isn't true.
It's true a 1000 yard RB is more the result of a good OL. Lets face it ever sine the league went to sixteen games a 1000 yard season isn't all that remarkable.
That doesn't mean a great RB can't be an impact player and win you games. One who pushes closer to 2000 yards in a season.
Not to be argumentative, but:
1977 (last year with 14 games); 9 RB's rushed for over 1,000
2015: 7 RB's rushed for over 1,000
the way the running game is being marginalized by the pass, makes 1,000 yards still an impressive feat.
I don't think a RB is a product of the OL, nor is the opposite true. a lot of factors come into play.
the quality of the OL
the quality of the RB
the play calling
the passing threat
the defense you're playing
how can you explain the Giants rushing for 33 yds against the Redskins than 208 against the Eagles
doesn't that kind of refute the RB vs OL argument?
That many teams often abandon the run because of the changing rules doesn't negate the fact that 1000 yards isn't very hard to accomplish.
"isn't very hard" is way too subjective. why do you think teams abandoned the run? because it was so easy to do they felt like being challenged by passing the ball?
Whatever, I'm not going to debate this.
This is sans a "super back" like an Adrian Peterson, who only come around once every 10 years or so.
I really hope this isn't true.
Completely disagree. You haven't been watching Giant games the last few seasons. The inability of their backs to gain yardage in the 4-minute offense is the primary reason behind "Tom can't finish.," 58-Minute Tom," etc. Any back can grab the low-hanging fruit in the orchard. That is what the Giants have had since Jacobs and Bradshaw fizzed out. Any back.
Additionally, there are tertiary concerns like "poor clock management," "terrible red-zone play calling," and, a personal favorite, "losing the sideline," whatever that means. What the nimrods are doing here is applying pop-science formulations instead of identifying the actual detriment to finishing: an accomplished back.
We are all for great, functioning offensive lines, reasonably priced, however, so as to not leave other units void of resources. But its value can be overstated. Witness Cowboys '15. Great o-line. 4-12 record.
I think the writer is correct. Reese will wait to draft a back. We suggest to Mr. Reese that he take a walk on the wild side. He needs to re-think some things because he is fast-tracking out the door with another losing season.
I'm not saying take Elliot, but I'd sure love to happen. BBI makes our line out to be on par with some middling college team.
I'm not saying take Elliot, but I'd sure love to happen. BBI makes our line out to be on par with some middling college team.
Dallas finished 10th in rushing last year
IT would be nice to have a great running game. If the Giants think Elliot is the best player at ten they should take him. Don't overthink this. Get the guy who will make big plays. We need more big plays from big time players. Get that guy.
Quote:
In comment 12909260 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 12909237 steve in ky said:
Quote:
In comment 12909200 I Love Clams Casino said:
Quote:
a RB is a product of the O line....any serviceable back (not like an A. Williams) can have 1,000 yard season behind a good line. There are slight variations to that, based on the back, but not enough to waste a top 10 pick.
This is sans a "super back" like an Adrian Peterson, who only come around once every 10 years or so.
I really hope this isn't true.
It's true a 1000 yard RB is more the result of a good OL. Lets face it ever sine the league went to sixteen games a 1000 yard season isn't all that remarkable.
That doesn't mean a great RB can't be an impact player and win you games. One who pushes closer to 2000 yards in a season.
Not to be argumentative, but:
1977 (last year with 14 games); 9 RB's rushed for over 1,000
2015: 7 RB's rushed for over 1,000
the way the running game is being marginalized by the pass, makes 1,000 yards still an impressive feat.
I don't think a RB is a product of the OL, nor is the opposite true. a lot of factors come into play.
the quality of the OL
the quality of the RB
the play calling
the passing threat
the defense you're playing
how can you explain the Giants rushing for 33 yds against the Redskins than 208 against the Eagles
doesn't that kind of refute the RB vs OL argument?
That many teams often abandon the run because of the changing rules doesn't negate the fact that 1000 yards isn't very hard to accomplish.
"isn't very hard" is way too subjective. why do you think teams abandoned the run? because it was so easy to do they felt like being challenged by passing the ball?
Whatever, I'm not going to debate this.
They abandon the run because the rules make passing even easier but that doesn't change the fact that average 62.5 a game is not something remarkable to accomplish only something which less teams choose to commit to as often.
I'm not debating either my response was to someone elses point that a 1000 yard RB was more the result of an OL, and I agreed but only pointed out that a genuinely great RB can be still an impact player and would far exceed 1000 yards and instead would be pushing 2000 yards.
Not sure why you are disagreeing with that.
Had Romo been back there the running game for Dallas would have been more effective because teams would have to worry about the pass. Cassel, Weedon etc did not scare anyone especially with Bryant out too..
With Elliot, this OLine would be fine, I am not saying we should draft him, he would be great for a type team with an inferior type QB that needs a great back to help out, I think this kid is special. I also think that Dallas or Philly will grab him. If it is Dallas, we are going to regret seeing that pick go in, with that OLine, with Bryant and if Romo stays healthy, that would be a very dangerous team.
I hope they [pass on him, but I fear they won't.
I think Elliott would be effective behind the Dallas Oline, but I'm not so sure he'll be another Adrian Peterson. Additionally, there's a reason why we upgraded the Dline and with Snacks and Hank inside, as well as JPP and OV outside, I think we're in fairly good shape in our ability to stop the run. I would like to see more of an upgrade at MLB however, but with Collins in the mix, I think we're going to see improvement in our ability to stop the run and force the other team to throw.
I believe that Andre Williams downfall will be that he is a piss poor receiver. I hope the same is not true about Darkwa. He has yet to prove that he can be a consistent receiver out of the backfield.
I agree, I think both of the above mentioned would be worth mid round picks.
J. Williams seems like an Andre brown type pick; injuries but potential is there.
and the best RB in Giants modern history, if not ever, was Tiki Barber and he was a 2nd round pick.
Ahmad Bradshaw was great, he had more heart and toughness than practically any other Giants player in my lifetime not named Bavaro, but he wasn't really close to Tiki in terms of talent. Injuries definitely robbed Bradshaw of a lot of his prime, but even sans injury I don't think Bradshaw gets close to Tiki.
How many Giant records does Tiki hold compared to Bradshaw?
Quote:
a RB is a product of the O line....any serviceable back (not like an A. Williams) can have 1,000 yard season behind a good line. There are slight variations to that, based on the back, but not enough to waste a top 10 pick.
This is sans a "super back" like an Adrian Peterson, who only come around once every 10 years or so.
I really hope this isn't true.
Agree with this 100%. Between Jennings, Vereen, Darkwa, Williams and Rainey we have enough there to have a respectable running game. Jennings alone is a 1000 yard capable back. I'd rather they allocate the resources to OL, DB, DL
1000 yards should not be a benchmark of respectability with regards to a running game. It's 63 yards per game. Do you think that's scaring anyone? Do you think it's pulling a safety out of coverage?
But as much as I like Bradshaw he is not close to #1.
In addition to those already mentioned my initial thinking I believe I would rank him below (not in any particular order) Joe Morris, Rodney Hampton, Ron Johnson
and possibly below Otis Anderson, Jacobs, and Alex Webster but I would have to give that more though
I'm not saying take Elliot, but I'd sure love to happen. BBI makes our line out to be on par with some middling college team.
Simply not good enough with that oline, IMO.
I loved the one quote by Parcells about Woolfolk. "We blocked seven guys and only got five yards".
He then turned to Little Joe..............
I Love Clams Casino : 10:16 am : link : reply
In comment 12909240 Doomster said:
Quote:
It's Reese being Reese....
But it does make you wonder why he drafted Wilson, when he needed to rebuild the line in front of our RB's, at that time.....
While we do need a RB, not one of ours would be a starter on many other teams, we just have too many more important holes to fill before RB.....
I think Jennings would start on many teams....
He might start on some teams, not many.....and if he is the feature back, he will not last....he looked good at the end of last season because he was well rested.....also, teams were playing out the string.....he is another year older, and he was just an average back to begin with....
But it does make you wonder why he drafted Wilson, when he needed to rebuild the line in front of our RB's, at that time.....
While we do need a RB, not one of ours would be a starter on many other teams, we just have too many more important holes to fill before RB.....
1. Wilson was a multi-purpose back. Very fast and athletic. He was never going to be a bellcow but would in time have been a weapon catching passes out of the backfield and already was the best return man in football. So he filled a lot of needs and was good bang for the buck (since he was picked 32). Very different from spending a #10 on a guy like Elliot that you would build a run-oriented offense around.
2. It was a "Coughlin pick." Obviously all picks are decided by consensus but coming off a second remarkable championship, Tom's influence was at its peak and he wanted a renewed emphasis on the running game--as he made clear on numerous occasions. McAdoo is still an unknown. We don't know what he wants. But as a first time HC, this is also going to be much more of a Reese/Ross pick-so unless BM is just insistent about taking Elliot, I don't see it.
3. Giants are set at RB. So whatever RB is taken will likely wind up on the practice squad so that is why you go late round or undrafted FA. You look for a guy with potential but who is maybe not quite NFL ready.