Francesa: The players you brought in this year, did that shape your draft, or did you stick close to value?
Reese: we are always conscious of what we do in FA, but when we go into the draft we look for the best player available at the time for us to pick in the draft. The best player available, and if we can tie some need in there, that's abonus for us.
Maybe one of these years this sinks in and we can move on from the "Reese is a need drafter" nonsense.
"We've got a couple of veterans out there on the right side, and they get bashed and blamed for a lot of things on the right side. They're solid pros."
He’s a terrific young player, and it’s a need pick. It’s a value pick where we had him ranked, and it’s absolutely a need pick. Look out there and see our corner depth, you guys can see that
Ross on Shepard
Quote:
We always try to match the need and the value, so hopefully we have a group of guys of equal value and need
Reese on Thompson
Quote:
We’re always looking for value and need…we’re always trying to couple those two things together. We try our best to get that.
Would have filled a need. And it's always a balance between BPA and need. Other than the Cowboys, which team's first-round pick wasn't a combination of the two? Seems like every team took the best player available at a position of need.
He’s a terrific young player, and it’s a need pick. It’s a value pick where we had him ranked, and it’s absolutely a need pick. Look out there and see our corner depth, you guys can see that
Ross on Shepard
Quote:
We always try to match the need and the value, so hopefully we have a group of guys of equal value and need
Reese on Thompson
Quote:
We’re always looking for value and need…we’re always trying to couple those two things together. We try our best to get that.
there are very few instances where a BPA is drafted and need is totally ignored. at the very least you say well he is a need becaue our starter is a free agent after next season so we wont be forced to have to resign.
For example if we went rankins at 10...that was partly a need.
Yes value is important but it clearly isnt everything. Need plays a big role especially early on, you look for a needed impact starter. apple was good value and a definite need. shepard was solid value and a HUGE need. thompson was ok value and a need. Goodson value was there and he was a HUGE need.
Interesting that McAdoo actually singles out the free agent signings on the offensive line, which were really non-descript signings. But we know Solari knows them.
there are very few instances where a BPA is drafted and need is totally ignored. at the very least you say well he is a need becaue our starter is a free agent after next season so we wont be forced to have to resign.
For example if we went rankins at 10...that was partly a need.
Yes value is important but it clearly isnt everything. Need plays a big role especially early on, you look for a needed impact starter. apple was good value and a definite need. shepard was solid value and a HUGE need. thompson was ok value and a need. Goodson value was there and he was a HUGE need.
Good post.
Some posters talk about need like it's a bad thing. It's good to use need as part of the equation when selecting a player. It provides an opportunity to get a better ROI on your pick and get impact from cheap players.
I'd argue that going pure value has been more detrimental to Reese drafts than any need leaning pick. Nassib was probably considered a value pick by Reese at the time -- and what has it provided the Giants? An insurance policy of questionable value you hope you never have to collect on?
Interesting that McAdoo actually singles out the free agent signings on the offensive line, which were really non-descript signings. But we know Solari knows them.
I have been thinking that Seymour and Farrell may been playing a role in why the Giants did not sign or draft any OL. Not that I think they will start or anything like that, but you can only carry 4 backup OL. They already have Hart. Seymour and Farrell make 3. Then Brett Jones. Pick up maybe 2 vets who get cut and the UDFA. That's enough bodies to get 4 backup OL.
...I mean - fans like me, 2 years removed from a Super Bowl - Eli Mannings PRIME YEARS - we were TRAUMATIZED by that OL - I still have nightmares of those INSANE JAILBREAK rushes that looked like WalMart on Black Friday.
If it traumatized us, IMAGINE what it did to the players and coaches. They fully know they cannot afford a repeat of that shit in any way, shape or form.
The only thing worse than having the leagues worst defense, to missing playoffs multiple years, to bad drafts and injuries - is losing Eli Manning to injury. He makes Planet Giant spin. Without him, all hope is lost.
So, if the coaches are cool with the OL - I'm *cautiously* cool too.
erased 2013's OL performance in my view. I was even a little scared about Eli heading into 2014. We all were even if some won't admit it.
The OL hasn't been great but it's been OK the last 2 seasons and it improved from 2014 to 2015. It should improve in 2016 as well.
Would be nice to find a long term solution on the right side even if you are optimistic that Jerry and Newhouse can hold things together for one more year. Hart has a chance.
That our OL and DL coaches were axed for a reason. McAdoo got an OL coach with experience in his scheme, not the hybridized Coughlin injected version of the running game we had the past two years. Flaherty didn't have a ton of experience with this type of scheme and I think it's partially to blame here. The keys to a good running game are many, but one very over looked or not often mentioned aspect is how well the OC and the OL coach mesh philosophically with regards to scheme. It's old dog new tricks here, and I think Flats was at a disadvantage coaching a hybrid scheme that he didn't have a lot of expertise in.
Bringing in Solari, a guy McAdoo recognizes as someone familiar and well schooled in this type of run game will create improvement without a talent upgrade. I'm still nervous about Jerry and Newhouse and Hart as our options on the right side, but scheme wise Solari will have them humming better than his predecessor did because he's quite simply a better coach and a better fit for this offense because he's been in it. It goes past the basics of the position, its the little nuances that an "expert" or veteran of a system can provide over someone learning it on the fly. Asking a teacher to teach a different version of the subject is fine, but bringing in a teacher who is well schooled on that variation of the subject is much much better for cohesion between OC and OL. That ability to work seamlessly and bring that knowledge in here is what will make Solari one of our very best hires of this off season.
I'm hoping that McGovern and Graham will bring something similar to the other side of the ball. Herrmann and Nunn weren't responsible for the talent drought at LB and DL, but they don't appear to have been the solution either. Also, as leftovers from Sheridan and Fewell respectively, their fit with Spagnuolo was a potential issue.
Joey, there's been lots of talk here about Matt Slauson... Â
Since he was cut by the Bears in what appears to be a salary cap move. How difficult would it be for a guy who's played LG his entire career to transition to RG? That's assuming the Giants would try and sign him with that in mind, and that he'd be amenable to the change.
The new DL coaches bring an interesting dynamic - one has been touted as an excellent teacher, the other has an established reputation for holding players accountable.
RE: the blocking schemes. One area that they often struggled with was the TEs coming out of the backfield. I think Will Johnson will clean some of that up. And, hopefully develop quickly in that area.
Since he was cut by the Bears in what appears to be a salary cap move. How difficult would it be for a guy who's played LG his entire career to transition to RG? That's assuming the Giants would try and sign him with that in mind, and that he'd be amenable to the change.
Geoff Schwartz didn't handle it too well.
RE: RE: Joey, there's been lots of talk here about Matt Slauson... Â
Since he was cut by the Bears in what appears to be a salary cap move. How difficult would it be for a guy who's played LG his entire career to transition to RG? That's assuming the Giants would try and sign him with that in mind, and that he'd be amenable to the change.
That our OL and DL coaches were axed for a reason. McAdoo got an OL coach with experience in his scheme, not the hybridized Coughlin injected version of the running game we had the past two years. Flaherty didn't have a ton of experience with this type of scheme and I think it's partially to blame here. The keys to a good running game are many, but one very over looked or not often mentioned aspect is how well the OC and the OL coach mesh philosophically with regards to scheme. It's old dog new tricks here, and I think Flats was at a disadvantage coaching a hybrid scheme that he didn't have a lot of expertise in.
Bringing in Solari, a guy McAdoo recognizes as someone familiar and well schooled in this type of run game will create improvement without a talent upgrade. I'm still nervous about Jerry and Newhouse and Hart as our options on the right side, but scheme wise Solari will have them humming better than his predecessor did because he's quite simply a better coach and a better fit for this offense because he's been in it. It goes past the basics of the position, its the little nuances that an "expert" or veteran of a system can provide over someone learning it on the fly. Asking a teacher to teach a different version of the subject is fine, but bringing in a teacher who is well schooled on that variation of the subject is much much better for cohesion between OC and OL. That ability to work seamlessly and bring that knowledge in here is what will make Solari one of our very best hires of this off season.
That our OL and DL coaches were axed for a reason. McAdoo got an OL coach with experience in his scheme, not the hybridized Coughlin injected version of the running game we had the past two years. Flaherty didn't have a ton of experience with this type of scheme and I think it's partially to blame here. The keys to a good running game are many, but one very over looked or not often mentioned aspect is how well the OC and the OL coach mesh philosophically with regards to scheme. It's old dog new tricks here, and I think Flats was at a disadvantage coaching a hybrid scheme that he didn't have a lot of expertise in.
Bringing in Solari, a guy McAdoo recognizes as someone familiar and well schooled in this type of run game will create improvement without a talent upgrade. I'm still nervous about Jerry and Newhouse and Hart as our options on the right side, but scheme wise Solari will have them humming better than his predecessor did because he's quite simply a better coach and a better fit for this offense because he's been in it. It goes past the basics of the position, its the little nuances that an "expert" or veteran of a system can provide over someone learning it on the fly. Asking a teacher to teach a different version of the subject is fine, but bringing in a teacher who is well schooled on that variation of the subject is much much better for cohesion between OC and OL. That ability to work seamlessly and bring that knowledge in here is what will make Solari one of our very best hires of this off season.
Well, if you say so. His resume spells "journeyman o-line coach" who hasn't had a great deal of success protecting the qb at his 8 other NFL positions but we shall see.
Flaherty was hired within 2 weeks by the 49'rs (coached by a former division rival who presumably knows his work) so perhaps he is not as hidebound by scheme as you intimate.
Solari is one of the most respected offensive line coaches in the game. He had very long stints in Kansas City and the 49ers, where he coached top five offensive lines. He also had a shorter run in Seattle with another good line. All coaches are "journeymen" but Solari has been somewhat of an institution in coaching circles. McCarthy was thrilled to get him as an assistant OL coach last year when he had job offers for the main OL job on other teams.
He was a fixture in Kansas City when they were the gold standard of offensive line production. Can't be a journeyman when you spend 10 years in one city.
That our OL and DL coaches were axed for a reason. McAdoo got an OL coach with experience in his scheme, not the hybridized Coughlin injected version of the running game we had the past two years. Flaherty didn't have a ton of experience with this type of scheme and I think it's partially to blame here. The keys to a good running game are many, but one very over looked or not often mentioned aspect is how well the OC and the OL coach mesh philosophically with regards to scheme. It's old dog new tricks here, and I think Flats was at a disadvantage coaching a hybrid scheme that he didn't have a lot of expertise in.
Bringing in Solari, a guy McAdoo recognizes as someone familiar and well schooled in this type of run game will create improvement without a talent upgrade. I'm still nervous about Jerry and Newhouse and Hart as our options on the right side, but scheme wise Solari will have them humming better than his predecessor did because he's quite simply a better coach and a better fit for this offense because he's been in it. It goes past the basics of the position, its the little nuances that an "expert" or veteran of a system can provide over someone learning it on the fly. Asking a teacher to teach a different version of the subject is fine, but bringing in a teacher who is well schooled on that variation of the subject is much much better for cohesion between OC and OL. That ability to work seamlessly and bring that knowledge in here is what will make Solari one of our very best hires of this off season.
Well, if you say so. His resume spells "journeyman o-line coach" who hasn't had a great deal of success protecting the qb at his 8 other NFL positions but we shall see.
Flaherty was hired within 2 weeks by the 49'rs (coached by a former division rival who presumably knows his work) so perhaps he is not as hidebound by scheme as you intimate.
As usual you are completely incorrect about Solari's teams but whine away. Flaherty is not a very good OL coach, I don't care who hired him.
Reese: we are always conscious of what we do in FA, but when we go into the draft we look for the best player available at the time for us to pick in the draft. The best player available, and if we can tie some need in there, that's abonus for us.
Maybe one of these years this sinks in and we can move on from the "Reese is a need drafter" nonsense.
You have GOT to be kidding me.
Picked his picks, didn't burn our future, moving up. Blessed to have him as a GM.
Ross on Shepard
Reese on Thompson
Quote:
He’s a terrific young player, and it’s a need pick. It’s a value pick where we had him ranked, and it’s absolutely a need pick. Look out there and see our corner depth, you guys can see that
Ross on Shepard
Quote:
We always try to match the need and the value, so hopefully we have a group of guys of equal value and need
Reese on Thompson
Quote:
We’re always looking for value and need…we’re always trying to couple those two things together. We try our best to get that.
Maybe we can put this BPA thing to rest.
For example if we went rankins at 10...that was partly a need.
Yes value is important but it clearly isnt everything. Need plays a big role especially early on, you look for a needed impact starter. apple was good value and a definite need. shepard was solid value and a HUGE need. thompson was ok value and a need. Goodson value was there and he was a HUGE need.
For example if we went rankins at 10...that was partly a need.
Yes value is important but it clearly isnt everything. Need plays a big role especially early on, you look for a needed impact starter. apple was good value and a definite need. shepard was solid value and a HUGE need. thompson was ok value and a need. Goodson value was there and he was a HUGE need.
Good post.
Some posters talk about need like it's a bad thing. It's good to use need as part of the equation when selecting a player. It provides an opportunity to get a better ROI on your pick and get impact from cheap players.
I'd argue that going pure value has been more detrimental to Reese drafts than any need leaning pick. Nassib was probably considered a value pick by Reese at the time -- and what has it provided the Giants? An insurance policy of questionable value you hope you never have to collect on?
and McAdoo is like our Roger Goodell.
I have been thinking that Seymour and Farrell may been playing a role in why the Giants did not sign or draft any OL. Not that I think they will start or anything like that, but you can only carry 4 backup OL. They already have Hart. Seymour and Farrell make 3. Then Brett Jones. Pick up maybe 2 vets who get cut and the UDFA. That's enough bodies to get 4 backup OL.
If it traumatized us, IMAGINE what it did to the players and coaches. They fully know they cannot afford a repeat of that shit in any way, shape or form.
The only thing worse than having the leagues worst defense, to missing playoffs multiple years, to bad drafts and injuries - is losing Eli Manning to injury. He makes Planet Giant spin. Without him, all hope is lost.
So, if the coaches are cool with the OL - I'm *cautiously* cool too.
The OL hasn't been great but it's been OK the last 2 seasons and it improved from 2014 to 2015. It should improve in 2016 as well.
Would be nice to find a long term solution on the right side even if you are optimistic that Jerry and Newhouse can hold things together for one more year. Hart has a chance.
Bringing in Solari, a guy McAdoo recognizes as someone familiar and well schooled in this type of run game will create improvement without a talent upgrade. I'm still nervous about Jerry and Newhouse and Hart as our options on the right side, but scheme wise Solari will have them humming better than his predecessor did because he's quite simply a better coach and a better fit for this offense because he's been in it. It goes past the basics of the position, its the little nuances that an "expert" or veteran of a system can provide over someone learning it on the fly. Asking a teacher to teach a different version of the subject is fine, but bringing in a teacher who is well schooled on that variation of the subject is much much better for cohesion between OC and OL. That ability to work seamlessly and bring that knowledge in here is what will make Solari one of our very best hires of this off season.
RE: the blocking schemes. One area that they often struggled with was the TEs coming out of the backfield. I think Will Johnson will clean some of that up. And, hopefully develop quickly in that area.
Geoff Schwartz didn't handle it too well.
Quote:
Since he was cut by the Bears in what appears to be a salary cap move. How difficult would it be for a guy who's played LG his entire career to transition to RG? That's assuming the Giants would try and sign him with that in mind, and that he'd be amenable to the change.
Geoff Schwartz didn't handle it too well.
Hence my concern, and my question.
The Giants have a franchise QB who doesn't miss time. It's a waste.
If your franchise QB goes down you're screwed. No need wasting draft picks on a backup.
Bringing in Solari, a guy McAdoo recognizes as someone familiar and well schooled in this type of run game will create improvement without a talent upgrade. I'm still nervous about Jerry and Newhouse and Hart as our options on the right side, but scheme wise Solari will have them humming better than his predecessor did because he's quite simply a better coach and a better fit for this offense because he's been in it. It goes past the basics of the position, its the little nuances that an "expert" or veteran of a system can provide over someone learning it on the fly. Asking a teacher to teach a different version of the subject is fine, but bringing in a teacher who is well schooled on that variation of the subject is much much better for cohesion between OC and OL. That ability to work seamlessly and bring that knowledge in here is what will make Solari one of our very best hires of this off season.
good post, Joey.
Bringing in Solari, a guy McAdoo recognizes as someone familiar and well schooled in this type of run game will create improvement without a talent upgrade. I'm still nervous about Jerry and Newhouse and Hart as our options on the right side, but scheme wise Solari will have them humming better than his predecessor did because he's quite simply a better coach and a better fit for this offense because he's been in it. It goes past the basics of the position, its the little nuances that an "expert" or veteran of a system can provide over someone learning it on the fly. Asking a teacher to teach a different version of the subject is fine, but bringing in a teacher who is well schooled on that variation of the subject is much much better for cohesion between OC and OL. That ability to work seamlessly and bring that knowledge in here is what will make Solari one of our very best hires of this off season.
Flaherty was hired within 2 weeks by the 49'rs (coached by a former division rival who presumably knows his work) so perhaps he is not as hidebound by scheme as you intimate.
Quote:
That our OL and DL coaches were axed for a reason. McAdoo got an OL coach with experience in his scheme, not the hybridized Coughlin injected version of the running game we had the past two years. Flaherty didn't have a ton of experience with this type of scheme and I think it's partially to blame here. The keys to a good running game are many, but one very over looked or not often mentioned aspect is how well the OC and the OL coach mesh philosophically with regards to scheme. It's old dog new tricks here, and I think Flats was at a disadvantage coaching a hybrid scheme that he didn't have a lot of expertise in.
Bringing in Solari, a guy McAdoo recognizes as someone familiar and well schooled in this type of run game will create improvement without a talent upgrade. I'm still nervous about Jerry and Newhouse and Hart as our options on the right side, but scheme wise Solari will have them humming better than his predecessor did because he's quite simply a better coach and a better fit for this offense because he's been in it. It goes past the basics of the position, its the little nuances that an "expert" or veteran of a system can provide over someone learning it on the fly. Asking a teacher to teach a different version of the subject is fine, but bringing in a teacher who is well schooled on that variation of the subject is much much better for cohesion between OC and OL. That ability to work seamlessly and bring that knowledge in here is what will make Solari one of our very best hires of this off season.
Well, if you say so. His resume spells "journeyman o-line coach" who hasn't had a great deal of success protecting the qb at his 8 other NFL positions but we shall see.
Flaherty was hired within 2 weeks by the 49'rs (coached by a former division rival who presumably knows his work) so perhaps he is not as hidebound by scheme as you intimate.