OL: What would you have done as GM?

In comment 13080294 AP in Halfmoon said:

Quote:

In comment 13080178 drkenneth said: Quote: this team wins 8 games. More if Coughlin didn't shit his pants. Shit, they should have won 8 LAST YEAR, with a god awful defense. But the OL is a disaster. (Not saying it's good) This team may not have have won 3 games if Coughlin wasn't coaching.

You're right. Coughlin did such a great job last year, he is no longer is a NFL coach.

so that I could sign one of the available LTs or traded for Clady.

I might also have tried to trade up for Conklin (although a 3 and a 2017 2 was a lot to give up) OR trade down to a place where we could take Decker or Kelly comfortably.

But we've also been unlucky. I think Schwartz would have been excellent for us, but he was injured all the time he was here.

.

This is pre season football. No game planning. No scheming and players trying not to get hurt. Pugh didn't play. Hart has never played left guard. The play call was meh. Its the 2nd PRE SEASON game.

The offense you are seeing is so vanilla. The offensive line looked like it ran two protections. A traditional cup protection and a Big on Big protection. Bth of these are as pop warner as it gets.

In comment 13080278 Go Terps said:

Quote:

I'm not going to go nuts over a couple preseason games, but I was worried back in April about the direction of the team. Specifically, the reactive nature of the free agency acquisitions signifies a lack of an overall plan. My top concern entering the off-season was depth at wide receiver and offensive line. The strength of this team is the offense, and little was done to reinforce that side of the ball. This team as a Beckham knee sprain away from major problems. The plan seems to continue to be to patch holes rather than reinforce strengths.

You have no clue if it was reactive or not. You also no idea what the plan was or wasn't. You're just making crap up.

leave flowers at RT,move pugh to RT and just cut newhouse now (he is a complete liability virtually anyone available post cuts would be better)

flower hart richburg jerry pugh becomes the line to start at this point

i have no problem with the way draft panned out and the guys they got,ai i think they picked solid with every single pick and got some out and out steals, but there was cap space and free agents better than jerry and newhouse available post draft and doing the nothing which they did wasnt an option

move pugh back beside flowers again and start the OT at RT,if hart doesnt cut it at OG you also look for an OG in first 4 picks (which i would be inclined to do regardless to safeguard the depth on the OL)

In comment 13080278 Go Terps said:

Quote:

I'm not going to go nuts over a couple preseason games, but I was worried back in April about the direction of the team. Specifically, the reactive nature of the free agency acquisitions signifies a lack of an overall plan. My top concern entering the off-season was depth at wide receiver and offensive line. The strength of this team is the offense, and little was done to reinforce that side of the ball. This team as a Beckham knee sprain away from major problems. The plan seems to continue to be to patch holes rather than reinforce strengths.

There's a difference between not having "an overall plan" and not following the plan You want. You also characterize the FA signings as patching holes, but what would signing a FA OL have been?

Man, it must get lonely being the smartest guy in the room all the time...

In comment 13080225 drkenneth said:

Quote:

In comment 13080224 Anakim said: Quote: With our third rounder, even though he's a project. So you'd take a project LT over our starting, rookie FS?

Considering I had Clark ranked ahead of Thompson? Yes, I would have.

In comment 13080270 Dave in Hoboken said:

Quote:

In comment 13080258 Modus Operandi said: Quote: Will there ever be a BBI thread in which Dave in Hoboken doesn't act like a passive aggressive 13 year old? You might want to look up the term 'passive aggressive.' I was pretty direct in my disagreement. Stay obsessed, though.

Propping up straw men and arguing against comments no one has made isn't exactly direct. But that appears to you your preferred method of discourse.

But you do still have the patented Dave in Hoboken "you mad, bro?" to fall back on.

Chris r, Giants2012 and Dave in Hoboken. BBI's pillars of intellect.

lel

a Staten Island hubcap trailer

In comment 13080378 Modus Operandi said:

Quote:

In comment 13080270 Dave in Hoboken said: Quote: In comment 13080258 Modus Operandi said: Quote: Will there ever be a BBI thread in which Dave in Hoboken doesn't act like a passive aggressive 13 year old? You might want to look up the term 'passive aggressive.' I was pretty direct in my disagreement. Stay obsessed, though. Propping up straw men and arguing against comments no one has made isn't exactly direct. But that appears to you your preferred method of discourse. But you do still have the patented Dave in Hoboken "you mad, bro?" to fall back on. Chris r, Giants2012 and Dave in Hoboken. BBI's pillars of intellect. lel

Propping up strawmen, aka pointing out that the OLine is an area of concern? Yikes. If only we can all have the logic and intellect of you. Continue to follow me around, though. It's cute.

to hang out at the Modus hubcap stand.

In comment 13080213 jeff57 said:

Quote:

They should have traded up to 8 to take him.

You're just not a good poster. Im not mad at you, it's not your fault your dumb.

Especially when you simultaneously lament the (perceived) non-contributions of other posters. Both frustration and unease are warranted and don't necessarily constitute bunched up panties.

That said:

You know your QB is by far your most important player.
You know he is 35 and has a ton of mileage on that body.
You know he is fairly immobile and there are great pass rushers on opposing teams, most worryingly on the biggest thorn in your side with Fletcher Cox (even fucking Conner Barwin manages to look like an All-Pro against the Giants).
You know that with even decent pass protection he and your star WR are going to score points.

So you choose to spend 60M on Jenkins and 85M on Vernon. Not necessarily bad signings since the D was sensationally awful in 2015. But the least bad course IMV would have been to sign Snacks to secure the Run D, hope that JPP bounces back (likely), and hope that Odighizuwa can start. Then dump the Vernon/Jenkins - or at least the Jenkins - money into the FAs, like Okung, mentioned above.

Short-version: no Jenkins, sign Okung instead. Flowers over to RT. Hope a serviceable RG shakes loose. Holes would have remained. That what happens when you are a bad football team. But going into 2016 with not 1, not 2, but 3 Oline positions fully uncertain and horrendous depth is a recipe for disaster.

Last point: the Giants haven't of course haven't neglected the Oline...they've just addressed it poorly (and had some bad luck with injuries). A lot is riding on Flowers, a 9th overall pick. It is really a problem if he busts.

Tunsil

Nice scoop.

The question everyone keeps asking you, and the subject of the OP is, "What would you have done as GM?" And instead contributing a response, you keep whining and misrepresenting others' comments as saying all is well. Color me unsurprised.

And obsession is a mischaracterization. It implies I think about you. But kicking you around these threads is certainly a favorite hobby. I'll admit that much.

we did our best do-diligence-wise..The only one (that we know of) that we never had a chance to sign was Penn. He wanted back with Oakland..Otherwise we looked at who we could and most likely passed on people who have either lost a step or two or were injury risks..Not sure what more can be done..There are still roster parings to happen, so we'll see what, if anything, shakes out..Reese is on it, imv, despite the hatred thrown around on here by some..

young guys will joke and fool around. A young guy with #1 draft choice talent and a lively sense of humor. No, please give us a kid that kneels to say his prayers every night.

In comment 13080399 Overseer said:

Quote:

Especially when you simultaneously lament the (perceived) non-contributions of other posters. Both frustration and unease are warranted and don't necessarily constitute bunched up panties. That said: You know your QB is by far your most important player. You know he is 35 and has a ton of mileage on that body. You know he is fairly immobile and there are great pass rushers on opposing teams, most worryingly on the biggest thorn in your side with Fletcher Cox (even fucking Conner Barwin manages to look like an All-Pro against the Giants). You know that with even decent pass protection he and your star WR are going to score points. So you choose to spend 60M on Jenkins and 85M on Vernon. Not necessarily bad signings since the D was sensationally awful in 2015. But the least bad course IMV would have been to sign Snacks to secure the Run D, hope that JPP bounces back (likely), and hope that Odighizuwa can start. Then dump the Vernon/Jenkins - or at least the Jenkins - money into the FAs, like Okung, mentioned above. Short-version: no Jenkins, sign Okung instead. Flowers over to RT. Hope a serviceable RG shakes loose. Holes would have remained. That what happens when you are a bad football team. But going into 2016 with not 1, not 2, but 3 Oline positions fully uncertain and horrendous depth is a recipe for disaster. Last point: the Giants haven't of course haven't neglected the Oline...they've just addressed it poorly (and had some bad luck with injuries). A lot is riding on Flowers, a 9th overall pick. It is really a problem if he busts.

You're all over the place here:

"You know that with even decent pass protection he and your star WR are going to score points."

-Did they not do that last year? Or was the defense historically bad?

"Not necessarily bad signings since the D was sensationally awful in 2015."

-Saying the signings on D were ""Not necessarily bad signings" is the equivalent of saying it's not a bad idea to grab a fire extinguisher when a fire breaks out.

" But the least bad course IMV would have been to sign Snacks to secure the Run D, hope that JPP bounces back (likely), and hope that Odighizuwa can start. Then dump the Vernon/Jenkins - or at least the Jenkins - money into the FAs, like Okung, mentioned above."

-You use the word "hope" twice here. That's your strategy?

You rather spend $$ on a LT who has never played a 16 game season? Then "hope" for the best on defense?

In comment 13080403 Modus Operandi said:

Quote:

Nice scoop. The question everyone keeps asking you, and the subject of the OP is, "What would you have done as GM?" And instead contributing a response

You haven't addressed the OP question yet whine about others responses? Are you really that f'ed up?

In comment 13080403 Modus Operandi said:

Quote:

Nice scoop. The question everyone keeps asking you, and the subject of the OP is, "What would you have done as GM?" And instead contributing a response, you keep whining and misrepresenting others' comments as saying all is well. Color me unsurprised. And obsession is a mischaracterization. It implies I think about you. But kicking you around these threads is certainly a favorite hobby. I'll admit that much.

I would've drafted Tunsil. Happy? What is the point of posting that it when it didn't happen, and when we are way past that as a possibility? And no one 'kept asking me' this question, either. I like how supposedly 'misrepresenting others' comments' is a problem, but the calling multiple posters 'panty-waists' in the OP is perfectly fine. More brilliant BBI logic at it's finest, though.

And bro, you're not kicking anyone around. You were butt-hurt that not everyone on the planet hates ARod, and you got shit on for it on that thread, and now you're only on this thread because I am posting on it.

Yeah, you have issues. And you're apparently from SI. Color me shocked.

I know its tough...but the black and white just isn't there in preseason. It never is.

Has the OL looked sub=par? Sure. But too many factors exist in preseason that can't let anyone decide if this is a solid-enough group or not.

I think Flowers ultimately ends up on the right side within his rookie contract, but he deserves the year to prove what he can do with two healthy ankles. Pugh and Richburg are more than good enough at LG and C. The question has been and still is the RG/RT combo. Both guys would likely be looked past by more than half the league if they were cut loose tomorrow. There is just one young talent behind them note talking about in Hart, and even he still appears not ready.

Cuts are coming...but is it wise to add a piece so close to the season and depend on him to start? There IS value chemistry among the OL...whether the talent is there or not.

To answer the question...what would I have done different? I liked Spencer Drango in round 5 this year...although RB Paul Perkins could end up being an important piece THIS year. Drango is currently the 6th OL/blocking TE for Cleveland and may win the starting RT job. He has had a very good 2 first weeks of preseason. Free agency wise...easy to say we should have bought the top FAs...but I take defensive signings over OL signings every day of the week.

.

a calculated risk, OL depth can be acquired for less $$ after cuts than skill players or top defense. Second guess this calculation at your peril. But, if you're right, go for the I told you so. Problem is your posturing and posing will be missed in the traffic.

And had question marks about not only his character but also his work ethic. In any event, it's unlikely he'd be starting at OT for us anyhow. Other OL drafted in the same crop as Flowers have had issues. Open your eyes.

Cant comment on the rest of your tripe. I make it a point to ignore anything that starts off with, "and bro.."

In comment 13080431 Modus Operandi said:

Quote:

And had question marks about not only his character but also his work ethic. In any event, it's unlikely he'd be starting at OT for us anyhow. Other OL drafted in the same crop as Flowers have had issues. Open your eyes. Cant comment on the rest of your tripe. I make it a point to ignore anything that starts off with, "and bro.."

Oh no, a guy who follows me around on an internet message board and throws temper tantrums doesn't want to read my posts, even though he keeps quoting and responding to me.

Whatever will I do..

In comment 13080413 drkenneth said:

Quote:

You're all over the place here: "You know that with even decent pass protection he and your star WR are going to score points." -Did they not do that last year? Or was the defense historically bad? "Not necessarily bad signings since the D was sensationally awful in 2015." -Saying the signings on D were ""Not necessarily bad signings" is the equivalent of saying it's not a bad idea to grab a fire extinguisher when a fire breaks out. " But the least bad course IMV would have been to sign Snacks to secure the Run D, hope that JPP bounces back (likely), and hope that Odighizuwa can start. Then dump the Vernon/Jenkins - or at least the Jenkins - money into the FAs, like Okung, mentioned above." -You use the word "hope" twice here. That's your strategy? You rather spend $$ on a LT who has never played a 16 game season? Then "hope" for the best on defense?

The Giants are a bad football team...of course you have to hope some of your bets are going to pay off. Betting on JPP, for instance, is not a huge leap. I praised the Snacks signing. Fine with Vernon. So, no, I'm not just crossing my fingers on the defense. Action was warranted.

Here's your problem: you're acting like anyone is pretending there's an ideal. There's not. This is a bad football team with 2, maybe 3, great players and a 4th with half a hand. JAGs everywhere. And so much of the problem goes back years. You gamble with what you think the less bad course might be. Okung/Clady ideal? Nope. But there isn't an ideal and no one without a time machine is claiming as much.

Understanding that, and eschewing the snarky/dismissive tone in your OP, is recipe for a better thread.

consideration of FA replacement availability. I would have released Beatty since he couldn't pass his physical. Wouldn't have waited (been there before) and he doesn't have position flexibility. Would have restructured Schwartz (earns back $$$ based on playing time). Did not seem any attempt was made. Schwartz seemed genuinely surprised he was cut.

So prior to FA and the draft, you would have Schwartz completing with Newhouse for ROT and Jerry competing with Hart for ROG (think ROG better fit for Hart). Expectation/hope would be Schwartz and Hart winning out leaving you with two decent back-ups. Sure Schwartz has an injury history, but Okung or Clady's any better regarding injury? This wouldn't have prevented signing another OT; Schwartz competes for ROG instead.

It's clear NYG wanted to keep Flowers at LOT but I get the impression they are not 100% sure this is really his future. Imo, this was NYG dilemma. How do you make a long term commitment to another ROT if this is really Flowers best spot?

In comment 13080437 Overseer said:

Quote:

In comment 13080413 drkenneth said: Quote: You're all over the place here: "You know that with even decent pass protection he and your star WR are going to score points." -Did they not do that last year? Or was the defense historically bad? "Not necessarily bad signings since the D was sensationally awful in 2015." -Saying the signings on D were ""Not necessarily bad signings" is the equivalent of saying it's not a bad idea to grab a fire extinguisher when a fire breaks out. " But the least bad course IMV would have been to sign Snacks to secure the Run D, hope that JPP bounces back (likely), and hope that Odighizuwa can start. Then dump the Vernon/Jenkins - or at least the Jenkins - money into the FAs, like Okung, mentioned above." -You use the word "hope" twice here. That's your strategy? You rather spend $$ on a LT who has never played a 16 game season? Then "hope" for the best on defense? The Giants are a bad football team...of course you have to hope some of your bets are going to pay off. Betting on JPP, for instance, is not a huge leap. I praised the Snacks signing. Fine with Vernon. So, no, I'm not just crossing my fingers on the defense. Action was warranted. Here's your problem: you're acting like anyone is pretending there's an ideal. There's not. This is a bad football team with 2, maybe 3, great players and a 4th with half a hand. JAGs everywhere. And so much of the problem goes back years. You gamble with what you think the less bad course might be. Okung/Clady ideal? Nope. But there isn't an ideal and no one without a time machine is claiming as much. Understanding that, and eschewing the snarky/dismissive tone in your OP, is recipe for a better thread.

How many "great" players does the average NFL team have? 1? 2? 8? 10?

The defense is way better than it was a year ago. You can't have everything.

I just have a more big picture view than you. I don't think this is the dumpster fire BBI makes it out to be.

BBI's (and fans in general) have a hard time understanding that it isn't 1986 anymore. There is no such thing as "depth". Teams don't have tons of "great" players. There are no complete teams.

The Giants are not a bad team. Do you expect pro bowlers at every position?

I love the Snacks signing, like the Vernon one (tempered due to level of money), dislike Jenkins.

True enough about depth. I strongly support the cap and understand the limitations it necessarily instills. You indeed have to choose & prioritize. With a 35 y/o, immobile QB, IMV that should mean the LT virtually above all. Maybe the coaches are seeing something we are not in Flowers or have a backup plan. Vet LT & kicking Flowers over to RT to develop seems logical to me, but they obviously have different expectations.

At the very least they must be working on how to get some TE blocking help. LD is all but gone.

I've been a proponent of addressing the OL but FA and the draft didn't unfold the way the Giants needed it to get value at OL.

The FA OL class was pretty weak with a lot of injury issues with the players. That's exactly what the Giants didn't need given their track record with injuries. Sure they could've overpaid for guys like Penn or Okung, but what position would that have put the team in down the road? Do we lose the ability to re-sign a core player? Would the FA even stay healthy to justify the investment?

The draft was pretty top heavy with OL talent and the Giants didn't have an opportunity to get value at the position with any of their picks. You can argue a late rounder here or there should've been the guy but we've been down that road many times and they haven't panned out.

The bottom line is the Giants had too many holes to fill in one offseason but did the best they could to improve the team with value in the draft and playmakers at Impact positions in FA. The plan seems pretty obvious and sensible but it just takes time. Hopefully some competition shakes loose the last round of cuts that can give us some depth and push for a starting role.

I mean there is a huge gap between 'great depth' and what our depth is right now. I think most would settle for serviceable depth, which isn't really what we have right now. Our backup OLine have been going up against back DLinemen these past two weeks, and they have had big problems with keeping the QB upright and run-blocking. That is not serviceable, nevermind 'great,' which no one is asking for or expecting.

In comment 13080258 Modus Operandi said:

Quote:

Will there ever be a BBI thread in which Dave in Hoboken doesn't act like a passive aggressive 13 year old?

At least he's doing it without homophobic comments, that's a refreshing start for him.

this is my real stalker. Can't even imagine living a life, where you are apparently over the age of 15, and actively stalking people out on a football message board.

your posts are just so boorish for the most part, you stick out as a dumb ass. You're in there with some great company.

If only everyone can be as brilliant and witty as yourself.

27 years old and has started 45 games the past three seasons including not missing a game for the past two straight. Hell I wanted him after the 2014 season when he signed with San Diego for a 1 year prove it deal. Instead he re-signed with the Chargers this offseason for four years, $22M. That's incredibly affordable for a guy who has experience on both sides of the O line, durable and entering his prime. We could have paid that and then some still.

I think the Giants draft was positive overall but there were lineman who I would've taken in the middle to late rounds. I think they would've won the starting job over Jerry and Newhouse by the start of week 1 too. Kyle Murphy, Joe Thuney, Isaac Seumalo, Graham Glasgow, Alex Lewis, Halapoulivaati Vaitai to name a few were O-lineman I liked at draft time.

the last few drafts, the whole world knew who we wanted and jumped in front of us and we got fooked

In comment 13080355 j_rud said:

Quote:

In comment 13080278 Go Terps said: Quote: I'm not going to go nuts over a couple preseason games, but I was worried back in April about the direction of the team. Specifically, the reactive nature of the free agency acquisitions signifies a lack of an overall plan. My top concern entering the off-season was depth at wide receiver and offensive line. The strength of this team is the offense, and little was done to reinforce that side of the ball. This team as a Beckham knee sprain away from major problems. The plan seems to continue to be to patch holes rather than reinforce strengths. There's a difference between not having "an overall plan" and not following the plan You want. You also characterize the FA signings as patching holes, but what would signing a FA OL have been? Man, it must get lonely being the smartest guy in the room all the time...

Then what is the plan? From the outside it looks like "Defense sucks, so let's overspend on FA defensive players." Meanwhile, the side of the ball that carries the team is paper thin at WR and OL. How does that happen in an offseason where the team had huge cap space?

I've been a consistent Reese backer when a lot of people were calling for his head to roll last year, but the "let's patch holes in the hopes of building a 10-6 team that Eli can carry to another Super Bowl" approach is getting old.

The two best players on this team by miles are offensive players: Eli and Beckham. What was done this offseason to make their jobs easier? The WR spots opposite Beckham are being entrusted to a rookie and a guy that hasn't played in two years, and whose health was never a certainty.

And everyone knew the OL could be divided into two parts: three promising players on the left side and two questions on the right. Nothing done.

In comment 13080554 Go Terps said:

Quote:

The two best players on this team by miles are offensive players: Eli and Beckham. What was done this offseason to make their jobs easier? The WR spots opposite Beckham are being entrusted to a rookie and a guy that hasn't played in two years, and whose health was never a certainty. And everyone knew the OL could be divided into two parts: three promising players on the left side and two questions on the right. Nothing done.

Fair post. I still think we could see a "trade" tomorrow for an OL'men. Not that it will happen but that Reese knows we need help. But there isn't much we can likely do right now except play with the guys we have.

I think the starting OL will be fine. I also think we can survive an injury to OG but if we lose Richburg, Flowers or Newhouse we are likely in trouble and that is sad. Now, will the Giants use their TE's to block more this year? I don't know. But I do like TE Will Tye and FB / HBack W. Johnson on the field at the same time, most of the time.

The defense was not just bad last year, it was historically bad. How could you possibly be ok with a GM going into this offseason and not immediately addressing that?

You have to be able to play defense to win a Super Bowl. It's a pretty common blueprint. We just watched Denver do it last year with Peyton's corpse.

I most certainly would have liked to have seen another OL addition but the strategy of neglecting the defense to try and build a top 5 offense would be a terrible one that would get this team nowhere. We'd be watching repeats of the game we just played in the Superdome last year every other week.

You have a better chance of winning football games in this league with an average-above average defense and a slightly above average offense than you do with an elite offense and horrendous defense.

In comment 13080551 Go Terps said:

Quote:

In comment 13080355 j_rud said: Quote: In comment 13080278 Go Terps said: Quote: I'm not going to go nuts over a couple preseason games, but I was worried back in April about the direction of the team. Specifically, the reactive nature of the free agency acquisitions signifies a lack of an overall plan. My top concern entering the off-season was depth at wide receiver and offensive line. The strength of this team is the offense, and little was done to reinforce that side of the ball. This team as a Beckham knee sprain away from major problems. The plan seems to continue to be to patch holes rather than reinforce strengths. There's a difference between not having "an overall plan" and not following the plan You want. You also characterize the FA signings as patching holes, but what would signing a FA OL have been? Man, it must get lonely being the smartest guy in the room all the time... Then what is the plan? From the outside it looks like "Defense sucks, so let's overspend on FA defensive players." Meanwhile, the side of the ball that carries the team is paper thin at WR and OL. How does that happen in an offseason where the team had huge cap space? I've been a consistent Reese backer when a lot of people were calling for his head to roll last year, but the "let's patch holes in the hopes of building a 10-6 team that Eli can carry to another Super Bowl" approach is getting old.

The plan was pretty obvious, I should think. They won two titles with an elite pass rush and a solid secondary. They wanted to get the pass rush back and add talent to the secondary. They tried to bring in a FA OL and it didn't work out. I agree that an OL should have been added but you act like they didn't even try. They likely felt WR wasn't as big a need, for better or worse. We'll see.

And by is it that signings you want are part of a plan while signings you don't endorse are "just filling holes". What would signing an OL or WR be but filling a hole? You're just playing a semantics game that fits your position on the subject that quite frankly is tired hat from you.

Also, the defensive additions were not "hole patchers". They are rookies like Apple and Thompson as well as young, ascending FA's such as Vernon, Harrison and Jenkins. These are long-term players not 1 year solutions.

you have to question a couple things Reese has done:

1. Pugh. At pick 19, the Giants envisioned Pugh would be a tackle. he struggled at RT and is now a guard and that started the ball rolling downhill.

2. Flowers. Obviously it's early in his career and he could flourish, but it looks like he's going to struggle at LT and eventually have to be moved.

these two are the last two first round OL the Giants have taken since Luke Petitout, so 3 1st round OL in 17 years ago.

and I don't think they're playing like first round picks (yet), Pugh has been good at guard, but it's not the Giants MO (or other teams) to take a guard at 19.

So if those two panned out, the problem would be lessened, Flowers would be entrenched at LT, Pugh would be RT, and Richburg an elite OC.

signing two guards would have been a lot easier.

Second problem though isn't necessarily with the GM, it's with the coaching staff. There has been almost no OL development from the picks, so I guess you could argue it's on Reese too, but there is no Seubert, Diehl, etc. where the team didn't need to use a premium pick but still got starter quality.

Look around the NFL it's rare to see a line like Dallas or the recent SF line (2011 - 2013) with multiple premium picks.

Usually you see a premium pick or 2, but mostly development lineman.

So I don't know if any of us know enough to say why the Giants project linemen all fail, but that's definitely contributed to why the Giants OL is a liability right now.

And don't tell me they played well because the offense was #10 or whatever.

Watch the games. Eli was under pressure far too much, the OL struggled in the run game, and they didn't set the tone like the 2007 - 2011 lines.

In comment 13080560 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

The defense was not just bad last year, it was historically bad. How could you possibly be ok with a GM going into this offseason and not immediately addressing that? You have to be able to play defense to win a Super Bowl. It's a pretty common blueprint. We just watched Denver do it last year with Peyton's corpse. I most certainly would have liked to have seen another OL addition but the strategy of neglecting the defense to try and build a top 5 offense would be a terrible one that would get this team nowhere. We'd be watching repeats of the game we just played in the Superdome last year every other week. You have a better chance of winning football games in this league with an average-above average defense and a slightly above average offense than you do with an elite offense and horrendous defense.

I think of Dallas here: they have kept their OL, QB Romo, WR Bryant, TE Witten and now drafted rookied RB Elliott. They are building up their offense at the expense of their defense. Granted, they had suspensions with Gregory, Lawrence and McLain but their defense is going to give up a lot of yards.

Our defense will be superb.

In comment 13080571 SGMen said:

Quote:

In comment 13080560 arcarsenal said: Quote: The defense was not just bad last year, it was historically bad. How could you possibly be ok with a GM going into this offseason and not immediately addressing that? You have to be able to play defense to win a Super Bowl. It's a pretty common blueprint. We just watched Denver do it last year with Peyton's corpse. I most certainly would have liked to have seen another OL addition but the strategy of neglecting the defense to try and build a top 5 offense would be a terrible one that would get this team nowhere. We'd be watching repeats of the game we just played in the Superdome last year every other week. You have a better chance of winning football games in this league with an average-above average defense and a slightly above average offense than you do with an elite offense and horrendous defense. I think of Dallas here: they have kept their OL, QB Romo, WR Bryant, TE Witten and now drafted rookied RB Elliott. They are building up their offense at the expense of their defense. Granted, they had suspensions with Gregory, Lawrence and McLain but their defense is going to give up a lot of yards. Our defense will be superb.

Their defense isn't good but it's nothing like what we rolled out there last season.

There are no superb players on it.

I also wouldn't use 2007 or 2011 as any sort of template. Neither of those teams was great, and in 2011 the defense flat out sucked. I agree though that that appears to be the model being pursued, and that's probably why the Giants only won 12 games once in the entire Coughlin era despite having the best quarterback in the history of the team - a guy who never misses a game.