OL: What would you have done as GM?

In comment 13081028 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

I think mostly striking out on a couple of drafts can set a team back pretty far. I also think the OL rebuild took too long to start. We tried to milk too much out of the lines we won Championships with. Reese does deserve some blame for both of those things but I thought he had a good offseason this year and did as much as he could to get this team back on track. I don't know how anyone could have watched the levels of embarrassing this defense was in 2015 and not have wanted significant assets spent on fixing it.

I think Reese did a bad job between 2010-2012 (yes, despite the Super Bowl), but a much better job in the 2014 and 2015 off-seasons. It usually takes 2-3 years for the work of a GM to shine through.

I wish we signed another OL, but I understand why Reese felt his high picks could make the line decent.

was a huge miscalculation, highlighted by the OL falling off a cliff. All compounded by the poor drafts piling up.

They were desperate for someone to play RT, having failed to address the position in free agency primarily because they didn't have the money/cap space to do so. With Fisher, Joeckel, Johnson, and Fluker gone, it's not that hard to see why they picked Pugh, even though most pundits projected him as a Guard in the pros (which is hardly an unusual thing), and even though they broke my heart by passing up Tyler Eifert.

It's also not that hard to see why they drafted Johnathan Hankins in the 2nd round. It looks like re-signing Linval Joseph was never in their plans - right or wrong - and they needed an infusion of youth to play alongside their aging, veteran DTs, Cullen Jenkins and Mike Patterson.

So, it's easy for me to say now, well, I would have drafted Eiftert in the first and, say, Terron Armstead or Menelik Watson, or David Bahktiari in the second, I can't really fault the Giants for going with Pugh and Hankins.

To me, the real tragedies of the 2013 draft were picking Damontre Moore in the third, and trading up for Ryan Nassib in the fourth.

play well into their mid-30s..Some even longer..OL seem to really peak as they age in their 30s, imv..Had Snee not unexpectedly been hit with (virtual) career-ending injuries, he most likely would still be anchoring the right side at age 34 and few would be stressing over this..I bring this up because there's a lot of woulda, shoulda, couldas on the forum and yes, this is yet another one and no less salient imo

Yeah, the end of 2012 was when it became very clear that this team needed to be rebuilt in a few different spots but we tried to just patch some holes and keep going forward instead and we all know how that went.

In comment 13081079 JonC said:

Quote:

was a huge miscalculation, highlighted by the OL falling off a cliff. All compounded by the poor drafts piling up.

The failure to develop any mid-round OL draft picks was a killer. You would have hoped that even one of the Brewers, Mosleys, or Petruses (sic) of the world would have stuck, but that was obviously not the case. Add to that the inability of the free agent OLs that we did sign to stay healthy, like Baas and Schwartz, and we're left with Jerry and Newhouse at RG and RT, respectively.

both good to great signings. Matter of fact, DRC might be the best FA signing the Giants ever made it's just a shame the guy's talents haven't been appreciated more due to the team's poor performance.

I'm going to wait until the next preseason game before I make blanket doom and gloom statements. I think 3 pre-season games is more than enough time to formulate a concrete opinion on the state of this franchise. God help everyone if they don't scrimmage well next week. Heads will fucking roll.

In comment 13081091 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

play well into their mid-30s..Some even longer..OL seem to really peak as they age in their 30s, imv..Had Snee not unexpectedly been hit with (virtual) career-ending injuries, he most likely would still be anchoring the right side at age 34 and few would be stressing over this..I bring this up because there's a lot of woulda, shoulda, couldas on the forum and yes, this is yet another one and no less salient imo

BB, they banked on some aging players who had been battling injuries to find the fountain of youth. The guys had one run left in them, which resulted in a title, but pro's need to be able to identify when change is required.

last year was tough to take. If the Giants had just scratched and clawed their way to 9 wins I think the overall stink would be a lot easier to take. 3 straight losing years is pretty damn bad.

With that said, 9 wins last year doesn't ensure success this year. IT wouldn't give the Giants better odds of winning the east in 2016. They weren't going anywhere last year regardless, so it's best to just move on to 2016 and hope the ship is turning around. I can't put much stock in pre-season i'm sorry. I just can't do it. I've seen too many instances where these practice games yield little to no tangible evidence at all. Even just watching individuals perform should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm sure there are tell tale signs from year to year but they are impossible to gauge or quantify. One year the OL may look like crap in August only to play well throughout the season. One year the OL struggles early lead to struggles throughout the year. Who's to know what is or isn't for real? The OL was OK last year and has really only aged in a positive manner. Why would it collapse this coming season? Because of one or two shaky pre-season games we are going to panic? I aint buying it. I will never buy these games.

I'm all about the entire season. THis team definitely needs to win and soon. They are very very due. But I can't the entire franchise until the proof is in the pudding. Save your angst for when it really counts.

I think the D will play well and the O will be somewhat hit or miss but in the end, will score 400+.

of an OL is a tough thing. We saw the same happen after the SB run in 200, where Ron Stone and Lomas Brown and Glenn Parker had one last hurrah.

You simply don't know when a Diehl or Snee is going to rapidly start to fail.

He was basically finished at age 30. Top OLs usually last longer than that. It was a lousy break, kind of like having the excellent 2011 WR corps completely fall apart within a couple of years.

But whether it should have been addressed by overpaying the players they did is a different matter. I still don't expect the defense to be a strength, and it won't take much misfortune to make the offense significantly worse.

If everything aligns they can go 10-6. I guess I'm just tired of them being a team where we hope everything signs in order to scrape into the playoffs. It's been that way every year except one since 2004.

.

that's the reality of today's NFL. There's probably only 3 teams each year who can withstand significant disruption to make the playoffs, and a lot of that is based on divisional strength, where the Colts or Pats can breeze in - heck the Colts without Luck came damn close last year.

Almost every team need chips to fall into place or the season will tank. Even the Panthers last year rode having a very healthy team on the lines in the regular season which enabled continuity and allowed them to lose a player like Benjamin with limited adverse effects.

In comment 13080685 drkenneth said:

Quote:

Really?

He was the guy who finding and bringing in talent to keep the bottom of the roster competitive. He's now doing a great job of it in Carolina and you doubt his loss means anything? Brilliant deduction.

I think it's going to be better than the offense if everything shakes out in normal fashion. The front 4 is loaded if you believe Owa can be a legit body off the bench. The LBs are OK but the secondary looks pretty deep. Add it all up --that's a solid defense. The specials are solid. The O will be flaky at times but explosive. To me the key will be turnovers forced and lost. Keep that number at around +5 or so and the Giants should be playing for the East title in late December.

has made some tough decisions in Carolina and so far they've paid off. His drafts have been unspectacular, but is producing solid players, and he jettisoned some of the problem children like Hardy and Norman.

What I like about him is he's decisive in his decisions. He'll comment about Hardy or Norman immediately afterwards but if you ask him about that now, he'll tell you those guys are in the rearview mirror and he's preparing for 2016.

I think all of Vernon, Harrison and JPP are going to be legitimate difference makers on the defensive side of the ball. If you're going to point to one guy and say they overpaid I guess you could mention Jenkins but it didn't really bother me that much.

If they didn't pay for these players, what else should they have done? He invested almost every draft pick he had into that side of the football as well.

You have no shot in this league if your defense is absolutely terrible. We needed a lot of help.

In comment 13081175 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

that's the reality of today's NFL. There's probably only 3 teams each year who can withstand significant disruption to make the playoffs, and a lot of that is based on divisional strength, where the Colts or Pats can breeze in - heck the Colts without Luck came damn close last year. Almost every team need chips to fall into place or the season will tank. Even the Panthers last year rode having a very healthy team on the lines in the regular season which enabled continuity and allowed them to lose a player like Benjamin with limited adverse effects.

That's true, but a big reason that's the reality for so many teams is that the quarterback position is a problem. Some teams can't find one, others like Dallas, Pittsburgh, or Arizona have a hard time keeping theirs fully healthy year to year. We haven't had that problem and in that sense have had an enormous advantage over the majority of the league and certainly the teams in our division.

And a word about the division: it's been relatively weak for some time. There hasn't been a repeat division champ since the 2004 Eagles. And only three times since then has a team won 12 or more games. And it's been won by a 10-6 or 9-7 team 5 of the last 6 seasons, so it's not like we've been dealing with the Patriots in our division.

It just feels like some opportunities have been wasted, and the recent moves feel like spinning wheels.

?

I think last year proved, that with no defense and pass rush you lose games.

Not even 4th qtr, but last drives of games with lead/tied - Dal, NE, Jets, NO, Car

The defense had to be addressed.

I was one for shouting how much Vernon cost, but the reality is he is a 25 year old pass rusher. They do not grow on trees. They got 1 of the best run stopping DT in the game. They paid for a CB who has been healthy

The reality is that it is hard to have a good OL. Does Car have a good OL or does Cam make them much better. GB is bad, Chi is not good, Det, Atl, TB, NO, Phi, Was. Wilson was not sitting in the pocket with anytime. AZ OL was terrible at the end of the year. You have to develop OL.

Could Beatty help - maybe - is he really healthy

In comment 13081219 stretch234 said:

Quote:

I think last year proved, that with no defense and pass rush you lose games. Not even 4th qtr, but last drives of games with lead/tied - Dal, NE, Jets, NO, Car The defense had to be addressed. I was one for shouting how much Vernon cost, but the reality is he is a 25 year old pass rusher. They do not grow on trees. They got 1 of the best run stopping DT in the game. They paid for a CB who has been healthy The reality is that it is hard to have a good OL. Does Car have a good OL or does Cam make them much better. GB is bad, Chi is not good, Det, Atl, TB, NO, Phi, Was. Wilson was not sitting in the pocket with anytime. AZ OL was terrible at the end of the year. You have to develop OL. Could Beatty help - maybe - is he really healthy

Good job

In comment 13081215 drkenneth said:

Quote:

?

Because they are reactive and, to me, don't indicate that there is a larger plan in place to establish what type of team this is going to be both in the near term and the long term.

There's a difference between setting out to establish something, like say Dallas has done with their offensive line, and putting out fires.

What is this team trying to be?

secondary, which they have.

They are tough, big, and fast on the DL, with a lot of talent in the secondary.

It's a passing league. You need to rush the passer, and take the ball away (see DRC, Jenkins, & Thompson)

All the additions on the D are young, rising players.

I'd agree if they signed washed up players like Mario Williams.

They're trying to cover and rush the passer. The same defensive formula we used in the Super Bowl runs. Not saying it will certainly work but I think it's pretty obvious what they're trying to be.

Yes, they invested in their OL. Their defense is a fucking disaster.

Half their defense is suspended. How is that "establishing something"

Rolando McClain is addicted to Sizzurp for Christ sakes.

Randy Gregory is suspended again.

Their 2nd round pick won't play this year.

Romo is one hit away from being toast.

Sure, they have built a tremendous OL. But they have issues elsewhere.

Just because you don't see the plan doesn't mean there wasn't one in place, and, honestly, I think if Jerry Reese himself gave you a folder titled, "This is our plan," you'd still say they didn't have one. No offense.

To me, the plan was obvious once free agency began. Upgrade a historically bad defense by signing the best available players on the market - the best two-way DE, the best run-stuffing DT, and a dynamic, durable CB. All relatively young, too. No aging veterans looking for one final payday. No injury concerns (except for Keenan Robinson).

Continue this in the draft by picking your highest graded CB, an intelligent, playmaking FS, and a promising LB. If defense wins championships (which is something I don't necessarily adhere to, but many do), then upgrading their defense was paramount to the Giants.

Could the Giants have done more to, say, upgrade their offensive line? Maybe...maybe not, as I pondered in my first post in this thread.

In comment 13081249 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

They're trying to cover and rush the passer. The same defensive formula we used in the Super Bowl runs. Not saying it will certainly work but I think it's pretty obvious what they're trying to be.

If that is the case that would worry me too for a couple reasons:

1. It might be stale thinking that fails to keep up with changes in the league.

2. 2007 and 2011 were amazing and can't be taken away, but using them as models for future success seems deeply flawed. In 2007 they had an extremely rare assembly of talented pass rushers; not one of the guys today would start on that line. And in 2011 the defense was actually pretty poor. Wonderful runs both, but those teams shouldn't be templates.

In comment 13081252 drkenneth said:

Quote:

Yes, they invested in their OL. Their defense is a fucking disaster. Half their defense is suspended. How is that "establishing something" Rolando McClain is addicted to Sizzurp for Christ sakes. Randy Gregory is suspended again. Their 2nd round pick won't play this year. Romo is one hit away from being toast. Sure, they have built a tremendous OL. But they have issues elsewhere.

Yes they do, and despite those issues they are the best team in the division if their brittle quarterback can stay healthy.

Last year if we had their offensive line we would have won 10 games and the division because we would have been able to dominate the fourth quarter in those close games that we lost. Even with that shitty defense.

That's what a dominant unit can do for you. Denver won the whole thing even though they couldn't throw the ball because they were dominant on one side. Seattle was dominant on one side and should have won back to back if their head coach didn't melt down.

We're not going to build anything dominant because we're focused instead on putting out fires. Next off-season we'll be trying to put out the fires on the offensive side of the ball. And so on.

You're reaching there a bit.

When is having a strong DL and Secondary a bad idea?

What template would you follow? Some alternate-NFL universe?

You think getting after the QB will get "stale"?

You think taking the ball away is "stale"?

4.

Talk about damning with faint praise

that very well could be worse than ours last year. A healthy Romo or not, the Cowboys are favorites based on reputation alone.

In comment 13081273 Go Terps said:

Quote:

In comment 13081249 arcarsenal said: Quote: They're trying to cover and rush the passer. The same defensive formula we used in the Super Bowl runs. Not saying it will certainly work but I think it's pretty obvious what they're trying to be. If that is the case that would worry me too for a couple reasons: 1. It might be stale thinking that fails to keep up with changes in the league. 2. 2007 and 2011 were amazing and can't be taken away, but using them as models for future success seems deeply flawed. In 2007 they had an extremely rare assembly of talented pass rushers; not one of the guys today would start on that line. And in 2011 the defense was actually pretty poor. Wonderful runs both, but those teams shouldn't be templates.

Rushing the passer isn't something that becomes obsolete in the NFL. It is always paramount. It has always been paramount. You have to be able to put pressure on QB's otherwise they'll just sit back there and pick you apart.

The defense was poor during most of the 2011 regular season but it was a massive part of the Super Bowl run and we never win that championship without it. They shut out the Falcons, shut down a historically great GB offense that was the driving force between their 15-1 regular season and beat Tom Brady in the Super Bowl.

If you can get to the QB and cover in this league, your team is always going to have a chance. You really can't win in this league with shitty defense. Even the Pariot teams that won titles had good defenses.

I still can't really seem to figure out through your criticisms what it is you'd rather see the Giants do.

Which sounds nice, but is misleading in the extreme. Every team looks to upgrade in the offseason, and where and with whom they upgrade depends on the team. Were the Raiders just putting out fires when they signed Osemele? Were the Chiefs just putting out fires when they signed Mitchell Schwartz? Of course not. Would we have been just putting out fires if we had signed either of them? Somehow, I don't think you would have characterized us as putting out fires if we had.

It hasn't been good since 2008. A couple of overpriced free agents aren't going to convince me.

While I agree no one has a crystal ball, Snee, for example, had been struggling terribly with the hip (and other injuries) for some time. He and the team knew prior to his final camp that it was his very last chance.

It's difficult to argue when your team shows tremendous loyalty to its players, especially those who've been part of something special on many occasions. But, it's the other side of the coin where many of their decisions and draft picks were washouts to a great degree, which ruined their chance to transition without enduring great pain.

I think we're all tired of watching the team rely on a Newhouse or Jerry or insert name here.

I give you an A+ on buzzwords and cliches

I agree. But it is an inexact science. The probability of Cruz getting back to form that we know is slim. The probability of Nicks ever returning to form was unlikely.

Even with injuries, All Pro players are going to get the benefit of the doubt - whether that's correct or not.

To be sure - it has had an impact on us, but the injury situation has made things that are normally a slower decline at certain positions like OL or S (and even WR) and accelerated it to a critical need.

In comment 13081311 Go Terps said:

Quote:

It hasn't been good since 2008. A couple of overpriced free agents aren't going to convince me.

Let's face it - you don't want to see it. You'd rather be right than have to admit you were wrong.

So, you dismiss the offseason acquistions as "a couple of overpriced free agents," conveniently ignoring their ages, pedigrees, the need to upgrade their positions, and the going market rate for UFAs. You also conveniently ignore the draft, where their first round pick will most likely play quite a bit, and their third round pick has started from the moment he stepped onto the field. I'm pretty sure, though, that if the Giants had signed Anquan Boldin, whatever the cost, all would be bright and shiny in Go Terps Land.

In comment 13081289 Go Terps said:

Quote:

In comment 13081252 drkenneth said: Quote: Yes, they invested in their OL. Their defense is a fucking disaster. Half their defense is suspended. How is that "establishing something" Rolando McClain is addicted to Sizzurp for Christ sakes. Randy Gregory is suspended again. Their 2nd round pick won't play this year. Romo is one hit away from being toast. Sure, they have built a tremendous OL. But they have issues elsewhere. Yes they do, and despite those issues they are the best team in the division if their brittle quarterback can stay healthy. Last year if we had their offensive line we would have won 10 games and the division because we would have been able to dominate the fourth quarter in those close games that we lost. Even with that shitty defense. That's what a dominant unit can do for you. Denver won the whole thing even though they couldn't throw the ball because they were dominant on one side. Seattle was dominant on one side and should have won back to back if their head coach didn't melt down. We're not going to build anything dominant because we're focused instead on putting out fires. Next off-season we'll be trying to put out the fires on the offensive side of the ball. And so on.

Wow. That's a stretch. Dallas is not the best team in the east until they prove it on the field. They are highly flawed. Dangerous yes, but highly flawed.

on a FA GUARD. That would be ok because it's not putting out any fires and the Giants OL would become dominant as a result? Is that it?

WTF are you talking about....

I hear you and agree, especially how injuries have played a big role in the misfortunes since 2012. Interested to see if fortunes change with the new coaches and conditioning programs now in place.

and the Giants are due for some good luck on the injury front.

In comment 13081356 Klaatu said:

Quote:

In comment 13081311 Go Terps said: Quote: It hasn't been good since 2008. A couple of overpriced free agents aren't going to convince me. Let's face it - you don't want to see it. You'd rather be right than have to admit you were wrong. So, you dismiss the offseason acquistions as "a couple of overpriced free agents," conveniently ignoring their ages, pedigrees, the need to upgrade their positions, and the going market rate for UFAs. You also conveniently ignore the draft, where their first round pick will most likely play quite a bit, and their third round pick has started from the moment he stepped onto the field. I'm pretty sure, though, that if the Giants had signed Anquan Boldin, whatever the cost, all would be bright and shiny in Go Terps Land.

That is such complete bullshit.

In all the years I have been posting here I have never been the guy that is always ripping the team for its personnel moves, nor have I been a bloodthirsty, reactionary idiot screaming for people to be fired left and right.

It is AMAZING how full of shit some of you are. This team has been dog shit for three years but I'm out of line pointing out that Dallas is better? We've got people saying that the defense is going to be superb (an actual quote), and invoking 2007 when our DEs are comprised of a guy still learning how to play with half a hand and a guy who had 7.5 sacks last year.

19-29 the last three years. This team is crap until proven otherwise. Winning the spring used to be something the Redskins did after we went to the playoffs. It's sad to see the roles reversed.

of old or the Eagles dream team.

The Giants had a ton of cap space and used it to build out their core.

they signed the best available young free agents at positions of need to long-term deals.

the Redskins of old would sign Deion Sanders (33 years old) or Adam Archuletta (29 years old), or a lazy Albert Haynesworth (28 years old) or Antwan Randle El.

I don't see a ton of difference with this free agency period for the Giants than the one with Burress, Pierce, and McKenzie.

only thing is I'm not a huge Jenkins fan, but still get the signing.

In comment 13081408 Go Terps said:

Quote:

In comment 13081356 Klaatu said: Quote: In comment 13081311 Go Terps said: Quote: It hasn't been good since 2008. A couple of overpriced free agents aren't going to convince me. Let's face it - you don't want to see it. You'd rather be right than have to admit you were wrong. So, you dismiss the offseason acquistions as "a couple of overpriced free agents," conveniently ignoring their ages, pedigrees, the need to upgrade their positions, and the going market rate for UFAs. You also conveniently ignore the draft, where their first round pick will most likely play quite a bit, and their third round pick has started from the moment he stepped onto the field. I'm pretty sure, though, that if the Giants had signed Anquan Boldin, whatever the cost, all would be bright and shiny in Go Terps Land. That is such complete bullshit. In all the years I have been posting here I have never been the guy that is always ripping the team for its personnel moves, nor have I been a bloodthirsty, reactionary idiot screaming for people to be fired left and right. It is AMAZING how full of shit some of you are. This team has been dog shit for three years but I'm out of line pointing out that Dallas is better? We've got people saying that the defense is going to be superb (an actual quote), and invoking 2007 when our DEs are comprised of a guy still learning how to play with half a hand and a guy who had 7.5 sacks last year. 19-29 the last three years. This team is crap until proven otherwise. Winning the spring used to be something the Redskins did after we went to the playoffs. It's sad to see the roles reversed.

Except that we did not follow the Redskins' model of signing aging veterans in the twilight of their careers. We signed ascending players all under the age of 30. Anyone who compares what we did this spring to what the Redskins have done in the past - whether it's you, or Elliot Harrison, or whomever - is just plain wrong.

"19-29 the last three years. This team is crap until proven otherwise." I would point out that this team is much, much healthier than it has been in the last three years, and as long as it stays that way, it should - the operative word being "should" - play better than it has when it accrued that 19-29 record.

I don't know who said defense would be "superb," but it wouldn't surprise me if it came from someone like SGMen, who reaches JerseyJoe heights in his prognostications. No one who isn't constantly dreaming about trading Larry Donnell for a starting-caliber RT is comparing what the 2016 Giants defense could be to the '85 Bears. Conversely, very few are saying it will be "crap until proven otherwise," either. Most expect it to be better...somewhere in the middle of the pack, which would be a marked improvement over last year.

And no, I never said that you were "bloodthirsty, reactionary idiot screaming for people to be fired left and right." But what I have seen from you this year is an almost automatic dismissal of what the Giants have done to improve their team, while at the same time lambasting them for not making moves that you think will better serve them.

in a way it is semantics, but this stance is one that happens a lot here:

Quote:

This team has been dog shit for three years but I'm out of line pointing out that Dallas is better?

BBI'ers tend to hold Dallas on a pedestal despite them really winning hardly anything of meaning for the past 21 years. Sean Lee is still feared as a great player, while his mirror image Jon Beason was a useless piece of shit.

Every one of their linemen are massive studs while we have complete crap, yet whose QB has been hurt three of the past 4 years?

Reese was asleep at the wheel for not signing McCain and really should have lowered his character concerns to take a look at Hardy.

I mean, Dallas was 3 games out of 1st when Romo came back last year and even Eric predicted that Dallas would win the division, despite the fact that the Giants were a self-destructing last drive away from winning the opener when Romo was healthy.

I know this next statement doesn't apply to you because you appreciate the SB wins, but a lot of people really tout Dallas as a powerhouse and even a model we should aspire to, yet they haven't won shit and last year we saw what happened when they have a Giants-like situation with injuries. This year, we'll see how they handle having an atrocious defense.

I would have drafted Cody Whitehair in the second round instead of Sharp.

There are a lot more fast guys who can catch the ball on the planet than there are fat mobile guys :)

A running game is the best defense.