This is not meant to be critical of Reese, but that comment surprised me.
We here at bbi have simplified the problem: Improve the offensive line, tightends, get a big receiver and add a full back.
What are we missing? Is this a case of we don't know what we don't know? I understand other than no fullback, Ruben R. and Vareen, it was basically the same offense.
But my recollection of that offense was even though they were rated in the top 10, at the end of games in the 4 minute drill they were pretty limited.
With no upgrade, and teams having a chance to study and adjust, (constant 2 high safety look) it wasn't such a reach that this offense would decline.
Anyone else have a reaction to his assessment?
Not fatman. He told us you cant take anything away from the preseason at all. He said Dak Prescott playing well meant nothing. The giants defense playing well and that the offense sucking meant nothing.
Then they all turned out to be accurate.
Offensively, the roster we brought into Green Bay last week isnt going to win you many games on the road.
At the skill positions we have Beckham, Shepard, potentially Perkins and who else?
Moving forward, you might have Vereen, Tye and King or Lewis at WR who can be useful.
Other than that, we need to bring in big time talent. In my opinion the #23 pick has to be a kid who can come in and make plays right away.
O.J. Howard
McCaffrey
Perhaps another WR
Quote:
Everyone on BBI from day 1 of the pre-season knew O Line was the problem. Fix it.
Not fatman. He told us you cant take anything away from the preseason at all. He said Dak Prescott playing well meant nothing. The giants defense playing well and that the offense sucking meant nothing.
Then they all turned out to be accurate.
That's BS..You can take VERY LITTLE away from pre-season given the constant shuffling of players in and out, no game-planning and so on..It has always been that way..The fact that it happened to mirror some stuff in pre-season is simply coincidence, nothing more..Preseason, aside from obvious benefits as regards some evaluation of personel who are trying to make some kind of impression, mean total squat as a harbinger of what is to come. Period.
Yeah i dont even think you need all those things. Fixing LT, one interior lineman, and a stud TE (Cook?) probably gets us back to where we need to be considering we should still be a strong defense again next season.
3) no viable TE
4) no FB
5) no TE and FB made it impossible to help the OTs in pass pro and to have a consistent running game.
Look around now at the threads discussing what offseason moves should be made. It's all the same: RT, RG, WR, TE.
A year too late on that front.
3) no viable TE
4) no FB
5) no TE and FB made it impossible to help the OTs in pass pro and to have a consistent running game.
This. There is no conspiracy here.
Whatever he meant by mystery or anything else he might say, I would take with a grain of salt..He sees it. The Giants see it..Of course they do. Hopefully they'll bring in the players to bring the O up to where it should be
The line regressed, the running, obviously, regressed.
Eli needs a tall target (Nicks, Plax) especially in the red zone.
Right.
Obj, Sheppard, and Cruz are very capable of finding holes and sitting in them.
Manning is also very good at working through his progressions.
I can count on one hand how many throws Manning was able to step into.
Fix this line, you fix the running game and give Manning more than 1 read and than a check down throw
It doesn't work that way. This ain't Madden where you maintain a rating based on a scale of 1-100 from one year to the next.
We would all be well advised to remember that in a few months if the same laissez-fare attitude is taken by the GM towards the defense in the offseason.
You're either getting better or worse. There is no maintaining.
If he really is serious about his statement. Something like "we are evaluating everything; we are identifying and prioritizing our needs; we are formulating a strategic plan ... etc. etc" .... Is what I was expecting.
McAdoo was a lot more candid, maybe Jerry doesn't want to acknowledge anything for fear of showing his cards, if that's it - I hope that's the case
But then again, this is BBI.
Just because most of the offense is the same as last year, "maintaining" is never good enough, the opponents do get paid too.
They are also in the business of identifying historical weaknesses and trends - and attacking those.
If he really is serious about his statement. Something like "we are evaluating everything; we are identifying and prioritizing our needs; we are formulating a strategic plan ... etc. etc" .... Is what I was expecting.
McAdoo was a lot more candid, maybe Jerry doesn't want to acknowledge anything for fear of showing his cards, if that's it - I hope that's the case
Sorry Manny, McAdoo isn't candid at all save for generalities
Too many times it seemed like, go up by 3 points, defense get's the ball back, time to kill the clock. 3 & out, but hey we took 2 minutes of the clock!
That's BS..You can take VERY LITTLE away from pre-season given the constant shuffling of players in and out, no game-planning and so on..It has always been that way..The fact that it happened to mirror some stuff in pre-season is simply coincidence, nothing more..Preseason, aside from obvious benefits as regards some evaluation of personel who are trying to make some kind of impression, mean total squat as a harbinger of what is to come. Period. [/quote]
That is just flat out wrong. 90% this board could see in preseason how badly this offensive line played, and knew it was a problem going into the season. Then after the first Dallas game, we heard "See!!! The line is really strong!" It turns out the preseason was a much better predictor. To say it was a coincidence that a line that played badly in four preseason games ended up being bad is beyond ludicrous. It's ok to acknowledge that guys that can't block in preseason rarely become stud blockers once they start keeping score.
IMHO, the offense or defense can deal with one major shortcoming (how many even average WRs did Simms have in his career?). Multiple shortcomings are very difficult to overcome.
Given Eli's age and "window", the OL must be a FA and draft priority. That probably means an overpay or two in salary and / or a potential trade for multiple positions on the OL.
I really, really hate drafting for need only and bypassing BPA in rounds 1 and 2 (and maybe 3). If it appears no offensive lineman worthy of the #23 will be available, I'd be OK with a trade up (I usually hate that) as the Giants really need an OL upgrade.
I do agree though if a projected regular season starter is regularly losing one on one match ups against the starters of the other teams, that is a concern that often translates to the regular season. Flower, Cruz are examples.
That's BS..You can take VERY LITTLE away from pre-season given the constant shuffling of players in and out, no game-planning and so on..It has always been that way..The fact that it happened to mirror some stuff in pre-season is simply coincidence, nothing more..Preseason, aside from obvious benefits as regards some evaluation of personel who are trying to make some kind of impression, mean total squat as a harbinger of what is to come. Period.
That is just flat out wrong. 90% this board could see in preseason how badly this offensive line played, and knew it was a problem going into the season. Then after the first Dallas game, we heard "See!!! The line is really strong!" It turns out the preseason was a much better predictor. To say it was a coincidence that a line that played badly in four preseason games ended up being bad is beyond ludicrous. It's ok to acknowledge that guys that can't block in preseason rarely become stud blockers once they start keeping score. [/quote]
Total coincidence in terms of predictability..EVERY PRESEASON people make dire predictions based off of what they see..What exactly did you see? Regulars got 5-10 snaps per game and not rarely as a group..Nassib playing major minutes..Many players who didn't even sniff the practice squad..
You can make ZERO projections based on limited PT and roster evaluations of 500 people shuttling in and out..Nobody "saw" anything. It was a typical reaction to OTAs, minicamps and preseason..It so happens a prediction, based on the usual preseason nothings, proved correct..
That's BS..You can take VERY LITTLE away from pre-season given the constant shuffling of players in and out, no game-planning and so on..It has always been that way..The fact that it happened to mirror some stuff in pre-season is simply coincidence, nothing more..Preseason, aside from obvious benefits as regards some evaluation of personel who are trying to make some kind of impression, mean total squat as a harbinger of what is to come. Period.
That is just flat out wrong. 90% this board could see in preseason how badly this offensive line played, and knew it was a problem going into the season. Then after the first Dallas game, we heard "See!!! The line is really strong!" It turns out the preseason was a much better predictor. To say it was a coincidence that a line that played badly in four preseason games ended up being bad is beyond ludicrous. It's ok to acknowledge that guys that can't block in preseason rarely become stud blockers once they start keeping score. [/quote]
That is just flat out wrong. 90% this board could see in preseason how badly this offensive line played, and knew it was a problem going into the season. Then after the first Dallas game, we heard "See!!! The line is really strong!" It turns out the preseason was a much better predictor. To say it was a coincidence that a line that played badly in four preseason games ended up being bad is beyond ludicrous. It's ok to acknowledge that guys that can't block in preseason rarely become stud blockers once they start keeping score. [/quote]
Total coincidence in terms of predictability..EVERY PRESEASON people make dire predictions based off of what they see..What exactly did you see? Regulars got 5-10 snaps per game and not rarely as a group..Nassib playing major minutes..Many players who didn't even sniff the practice squad..
You can make ZERO projections based on limited PT and roster evaluations of 500 people shuttling in and out..Nobody "saw" anything. It was a typical reaction to OTAs, minicamps and preseason..It so happens a prediction, based on the usual preseason nothings, proved correct..
Total coincidence in terms of predictability..EVERY PRESEASON people make dire predictions based off of what they see..What exactly did you see? Regulars got 5-10 snaps per game and not rarely as a group..Nassib playing major minutes..Many players who didn't even sniff the practice squad..
You can make ZERO projections based on limited PT and roster evaluations of 500 people shuttling in and out..Nobody "saw" anything. It was a typical reaction to OTAs, minicamps and preseason..It so happens a prediction, based on the usual preseason nothings, proved correct..
IMHO, the offense or defense can deal with one major shortcoming (how many even average WRs did Simms have in his career?). Multiple shortcomings are very difficult to overcome.
Given Eli's age and "window", the OL must be a FA and draft priority. That probably means an overpay or two in salary and / or a potential trade for multiple positions on the OL.
I really, really hate drafting for need only and bypassing BPA in rounds 1 and 2 (and maybe 3). If it appears no offensive lineman worthy of the #23 will be available, I'd be OK with a trade up (I usually hate that) as the Giants really need an OL upgrade.
This year was a new one for me: I've never seen such a conservative, unimaginative, poorly designed offense at this level
-What did Eli throw, 25-30 passes en toto during the preseason? What did you see in that, considering Eli has pretty much sucked every pre-season since 2004..
-How much did OBJ and even Shepard play?
-Since you say many saw in preseason what would eventually come to pass, did you also SEE that our D would be so good based on similar snap?
-Did you also see with limited snaps that the O wouldn't at least be the same O as last year with the same OL?
-etc., etc., etc..
1. The schedule got easier. Flowers was healthy. The receiving unit was upgraded.
What remained the same? McAdoo once again called the plays for the offense he installed. TE group: Same main two players. RBs: same performance level, if you liberally insert Perkins for Vereen.
The only time Eli's deficiencies are considered is to mention the alleged contributing factors. In other words, the ass-wipe commentary, absolving him. The offensive line gets pissed on. Is there ever mention that they have to protect a near statue back there? Would they like blocking for Prescott or Wenz?
Of course there are problems that are more design than performance. For instance , the psychotic belief that you can run without a fullback, blocking tight ends and a big wide receiver. But they better look at the Q. It's really important.
1. The schedule got easier. Flowers was healthy. The receiving unit was upgraded.
What remained the same? McAdoo once again called the plays for the offense he installed. TE group: Same main two players. RBs: same performance level, if you liberally insert Perkins for Vereen.
The only time Eli's deficiencies are considered is to mention the alleged contributing factors. In other words, the ass-wipe commentary, absolving him. The offensive line gets pissed on. Is there ever mention that they have to protect a near statue back there? Would they like blocking for Prescott or Wenz?
Of course there are problems that are more design than performance. For instance , the psychotic belief that you can run without a fullback, blocking tight ends and a big wide receiver. But they better look at the Q. It's really important.
Silly post pertaining to Eli..There is nothing wrong with Eli..He is the sme "statue" he's always been
Freaking depressing.
The heyday line - Diehl(6), Seubert(U), O'Hara(FA), Snee(1), Mackenzie(FA) got a LOT more value. Simply put, Accorsi was a hell of a lot better at snagging OL talent than Reese has been.
Still, a freaking 5th rounder was our starting LT. We're getting nowhere near that value with our drafts.
Quote:
said last week that Eli was playing the back 9. Has he considered that Manning might be at the 19th Hole, instead? It is ridiculous how the deteriorating play of the QB is immune to discussion about the offense's regression. What changed from '15 to '16?
1. The schedule got easier. Flowers was healthy. The receiving unit was upgraded.
What remained the same? McAdoo once again called the plays for the offense he installed. TE group: Same main two players. RBs: same performance level, if you liberally insert Perkins for Vereen.
The only time Eli's deficiencies are considered is to mention the alleged contributing factors. In other words, the ass-wipe commentary, absolving him. The offensive line gets pissed on. Is there ever mention that they have to protect a near statue back there? Would they like blocking for Prescott or Wenz?
Of course there are problems that are more design than performance. For instance , the psychotic belief that you can run without a fullback, blocking tight ends and a big wide receiver. But they better look at the Q. It's really important.
Silly post pertaining to Eli..There is nothing wrong with Eli..He is the sme "statue" he's always been
Still, a freaking 5th rounder was our starting LT. We're getting nowhere near that value with our drafts.
And Snee was a 2nd rounder. But your point is valid
Quote:
In comment 13329814 RetroJint said:
Quote:
said last week that Eli was playing the back 9. Has he considered that Manning might be at the 19th Hole, instead? It is ridiculous how the deteriorating play of the QB is immune to discussion about the offense's regression. What changed from '15 to '16?
1. The schedule got easier. Flowers was healthy. The receiving unit was upgraded.
What remained the same? McAdoo once again called the plays for the offense he installed. TE group: Same main two players. RBs: same performance level, if you liberally insert Perkins for Vereen.
The only time Eli's deficiencies are considered is to mention the alleged contributing factors. In other words, the ass-wipe commentary, absolving him. The offensive line gets pissed on. Is there ever mention that they have to protect a near statue back there? Would they like blocking for Prescott or Wenz?
Of course there are problems that are more design than performance. For instance , the psychotic belief that you can run without a fullback, blocking tight ends and a big wide receiver. But they better look at the Q. It's really important.
Silly post pertaining to Eli..There is nothing wrong with Eli..He is the sme "statue" he's always been
Disagree. The stone cold 4th quarter killer that Eli Manning was through 2011 is gone. PTSD from years of lousy OL play the cause. He still clearly has the tools, but the Mojo is gone.
Oh, so it was Eli who dropped those passes in Green Bay!! Eli played VERY well in that game. His team let him down. Especially Beckham.
I think I was thinking ( more like hoping ) for the same thing.....improvement. Instead we saw Will Johnson to IR, Vereen to IR, Cruz show he has lost a step, Tye is what he is, average, and we have some promising young skill players in Shepard, Perkins and Adams.
Our oline needs to be solidified, we still need a real TE and a outside compliment to OBJ.
Thats the mystery.. why did they take such a huge step BACKWARDS when they essentially had the same offense from the year before..
So if thats a mystery, so is his comment.
1. The schedule got easier. Flowers was healthy. The receiving unit was upgraded.
What remained the same? McAdoo once again called the plays for the offense he installed. TE group: Same main two players. RBs: same performance level, if you liberally insert Perkins for Vereen.
The only time Eli's deficiencies are considered is to mention the alleged contributing factors. In other words, the ass-wipe commentary, absolving him. The offensive line gets pissed on. Is there ever mention that they have to protect a near statue back there? Would they like blocking for Prescott or Wenz?
Of course there are problems that are more design than performance. For instance , the psychotic belief that you can run without a fullback, blocking tight ends and a big wide receiver. But they better look at the Q. It's really important.
Eli did not play as well as '15, but you watch the Giant o line as compared to other playoff teams and think the o line is not a problem?
This offense is pillow soft. No power run game to make the defense work. No fear of playaction. No physicality in short yardage. I read from a poster on this site the Giants have 11 rushing TD'S in two seasons. That is fucking pathetic.
This means the Giants offense is big play or bust. Take away the big play via Beckham and you have the Giants beat. The line can tee off on Eli since it is usually third and long and they have not been battered since we start pussies up front.
Eli is getting older, but if he is given some tools and some semblance of a pocket I think he can still do the job.
Give this offense a physical presence. Fix the o line. I watch the Falcons, Packers, Steelers,Chiefs and all seem to have better o line play than the Giants. Giant offensive line is one of the worst in the league and certainly the worst in the division.
Blocking, receiving and running the ball. That should cover the offensive side
The temptation is to want everything fixed, and while that would be great, it's not realistic. The nature of the game is that it's synergistic. A significant improvement at one spot can make others much more effective.
Probably the one greatest improvement would be to obtain (Either FA or the draft.) a really talented, NFL sized TE who can both block and get open and catch. That could improve more different aspects of the offense than any other position. Running, the passing game, giving Eli more confidence.
After that, I'd want bigger quality #1 receiver. That would serve to make both OBJ and Shepard much more effective, loosen up the running game and help calm Eli down.
Lastly, a larger quality RB. No need to think in terms of extremes, just a serviceable RB who can do the little (And bigger.) things needed to make the offense tick.
And before anyone points out that the offensive line needs strengthening, I agree entirely. But it's not necessary to ignore the OL to acquire play makers. You can do both. And a great OL by itself isn't guaranteed to make it an effective unit. In 2015, Dallas had a good OL but didn't do great. In 2016, they added two play makers and went 13-3, and came within a whisker of beating a very good Packer team. It's not one or the other, you can do a little of both.
Reese has consistently undervalued the OL and didn't do anything to start rebuilding it until it was too late - and he's still paying for that mistake. He's also run out of luck on bargain basement TEs. Add the two together, plus the lack of a top echelon RB, and it's no wonder that this team can't run the ball very well, making it largely one dimensional with only one receiver who really scares opponents.
But I was very critical of his refusal to sign a LT and gave Flowers the job.....
Blinder is only explanation
3) no viable TE
4) no FB
5) no TE and FB made it impossible to help the OTs in pass pro and to have a consistent running game.
Agreed.
To continually add UFA TE's to this roster is just mind boggling...we can't find one TE that can block?
I agree, Cruz was a huge gamble, because Reese had nothing to take his place, if the gamble failed....and don't tell me, Lewis and King were ready, they weren't, and they are what they are, potential backups, not starters....
The running game, is basically pathetic, because mainly of the blocking......having no TE or FB to help block, who is the blame for that? As for RB's, Perkins grew as the season progressed, and undoubtedly is penciled in as the starter.....he is the best of what we have, but that is not saying much.....I think he can become a Tiki type back, if he puts his mind to it......but we need a bruiser for short yardage situations.....someone who can "move the pile"......
And as I said before, Lewis/King is not the answer to the 3rd wideout.....and he doesn't have to necessarily be big, but he has to be fast, and get separation......
This team may take a step back this year.....JPP and Hankins may not be here...Robinson may not be here....We need a FS....
Trying to fix the offense and defense, and also providing some sort of depth on both, may not be possible....
You'd think that ditching Randle, Myles White, Preston Parker, Andre Williams and taking Harris out of the 3rd WR role and replacing them with Cruz, Shepard, Perkins, Lewis, King, we would at least be able to maintain.
Reese, is right; it's a mystery.
To continually add UFA TE's to this roster is just mind boggling...we can't find one TE that can block?
I agree, Cruz was a huge gamble, because Reese had nothing to take his place, if the gamble failed....and don't tell me, Lewis and King were ready, they weren't, and they are what they are, potential backups, not starters....
The running game, is basically pathetic, because mainly of the blocking......having no TE or FB to help block, who is the blame for that? As for RB's, Perkins grew as the season progressed, and undoubtedly is penciled in as the starter.....he is the best of what we have, but that is not saying much.....I think he can become a Tiki type back, if he puts his mind to it......but we need a bruiser for short yardage situations.....someone who can "move the pile"......
And as I said before, Lewis/King is not the answer to the 3rd wideout.....and he doesn't have to necessarily be big, but he has to be fast, and get separation......
This team may take a step back this year.....JPP and Hankins may not be here...Robinson may not be here....We need a FS....
Trying to fix the offense and defense, and also providing some sort of depth on both, may not be possible....
So you're saying we should all kill ourseves? Holy shit.
Quote:
2) they did not replace Randle with a guy who had some size. Too many smurfs. Shepard is a better player, but his is small
3) no viable TE
4) no FB
5) no TE and FB made it impossible to help the OTs in pass pro and to have a consistent running game.
Agreed.
Quote:
In comment 13329511 Victor in CT said:
Quote:
2) they did not replace Randle with a guy who had some size. Too many smurfs. Shepard is a better player, but his is small
3) no viable TE
4) no FB
5) no TE and FB made it impossible to help the OTs in pass pro and to have a consistent running game.
Agreed.
3 4 and 5 were also the case last season.
What was Nikita Whitlock then? We had a FB last year. Randle sucks, but defenses still respected his height. Let's bring in a viable #2, and I think the offense takes a significant step.
You'd think that ditching Randle, Myles White, Preston Parker, Andre Williams and taking Harris out of the 3rd WR role and replacing them with Cruz, Shepard, Perkins, Lewis, King, we would at least be able to maintain.
Reese, is right; it's a mystery.
+1
Quote:
In comment 13329924 SirLoinOfBeef said:
Quote:
In comment 13329511 Victor in CT said:
Quote:
2) they did not replace Randle with a guy who had some size. Too many smurfs. Shepard is a better player, but his is small
3) no viable TE
4) no FB
5) no TE and FB made it impossible to help the OTs in pass pro and to have a consistent running game.
Agreed.
3 4 and 5 were also the case last season.
What was Nikita Whitlock then? We had a FB last year. Randle sucks, but defenses still respected his height. Let's bring in a viable #2, and I think the offense takes a significant step.
So a DT converted to JAG FB and a WR so bad he was cut by the Eagles are the reasons for the offensive woes? Really?
To continually add UFA TE's to this roster is just mind boggling...we can't find one TE that can block?
I agree, Cruz was a huge gamble, because Reese had nothing to take his place, if the gamble failed....and don't tell me, Lewis and King were ready, they weren't, and they are what they are, potential backups, not starters....
The running game, is basically pathetic, because mainly of the blocking......having no TE or FB to help block, who is the blame for that? As for RB's, Perkins grew as the season progressed, and undoubtedly is penciled in as the starter.....he is the best of what we have, but that is not saying much.....I think he can become a Tiki type back, if he puts his mind to it......but we need a bruiser for short yardage situations.....someone who can "move the pile"......
And as I said before, Lewis/King is not the answer to the 3rd wideout.....and he doesn't have to necessarily be big, but he has to be fast, and get separation......
This team may take a step back this year.....JPP and Hankins may not be here...Robinson may not be here....We need a FS....
Trying to fix the offense and defense, and also providing some sort of depth on both, may not be possible....
Doom - I respect your posts but I think you are being beyond pessimistic here.
I can guarantee that most teams, if you evaluate by your standards, are in deep trouble.
This will be the second year for the head coach, let's see how he evaluates what he just saw.
Add a WR, TE, and competition on the OL, and this team will be better. Record wise, sure you might not see it because this is the NFL. But they will be better.
Quote:
In comment 13329956 HomerJones45 said:
Quote:
In comment 13329924 SirLoinOfBeef said:
Quote:
In comment 13329511 Victor in CT said:
Quote:
2) they did not replace Randle with a guy who had some size. Too many smurfs. Shepard is a better player, but his is small
3) no viable TE
4) no FB
5) no TE and FB made it impossible to help the OTs in pass pro and to have a consistent running game.
Agreed.
3 4 and 5 were also the case last season.
What was Nikita Whitlock then? We had a FB last year. Randle sucks, but defenses still respected his height. Let's bring in a viable #2, and I think the offense takes a significant step.
So a DT converted to JAG FB and a WR so bad he was cut by the Eagles are the reasons for the offensive woes? Really?
I never claimed he was Moose Johnston, but we had FB on our roster. Maybe not a good one, but still makes a slight difference having one.
Whitlock holds some value agreed. RR, no I can't agree with, but for the sake of argument lets say had some value. Do those two instances of 'some' value add up to the huge drop off in offense? I don't buy it.
If Cruz were getting open, the coaches wouldn't have given a couple hundred of his snaps to Roger Lewis. And persisted in doing so even when Lewis wasn't producing either.
A stat I like for WRs is yards per offensive snap played. From recent history high to low:
OBJ: '14: 1.69
Cruz '11: 1.6
OBJ: '15: 1.45
OBJ: '16: 1.36
Cruz '12: 1.21
Cruz '13: 1.27
Randle '14: 0.98
Randle '15: 0.80
Parker/Cruz '14: 0.78
Cruz '16: 0.77
Shepard '16: 0.68
Harris '15: 0.64
Lewis '16: 0.47
For Cruz 2011, I have to estimate. Others are exact.
Cruz 2016 made some big plays on busted coverages and contested catches. He wasn't a consistent target. Why would Eli "not look for him" as he did in his prime years?
As for Shepard, I want to like him, and I'm very happy when he shows well, but he still has a lot to prove. Per snap is not impressive.
Giants will be fortunate to have a #2 receiver in 2017 who produces as well as 2014 Randle.
Quote:
on offense last year and the O performed much better. That's what confuses me... and I assume that is what Reese meant.
It doesn't work that way. This ain't Madden where you maintain a rating based on a scale of 1-100 from one year to the next.
We would all be well advised to remember that in a few months if the same laissez-fare attitude is taken by the GM towards the defense in the offseason.
You're either getting better or worse. There is no maintaining.
This is why the upcoming draft is so important for the direction of this team. You could add MLB, DE, FS, and CB to the list of needs of an already loaded defense.
Reese needs to make some smart moves in FA and find some playmakers in the draft -- offense and defense.
Mystery!!! - ( New Window )
Thats my take
Now the offensive line is that area. Yes, there are 3 high draft picks (and Hart) on the o-line. But the other guys are free agents and they're depth guys, not big money/proven players. Only the Seahawks are spending less on their o-line and look what a mess that was. Just like with the TEs, Eli/Odell overcame the o-line the past 2 seasons, but couldn't do it again. There is no mystery... the o-line sucked to such a level it couldn't be overcome.
In the next couple games though (NO and Redskins) I think the Offense started getting much more careless in terms of turnovers, dumb penalties and inefficiencies in the redzone. They were still piling up yards but now started to show plenty of flaws. And I wonder if after that the internal mandate was to dial it back somewhat on Offense and start playing more cautious and limited formations.
Then they lost both Jennings and Vereen, and it was obvious for the next few games the O-line couldn't protect Eli very long as nobody was respecting the run and lack of formation variation made it easier to defend OBJ too. And this kept up all season...
First step in fixing the problem is move the LT to the right side of the line or the right side of the bench. Second step is sign a real LT. Third step is whack the current RG and sign a free agent. Fourth step is get a real NFL TE. Fifth step is get a true #2 WR and last, but by no means least, is whack the current starting RB and draft a big back who can handle 20 carries per game.
You catch all of that Jerry?
Quote:
OP,you have it right. O-line,tight end, fullback,and a legit#2 bigger receiver and the Reese's mystery would be solved.
Yeah i dont even think you need all those things. Fixing LT, one interior lineman, and a stud TE (Cook?) probably gets us back to where we need to be considering we should still be a strong defense again next season.
When did Cook become a stud TE? I guess the declining NFL TV ratings are accurate - people truly aren't watching the games.
Cook made an amazing catch, no question. But that makes him a stud TE every bit as much as Manningham or Tyree was a stud WR.
Packer's Fullback, Aaron Ripkowski ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfigndgnPAc
2015 fullback Nikita Whitlock wasn't that good, but Whitlock's 2016 replacement (empty vacuum) is a lot worse.
(Randel vs. Cruz = Wash; 2015 O-line vs 2016 = Wash; 2015 tight ends vs 2016 tight ends = Wash)
2015 Offense vs 2016 Offense; 2015 Offense, 6th best (top 20th percentile), 2016 Offense 25th best (bottom 20th percentile)
Still a mystery, Jerry ?
yup
packers can pass protect that is for sure
Everyone? Not too sure about that. Half of this asylum was telling the rest of us to relax because the pre season offense was just VANILLA
Quote:
Cruz 2016 made some big plays on busted coverages and contested catches. He wasn't a consistent target. Why would Eli "not look for him" as he did in his prime years?
He started off fine (including catching a td in his first game back) and then his targets fell off a cliff. So, what happened?
I would say that you are beginning with a small sample that in itself does not establish anything conclusive. Looking at the year as a whole, Cruz's targets and receptions really fell off after the ankle injury in the Week 9 Eagles game. Perhaps, as one contributing factor, it had some lingering effect.
For the year as a whole, though, I don't see any plausible explanation other than that he wasn't getting consistent separation. His big play in Week 2 that won the game could just as well have been an interception that lost the game. There are only so many times Eli is going to try that with a guy who is not Plaxico. The interception in the Week 14 Dallas game is an example of the bad result that can happen when you throw to someone the defense isn't respecting.
Also note that Cruz got a ton of targets (13) and eight receptions in the Week 16 Eagles game when Eli threw 63 times. But it didn't establish anything. When the Giants' season reached desperation time in Green Bay, it was OBJ returning kickoffs and Tavarres King taking Cruz's spot on the field. If the coaches thought a guy with a handful of career catches gave the Giants a better chance to win, that is a very telling bottom line.
And it was the coaches, n
He wasn't done. He scored a running TD (and could have had another one, if it wasn't for a low throw from Rogers at the Giants five ....
And had 24 yards (including 20 yard gain vs. Dallas.
In case you don't remember him (we need one of those ... The one that's dragging four NY Giants tacklers.
Thats my take
The 2016 line was worse. Injured 2015 Flowers was better than 2016 Flowers, and 2015 Richburg was vastly superior to 2016 Richburg.
It's really not rocket surgery Jerry.
Quote:
Everyone on BBI from day 1 of the pre-season knew O Line was the problem. Fix it.
Everyone? Not too sure about that. Half of this asylum was telling the rest of us to relax because the pre season offense was just VANILLA
And yet, somehow they won 11 games. How shitty that must have been for you.
In case you don't remember him (we need one of those ... The one that's dragging four NY Giants tacklers.
Yes, three posts later we know who you're referring to. And when Eli's mobility forces edge rushers to stay home and contain the way teams are forced to do when facing Rodgers, and when Eli's tackles keep a clean pocket the way Rodgers' do, we can worry about FB.
Whitlock was a nonfactor in 2015, when the offense was leaps and bounds better statistically. It's an interesting wrinkle to have, but it's really not the sort of position that you need to have for the sake of having one. And unless you identify one that can be useful beyond lead blocking, you're better off trying to find an H-back/TE/FB hybrid (like the Giants thought they had with Will Johnson) which is a much better use of the roster spot.
Ripkowski lead blocks very well (yes); runs, catches, AND plays special teams. I don't think the clip shows him pass blocking (but he does that too).
A good fullback is not going to stretch the field like an H-back (20 yards or more), but who cares, Eli should be throwing to better, faster targets.
A good powerful fullback is a great option to have on 1st down, 2nd and short, 3rd and short and 4th and short (and at the goal line). See how many opportunities you're cutting yourself off of ?
I'm NOT arguing that protecting Eli's blind side with a superior left tackle is A-1 priority, what I'm saying is that not having ANY fullback presence is the "fly in the soup" that Mr. Reese apparently doesn't recognize.
Happily, good fullbacks aren't very costly (I think the Packers picked up Ripkowski in the 6th round of the draft). My wish for the Giants is to find someone like the Panthers' Mike Tolbert.
Ripkowski lead blocks very well (yes); runs, catches, AND plays special teams. I don't think the clip shows him pass blocking (but he does that too).
A good fullback is not going to stretch the field like an H-back (20 yards or more), but who cares, Eli should be throwing to better, faster targets.
A good powerful fullback is a great option to have on 1st down, 2nd and short, 3rd and short and 4th and short (and at the goal line). See how many opportunities you're cutting yourself off of ?
I'm NOT arguing that protecting Eli's blind side with a superior left tackle is A-1 priority, what I'm saying is that not having ANY fullback presence is the "fly in the soup" that Mr. Reese apparently doesn't recognize.
Happily, good fullbacks aren't very costly (I think the Packers picked up Ripkowski in the 6th round of the draft). My wish for the Giants is to find someone like the Panthers' Mike Tolbert.
Manny, I've read enough of your posts over the years to know that once you get an idea in your head, you're very difficult to sway. So, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think a dedicated FB is an efficient use of a roster spot within a scheme that doesn't utilize or require one in most standard situations. I think that the multi-purpose role that Will Johnson was supposed to fill is a far better use of limited resources in terms of roster spots.
You also have to remember that while the Packers are notorious for their effective use of the FB, this particular iteration should be contextualized - Green Bay is so depleted at RB that they're using Ripkowski more than they would otherwise.
Beyond that, if you honestly believe that a traditional FB would be a more impactful addition than OL reinforcements (x2), a TE upgrade, a dynamic RB, and a big, physical presence at WR, I'll go back to my original statement - we should agree to disagree.
I think the line was so bad he couldn't get through is progressions and get to him most times.
Quote:
In comment 13329814 RetroJint said:
Quote:
said last week that Eli was playing the back 9. Has he considered that Manning might be at the 19th Hole, instead? It is ridiculous how the deteriorating play of the QB is immune to discussion about the offense's regression. What changed from '15 to '16?
1. The schedule got easier. Flowers was healthy. The receiving unit was upgraded.
What remained the same? McAdoo once again called the plays for the offense he installed. TE group: Same main two players. RBs: same performance level, if you liberally insert Perkins for Vereen.
The only time Eli's deficiencies are considered is to mention the alleged contributing factors. In other words, the ass-wipe commentary, absolving him. The offensive line gets pissed on. Is there ever mention that they have to protect a near statue back there? Would they like blocking for Prescott or Wenz?
Of course there are problems that are more design than performance. For instance , the psychotic belief that you can run without a fullback, blocking tight ends and a big wide receiver. But they better look at the Q. It's really important.
Silly post pertaining to Eli..There is nothing wrong with Eli..He is the sme "statue" he's always been
Disagree. The stone cold 4th quarter killer that Eli Manning was through 2011 is gone. PTSD from years of lousy OL play the cause. He still clearly has the tools, but the Mojo is gone.
Seriously there is an issue with how people are viewing this guy and its year 13 of his career...
Are you even aware that he had what..5? 5 game winning drives? This came while his LT was bad, the HC took his time using the RB who could run for more than 3 ypc and catch balls out of the backfield...no NFL caliber TE's...
Without exaggeration there is a persistent claim that Eli played a diminished game which cost his team, and yet who can say its not true that he had ZERO ability to hide the kind of [play he was running, had no RB who was a threat enugh to even run playaction (how many did we run all season? ) had no TE threat in the redzone or to block....
F that noise man...show me any QB who doesnt "like the tall target or TE". Show me any QB playing games where teams know he is passing but still won games by himself at times. Show me the missed time on the field from this aging player compared to his peers.
All myths. The RB shoud have been starting week 10, not week16. GiveEli a LT, a TE and a RB who MAY get you 5 yards, catch a screen pass or get a 3rd and 1 without issue. Lets see if he is old.
To me, a lot of little things seemed worse. Both Eli & Odell didn't seem as sharp as last year, 2nd/3rd WRs seemed a bit lost, OL play was frankly a lot worse than last year (even from those we though would take a major step up), TEs were terrible (though nothing to write home about last year).
I actually agree w/ Jerry - the offense was a mystery on why it seemed *everyone* seemed to perform worse than last year when we though we made some upgrades.
Quote:
Everyone on BBI from day 1 of the pre-season knew O Line was the problem. Fix it.
Everyone? Not too sure about that. Half of this asylum was telling the rest of us to relax because the pre season offense was just VANILLA
Preseason means squat in terms of forecasting in-season performance..It just turned out that way..Did you ALSO SEE that the D would be be in the top 5(wound up top 2)? No you didn't. Because the same things that go on in the preseason on O (vanilla, very limited snaps, shuffling in and out of 500 players, etc.) also goes on with the D..Blind squirrel/acorn; you and others finally guessed right..End of story
In Green Bay's case they have a very good left tackle David Bakhtiari, excellent tight end (Jared Cook), very good RB (Lacy, with good depth) and a solid corps of receivers (Cobb, Nelson, Adams). Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that they are way better at each of these positions than us.
And, I'm NOT denying the effect of losing will Johnson, in many important ways, his loss to injury sunk the shaky boat, which was our offense; the complete void that existed by not having ANY accompanying presence in the backfield.