Jordan Raanan - Giants Trying to Bring Back JPP+JHank+KRob

In comment 13364003 est1986 said:

Quote:

Cutting Veeren and JT plus extending Pugh and trading DRC puts us around 50 m's. Enough to sign JPP Hank and Krob and still have a easy 20+m's. But then our biggest needs are a OL , a CB, a WR.

Not quite. Cutting those guys gets us to about 37.5 in space. You are only saving 4-5m max extending Pugh. So we will be much closer to 40m than 50m in space.

In comment 13363866 DavidinBMNY said:

Quote:

Without changing manning's contract and converting salary to bonus to pay him more salary later. This actually might be the one time they should think about it, not because of the 3 above specifically, but in actuality where Manning is in his career.

Eli shouldnt have taken the contract he did. Easy to say in my shoes but the guy's been rich his entire life. Has never worried about one bill. He's made enough money and comes from enough money where that will be the case. Did he really need another 100 million contract? Not just eli, a lot of these quarterbacks who have made a disgusting amount of money should take half on their last deal to help the organization out.

don't really understand the cap implications of these moves. Giants should have about 35M in space. Vernon, first year cap hit was 13 million. Harrison's first year cap hit was 6.6M. So assuming JPP and Hank get the same deal, the Giants are still 15 million under with the ability to create some space elsewhere. Can't imagine Robinsons cap number being more than 3-4M.

The Giants can still make one major splash on the OL and bolster other areas with the remaining space and flexibility.

Spags always preaches keeping guys together - his scheme is takes time. Will be interesting to see if an ascending defense can take a step up to dominant this year.

Darian Thompson back is like getting an impact free agent. Goodson replacing Sheppard should realize improvement.

And the overall group having another year in the scheme is further gains.

it doesn't appear that some people understand the cap and the implications of these moves. The Giants have plenty of room to sign these 3 and make other moves.

in addition, all you "offensive gurus" and actual lower level coaches may end up witnessing a really, really fun offense draft!

doable. Would leave room for an OL signing as well.

can be structured any number of ways but a reasonable 1st year cap hit for all 3 would be in the $19M range....IMO

folks try and do the math when figuring out the cap. Don't even bother with it. Teams can always make the room either with signing bonus, restructures, etc.

In comment 13363866 DavidinBMNY said:

Quote:

Without changing manning's contract and converting salary to bonus to pay him more salary later. This actually might be the one time they should think about it, not because of the 3 above specifically, but in actuality where Manning is in his career.

Why? Signing OV, Jackrabbit, Snacks, Robinson, Hall, Rainey, Sheppard and Sensabaugh cost us 34 million last year.

Hankins & JPP aren't getting OV & Jackrabbit money. We can sign all 3 of them and have plenty of money to sign free agents.

signees, its time to draft great ones at this point.

a very good, and young OL prior-to Mannings retirement. Not during or after. The only route to that is the draft.

Then you draft a QB once that is achieved.

In comment 13364021 area junc said:

Quote:

Spags always preaches keeping guys together...

Unlike most other DCs, who prefer that their personnel is constantly changing, I suppose.

In comment 13364055 idiotsavant said:

Quote:

signees, its time to draft great ones at this point.

It's a good thing the great ones come with signs on their backs letting you know that they truly are great.

Am I going to have a yapping pug dog snapping at my heels now?

Lovely.

In comment 13364079 idiotsavant said:

Quote:

Am I going to have a yapping pug dog snapping at my heels now? Lovely.

Just wondering when you'll give us another insightful mock draft that looks like this:

1. G
2. G
3. TE
4. TE
5. WR
6. WR
7. RB

but why stop at the OL? From here on out, let's dedicate ourselves to drafting only great players at every position.

Next up, getting JPP to play for vet minimum.

In comment 13364059 idiotsavant said:

Quote:

a very good, and young OL prior-to Mannings retirement. Not during or after.

Got it. Send Jerry a letter, I'm sure your request will hit home for him.

You do understand that you have to pay other people on the team right? You'd be the guy bitching and moaning about the DL if the OL was perfect.

actually still hilarious that people think that having an awesome OL means every team will be good. Our OL was near below average in 2011. We won the Super Bowl.

Our passblocking was very good and our run blocking was bad. They picked it up in the playoffs and that's why we won. This OL couldn't sniff that OL.

we can sign all three, and have money left over for the offense, and of course, draft 7 great players....it just doesn't work out that way...in most cases, it's a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul.....

I think the Giants are hesitant, to sign Pugh long term, because of injury problems....

I don't think they can afford both Hankins and JPP....both are going for there first big multi year contracts, and will not be cheap, especially if when FAcy starts, a couple of GM's start overpaying players....

As for the draft, we will be lucky to get one starter from it, picking in the 23rd position...

But, I don't know how Reese can just let this offense go on with marginal players, and expect better results from Eli....

Reese is fixing the offense AND the defense again(because of our own FA's)....there is also the matter of another CB, LB, and FS needs...

If he doesn't get the right guys, and doesn't get lucky in the draft, it could be matter of 2 steps forward, and one step back, for this team in the upcoming season....

In comment 13364139 Keith said:

Quote:

Our passblocking was very good and our run blocking was bad. They picked it up in the playoffs and that's why we won. This OL couldn't sniff that OL.

Keith...Eli was running for his life at times that year, and got absolutely destroyed throw after throw against the Niners in the playoffs. That OL was not good.

cherry picking stats but that OL gave up 28 sacks.

was on its last legs. None of them were playing at a particularly high level.

In comment 13364130 ryanmkeane said:

Quote:

actually still hilarious that people think that having an awesome OL means every team will be good. Our OL was near below average in 2011. We won the Super Bowl.

That offensive line was still better than this one.

Which should tell you how bad this line is.

Beatty/Diehl > Flowers
Diehl/Boothe = Pugh (Even if you favor Pugh, its not by much)
Baas < Richburg
Snee >>>> Jerry
McKenzie > Hart/Newhouse

what's the point...both the 2011 and 2016 OL were basically average? I don't get it. We need to upgrade some positions on the OL, I think everyone is in agreement.

That being said, you can't ignore the 17 other positions on the team.

In comment 13364059 idiotsavant said:

Quote:

a very good, and young OL prior-to Mannings retirement. Not during or after. The only route to that is the draft. Then you draft a QB once that is achieved.

Agree 10,00000 percent

All five starters didn't get to play together, all being healthy, till very late in the season and into the playoffs.

So when people point to how poor the O-Line was in 2011, I think they forget that aspect that majority of the regular season, we didn't have all 5 healthy at the same time.

When we did, then we got on a roll and their level of play was elevated with a healthy O-Line in the playoffs.

Argue injuries or whatnot but it wasn't a good line. Awful run unit and mediocre pass blocking. 2011 happened on Eli's arm.

All I can say is:
.
.
.

but wonder why some other guys have not been announced cuts to fatten the available pot.
I know lots of numbers have been thrown out as to what is available, or will be if...., but are those numbers before or after the 6M for draft picks and about 3M for injury settlements? That reserve alone is one pretty good player.

''RE: oh, my god
Klaatu : 10:15 am : link : reply

In comment 13364079 idiotsavant said:

Quote:
Am I going to have a yapping pug dog snapping at my heels now?

Lovely.


Just wondering when you'll give us another insightful mock draft that looks like this:

1. G
2. G
3. TE
4. TE
5. WR
6. WR
7. RB''

Hehe, very lacking in detail to say the least on that one, hehehe. Still laughing here right now.

That said, you did 'instruct and correct' me for pasting in TOO MUCH information and opinion in another thread, a combine related thread, just yesterday, so there is that. I had been minding my own business.

But, that said again, I did laugh at myself on that one above, brief would be an understatement. Then, that said x3, if we do it, we will probably win more next year.

no offense but if the solution were to just "draft great players" at every position especially OL, every team would be a dynasty. The draft isn't exact science. We could take 3 OL in the first three rounds and they could all suck. This is why you never put too much stock at one position in the draft.

Reese has tried to rebuild the OL over the past few years a few steps at a time with decent success. It's certainly not the shit show it was in 2013 and 2014, but it still needs work. We'll get there.

but, and I do feel you and Klaatu, I do:

I mean, he may come here because he is comforted by the predictability and banality of the usual discourse, and the assumption that he is a man among boys when it comes to football drafting acumen. Which is all just fine.

However, he may have been discomforted to a certain degree when I DID post more data and opinion, in a different thread, because, at that time, rather than engaging in discourse about the prospects, he resorted to playing Hall Monitor, saying, in short, 'that is not allowed.'

If you look back, if anything, I have posted TOO much data and specifics this time of year, and have never been short on opinions.

The total number of combine participants is only 330 or so this year.

Yet from the NCAA:

Estimated probability of competing in professional football

NCAA Participants (A)
Approximate # Draft Eligible (B)
# Draft Slots (C)
# NCAA Drafted
% NCAA to Major Pro* %
NCAA to Total Pro^
(A)72,788
(B)16,175 (draft eligible!)
(C)256
256
1.6%
1.9%

Yet there are (46?) regional combines.

So, obviously if pro scouts were just or mainly looking to the combine, they are / would be letting the NFL select players for them to a certain degree, which would seem to fly in the face of the numbers.

Therefor blabbing away about top prospects ad infinitum would seem silly.

understood, just saying that i think we can all agree we'd like every player the Giants draft to be great. It is not, however, realistic in any way shape or form.

down the road. The more I think about it.....It will be either JPP or Hankins...not both.

That would be great but I'll take 2 out of three and be satisfied. JPP would be my priority and I'd sign, tag or trade him before all is said and done.

Then frankly I wouldn't care which of the other two guys we inked. We do well with DT's in the draft and free agency(which has a very strong group this year) so I'm confident we can find a worthy partner for Snacks. LB on the other hand has been a problem for a loooong time. I'd rather not take a step back after we finally made some progress there with competent play as a whole.

keep the D together. Keep Hank, JPP and Krob here especially if all three guys want to stay here, and why wouldn't they. You don't even know if you can sign some other team's FA over the next few months. Everyone just says sign this guy sign that guy and says there's plenty of cap room do it. The cap is obviously a factor but I honestly think it takes a backseat to other elements, mainly the player wanting to be here and the Giants wanting that player.

The whole FA thing is fluid and predicated on so many variables, cap room is one of them but it's hardly the only one. I firmly believe that.

Keep this D together if you can do so. If these three NYG FAs want to chance things and shop around for the biggest offer there's only so much the Giants should do, but they should definitely offer these guys legit deals. Nothing crazy but fair. If they leave so be it...at least the Giants tried. I would think all three guys stay as long as the Giants offer fair value.

In comment 13364013 Keith said:

Quote:

In comment 13364003 est1986 said: Quote: Cutting Veeren and JT plus extending Pugh and trading DRC puts us around 50 m's. Enough to sign JPP Hank and Krob and still have a easy 20+m's. But then our biggest needs are a OL , a CB, a WR. Not quite. Cutting those guys gets us to about 37.5 in space. You are only saving 4-5m max extending Pugh. So we will be much closer to 40m than 50m in space.

3 mil from JT, 3 mil from Veeren, 5 mil from DRC that's 11 mil on top of 34 mil plus Pugh's extension.. I think that's closer to 50 than 40 but we will see..

didn't see DRC.

...that much is obvious. But what are the odds we can get all three of them signed to manageable cap numbers? And to do so while maintaining enough financial resources to address the other side of the ball. You know, the one that struggled all year.

In comment 13364549 Keith said:

Quote:

didn't see DRC.

Point is, I agree with you that we should be able to retain the three and still have 'plenty' to make another splash or two.

they had big money tied up all over the place. The Giants had big bucks invested along the entire OL, RB (2), QB and one WR. They had even bigger bucks invested along the DL, MLB and secondary.

Think to now. No one on the OL is making any money. Pugh and Richburg will soon. Maybe Flowers will if he improves. Who else? No one. And Pugh and Burg aren't even making that much yet. TE? No one. WR? No one but Beckum will soon. RB? Not really. Vereen makes a bit but no one else.

The Giants have plenty of money to spend. Spend it on the known commodities and worry about other FAs when the time comes. You don't even know if any of the so called FAs of need out there are even on the Giants radar or vice versa.

The Giants rebooted this thing in 2014 for this exact reason. They drafted well, now it's time to reap the rewards and build some continuity. They'd be nuts not to make fair market value offers to these guys. Other teams should have to exceed those offers to land them. Hopefully logic prevails and they stay.

..

'They drafted well, now it's time to reap the rewards and build some continuity.'

Take Flowers for instance, that pick is looking troublesome, to say the least.

We're in the market right now for Reuben '2nd Rounder' Randle's replacement. Great pick.

Oh where, o where is the JPP of Tight Ends when you need him. Oh yeah another 3rd rounder on the scrap heap.

I find this one stunning, noone from the 2011 and 2012 combined drafts, that's right all 15 picks, both entire drafts was on the Giants roster this past season.

I'd hate to see poor drafting if that was good. Factor in the potential Flowers miss with a Top Ten selection and the offensive talent evaluation comes into serious question. Which is where free agency comes into play.

It's doubtful we can find solutions to all these offensive problems in one draft.

gets extended, they aren't going to want him hitting the cap that hard this year.

JT may get cut, but all this talk of Vereen getting cut makes no sense. He showed he can make a contribution. He got hurt, he will stick around another at least.

Every year there is a guy that inexplicably gets talked up as a cut, usually a guy that got injured. This year's guy is Vereen.

Is that he's a $5m cap hit and lost a season from a bicep injury he could not heal from. I don't think it's rash to question his place on the roster. I don't know if it's even sensical to cut him financially, but it's certainly frustrating to have slotted that money and gotten nothing with it.

It would be nice to have 40m in cap space rather than 35.

but it looked like Vereen got dinged in the cabeza.

Its a thing in football, RBs sometimes have to retire.

then, really its not about money, nor about giving the player a chance, sometimes its best for them that they not play the game. This team has been great about its people, and will be for Vereen in any case.

look, they probably rehabbed Cruz for a damn long time, that is about helping Cruz be healthy as much as anything else.

for RB's especially, be safe.