Jay Bromley sadly

He's probably the starter right now and frankly I think he played fairly well last year. Didn't see too many plays where I said "damn Bromley just got run over."

Care to expound on your observation?

say that I am hopeful he can still serve in the role the team envisioned for him. I can't statistically evaluate his effectiveness for his plays, but would have thought we'd have seen even more in rotation if the coaches thought he was breaking out. Maybe this is his year.

In comment 13396027 section125 said:

Quote:

He's probably the starter right now and frankly I think he played fairly well last year. Didn't see too many plays where I said "damn Bromley just got run over."

Agreed.

But "hey, he didn't get run over" isn't exactly the best criteria when you're talking about a player expected to compete for a starting role.

Maybe the team is confident with his development. That could be so, but as fans, we have nothing to go on as far as what he does well.

I think in his limited time the last 2 years he played very well. I thought him and Hughes in 15 were playing better than the starters.

Obviously it would be ideal to have Hankins back, but I am not that concerned with Bromley playing next to Snacks.

It would behoove them both to make the most of whatever opportunities come their way this year, as starters, off the bench, whatever.

He is your starting 3 Tech DT.

and this is the thread that I started about the Bromley/Hankins decision.

And fast forwarding to March, and the fact that he's still on the market, it seems that Hankins has overvalued his market and the Giants seem to think the talent around him is what made him the player he was, so they could be just fine with Bromley.
http://corner.bigblueinteractive.com/index.php?mode=2&thread=548373 - ( New Window )

"Best fits as a 4-3 defensive tackle, but could appeal to teams running a hybrid scheme given his potential to be used as a five-technique. Good combination of size and movement skills. Flashes quick get-off and the ability to hold his ground against the run. Can work half a man, get skinny enough to penetrate the gap and closes with some steam when he has a direct bead on the QB. Is active and gives effort in pursuit. Strong tackler when he's able to wrap up ball carriers. Coachable, hardworking."

Sounds like exactly what the Giants need opposite Vernon/JPP and the best run stopping DT in the league. Hopefully it all comes together - I like Bromley as.a rotational player at least. Maybe I am overrating Snacks, but he's so good at what he does I really don't care who the DT is next to him.

He doesn't have to be great - he has to be capable of having the same season Hankins did.

I do think Hankins is capable of more/better, but last year he was OK. Bromley can be OK.

Bigger question is where we'd find another body to plug in on that line. Draft? FA? Both? Pretty sure with everyone due to be a FA next year you need to draft one, but does it end there?

Regardless of what happens with Hankins. And they'll probably draft one before Day 3 is over. Honestly, DT is among the least of my worries with this team.

So my expectations of him have never been particularly high. He's okay in a rotational role, but should not be the starter.

In comment 13396034 ep in md said:

Quote:

say that I am hopeful he can still serve in the role the team envisioned for him. I can't statistically evaluate his effectiveness for his plays, but would have thought we'd have seen even more in rotation if the coaches thought he was breaking out. Maybe this is his year.

I don't think your assessment can be accurate with the small sample size of performance he has shown.

both as a run stuffer and pass blocker. But the difference isn't enough to give Big Hank the big payday he wants. I think the Giants go for a dt early in the draft who plays behind Bromley until he's ready to start.

might at well be with the DT opposite Snacks in between JPP/Vernon

at least 1 DT will be drafted this year.

Jay Bromley happy

In comment 13396078 jeff57 said:

Quote:

So my expectations of him have never been particularly high. He's okay in a rotational role, but should not be the starter.

Looking at players that way never makes sense. You have to judge whether or not you're getting value for that pick, not whether you could have picked the player later on in the draft.

If Bromley fills in for Hankins without much dropoff this season, he'll have justified his draft position.

will be fine.

"Make it so!"

their approach to Snacks this year. Expect more doubles, etc on running plays. This should help even an average DT look better.

Remember, this was Snacks' first year in the NFC.

.

Can be Jay Alford. 15-20 snaps, just on passing downs, to create issues between the A and B gaps with quickness. That's his role and it should not expand.

to gauge how Bromley has been so far...he hasn't played a ton, which tends to indicate he isn't that great or the coaches don't trust him. However, he's generally been behind better players - either higher draft picks, or guys signed to start. So it's possible he really hasn't gotten a chance to show what he can do with more time on the field. He could be a player who breaks out with more time, who's been stuck behind other talented players and just needed a few years/playing time to get it figured out.

Like others have noted, most of us can only say 'well, he hasn't been noticeably good or bad in limited time'...which is not the worst thing for a DT, who tend to fly under the radar stat and big-play wise sometimes, even if they are playing well. But we have no proof either way if he can be an effective starter/significant rotation player. He may get a chance this year.

and haven't shown interest in bringing in a DT is telling to me. Either they like what they have or they have a plan in the draft.

I'm optimistic he'll rise to the challenge

last season, but now, I actually think he can play. Not saying he's gonna be Warren Sapp from now on, but I think he is serviceable.

Do you work out with him? Are you married to his sister?

More alternative facts?

...ummm you realize we haven't signed anyone to replace Hankins. So Bromley is the de facto starter right now. This could change but you might have waited on this thread...

In comment 13396044 Ten Ton Hammer said:

Quote:

But "hey, he didn't get run over" isn't exactly the best criteria when you're talking about a player expected to compete for a starting role. Maybe the team is confident with his development. That could be so, but as fans, we have nothing to go on as far as what he does well.

Geez TTH, give me some credit - it was sarcasm (a BBi staple). My point was Bromley wasn't being shoved all over the field. I could not tell one DT from another except Snacks. The other guys all wear 90s numbers and I really had to look hard at who was in the game as they were pretty equal, except Snacks.
Don't get me wrong, I want Hankins back, but there really was not that big a drop in play when Hankins came out - not enough for $8 to $10 per year.

on Robert Thomas

In comment 13397406 section125 said:

Quote:

In comment 13396044 Ten Ton Hammer said: Quote: But "hey, he didn't get run over" isn't exactly the best criteria when you're talking about a player expected to compete for a starting role. Maybe the team is confident with his development. That could be so, but as fans, we have nothing to go on as far as what he does well. Geez TTH, give me some credit - it was sarcasm (a BBi staple). My point was Bromley wasn't being shoved all over the field. I could not tell one DT from another except Snacks. The other guys all wear 90s numbers and I really had to look hard at who was in the game as they were pretty equal, except Snacks. Don't get me wrong, I want Hankins back, but there really was not that big a drop in play when Hankins came out - not enough for $8 to $10 per year.

lol, sorry. I didn't mean it pointedly. I defended bromley when they picked him. I'm just saying making the jump from very part timer to serious snap counts is something you really can't project based on how little he's done to this point.

In comment 13397426 Ten Ton Hammer said:

Quote:

In comment 13397406 section125 said: Quote: In comment 13396044 Ten Ton Hammer said: Quote: But "hey, he didn't get run over" isn't exactly the best criteria when you're talking about a player expected to compete for a starting role. Maybe the team is confident with his development. That could be so, but as fans, we have nothing to go on as far as what he does well. Geez TTH, give me some credit - it was sarcasm (a BBi staple). My point was Bromley wasn't being shoved all over the field. I could not tell one DT from another except Snacks. The other guys all wear 90s numbers and I really had to look hard at who was in the game as they were pretty equal, except Snacks. Don't get me wrong, I want Hankins back, but there really was not that big a drop in play when Hankins came out - not enough for $8 to $10 per year. lol, sorry. I didn't mean it pointedly. I defended bromley when they picked him. I'm just saying making the jump from very part timer to serious snap counts is something you really can't project based on how little he's done to this point.

I'll agree with that. I'm guessing given two off seasons of weight room, I think he'll do ok.