who often doesn't perform as well once he moves away from a coach the caliber of Little Bill.
He was a good player before he got to New England. Averaged 4.1 YPC with Pittsburgh. Averaged 4.55 YPC with the Bucs. He probably would have a much smaller role in New York than he did in New England.
people are talking about him being a nice complimentary player in our RB rotation. In that case, his price needs to be complimentary as well, otherwise his cost may affect the overall asset status. the value ratio is valid.
people are talking about him being a nice complimentary player in our RB rotation. In that case, his price needs to be complimentary as well, otherwise his cost may affect the overall asset status. the value ratio is valid.
You went too deep on my simple point..Asset as in complementary, short yardage, 5-10 carry back, nothing more..I thought that was implicit. Nothing to do with how much pr how little he's paid
with the draft board starting to settle out a little bit. It doesn't look like McCaffrey or Fournette will be there at 23, Cook and Mixon SHOULD be off the draft board, there might be solid value later in the draft but probably not a Week 1, everydown back.
is a lot, especially coming from the Pats. Maybe there is a place for him here. I would still look to drafting a solid young back who could make Vereen expendable.
I'd guess the Giants are keeping their options open
"locker room guy" didnt he walk out on his team when on the Steelers? Didnt he deck someone on the field in college?
Meanwhile we had 100+ post threads about BMarshall being a headcase and a problem child. You dudes are funny as hell sometimes.
Its a cost thing. He's likely pretty cheap which offsets a lot of worry the team may have. Marshall is going to be a focal point of the offense and we payed him as such; his road to getting help off the field is well documented anyway.
and his reaction was that Blount broke down as the season went on and was not the same runner. His stats bear this out somewhat. He cracked 4 yards per in Week 14 and then not again in the regular season or the postseason. Whether a limited role would keep him fresh remains to be seen, but even if our line is healthy I'm not sure he's going to have the same short yardage success in blue.
Jennings tried to be a finesse player with us and that just didn't work. Perkins hit holes Jennings couldn't physically get to, it was like night and day.
Blount, if he comes here, I would imagine will be as a short yardage bruiser/goal line back and to occasionally spell Perkins.
and his reaction was that Blount broke down as the season went on and was not the same runner. His stats bear this out somewhat. He cracked 4 yards per in Week 14 and then not again in the regular season or the postseason. Whether a limited role would keep him fresh remains to be seen, but even if our line is healthy I'm not sure he's going to have the same short yardage success in blue.
That happens a lot though, 300 carries with a lot of goal line work is draining for anyone so I can see him fading out. I wouldn't give him anymore than 80/90 carries for the season barring injury to someone else.
he scored a bunch of TDs last season but there's basically nothing in that stat that tells you anything about what he's going to do in the future. He's never even gotten half that many in any other season. Give me a younger guy that's going to contribute on special teams. There's already one "old" RB on the roster.
I'd rather see them draft another good young RB instead of giving carries to a guy who is heading towards his final years and would be behind an average at best OL here. But I guess they really could use a big bruiser back there to go with Perkins and Vereen. You have to think the cost is pretty low too if Peterson only got 3 million per year. If that number was right about his contract.
We'd all like another good, young RB.. bur resources are finite. We only have so many picks and although we're in pretty good shape, we do still have a lot of needs.
Sometimes you have to plug holes where you can. Blount would certainly be more effective than Jennings.
Blount would certainly be more effective than Jennings.
you sure about that? He could also fall off a cliff this season and be out of the league this time next year. Put this guy behind our mediocre line and he might be out of the league by November. I just feel like you're more likely to get a guy who's cooked than get meaningful production when you're dealing with old RBs. We've seen this before (Drougns, Levens, Hillis, Cloud).
Blount would certainly be more effective than Jennings.
you sure about that? He could also fall off a cliff this season and be out of the league this time next year. Put this guy behind our mediocre line and he might be out of the league by November. I just feel like you're more likely to get a guy who's cooked than get meaningful production when you're dealing with old RBs. We've seen this before (Drougns, Levens, Hillis, Cloud).
I'm fairly certain, yes.
Rashad Jennings was absolutely awful last year.
Blount isn't a star RB, but he's a tough runner who scored 18 times and rushed for over 1000 yards. A shade under 4 YPC isn't what you really want to see, but the bar Jennings set last year was quite low.
We won't need to lean on Blount as heavily as NE did. We aren't going to ask him to tote the rock 300 times.
I don't think guys like Dorsey Levens, who were about 3 years removed from their last productive NFL season when they got here, are apt comparisons here.
and his reaction was that Blount broke down as the season went on and was not the same runner. His stats bear this out somewhat. He cracked 4 yards per in Week 14 and then not again in the regular season or the postseason. Whether a limited role would keep him fresh remains to be seen, but even if our line is healthy I'm not sure he's going to have the same short yardage success in blue.
His big games were also against Mia, Pitt, Hou, and SF. Not exactly the greatest defenses.
and his reaction was that Blount broke down as the season went on and was not the same runner. His stats bear this out somewhat. He cracked 4 yards per in Week 14 and then not again in the regular season or the postseason. Whether a limited role would keep him fresh remains to be seen, but even if our line is healthy I'm not sure he's going to have the same short yardage success in blue.
His big games were also against Mia, Pitt, Hou, and SF. Not exactly the greatest defenses.
Blount would certainly be more effective than Jennings.
you sure about that? He could also fall off a cliff this season and be out of the league this time next year. Put this guy behind our mediocre line and he might be out of the league by November. I just feel like you're more likely to get a guy who's cooked than get meaningful production when you're dealing with old RBs. We've seen this before (Drougns, Levens, Hillis, Cloud).
I'm fairly certain, yes.
Rashad Jennings was absolutely awful last year.
Blount isn't a star RB, but he's a tough runner who scored 18 times and rushed for over 1000 yards. A shade under 4 YPC isn't what you really want to see, but the bar Jennings set last year was quite low.
We won't need to lean on Blount as heavily as NE did. We aren't going to ask him to tote the rock 300 times.
I don't think guys like Dorsey Levens, who were about 3 years removed from their last productive NFL season when they got here, are apt comparisons here.
his TDs last year are meaningless when predicting what he's going to do going forward. And the total is a huge outlier compared to what he's done previously. The dropoff for Blount is coming...it's a question of when, not if. And I'd rather not be the team that finds out when. I'd also have big concerns about plucking what was essentially a role player from one of the best offenses in football. I'm thinking he didn't face a lot of fronts geared up to stop him (excluding short yardage situations obviously).
Blount would certainly be more effective than Jennings.
you sure about that? He could also fall off a cliff this season and be out of the league this time next year. Put this guy behind our mediocre line and he might be out of the league by November. I just feel like you're more likely to get a guy who's cooked than get meaningful production when you're dealing with old RBs. We've seen this before (Drougns, Levens, Hillis, Cloud).
I'm fairly certain, yes.
Rashad Jennings was absolutely awful last year.
Blount isn't a star RB, but he's a tough runner who scored 18 times and rushed for over 1000 yards. A shade under 4 YPC isn't what you really want to see, but the bar Jennings set last year was quite low.
We won't need to lean on Blount as heavily as NE did. We aren't going to ask him to tote the rock 300 times.
I don't think guys like Dorsey Levens, who were about 3 years removed from their last productive NFL season when they got here, are apt comparisons here.
his TDs last year are meaningless when predicting what he's going to do going forward. And the total is a huge outlier compared to what he's done previously. The dropoff for Blount is coming...it's a question of when, not if. And I'd rather not be the team that finds out when. I'd also have big concerns about plucking what was essentially a role player from one of the best offenses in football. I'm thinking he didn't face a lot of fronts geared up to stop him (excluding short yardage situations obviously).
How much do you think Blount is getting paid here?
This is going to be a relatively small, short-term deal. This isn't going to require a major investment. We're talking about a complimentary RB.
No, he's almost certainly not going to score 18 TD's again - but the point is, he's a good short yardage guy and a tough inside runner. Which is something this offense needs right now. I don't think signing LeGarrete Blount is going to be at all prohibitive to NYG's flexibility moving forward if they chose to do so.
We only have so many draft picks and we still have quite a bit of needs. Look at the available FA RB's right now. The options aren't exactly plentiful.
and his reaction was that Blount broke down as the season went on and was not the same runner. His stats bear this out somewhat. He cracked 4 yards per in Week 14 and then not again in the regular season or the postseason. Whether a limited role would keep him fresh remains to be seen, but even if our line is healthy I'm not sure he's going to have the same short yardage success in blue.
His big games were also against Mia, Pitt, Hou, and SF. Not exactly the greatest defenses.
Houston was the #1 defense in the NFL last season (#12 against the run) and Pitt was #12 overall (#13 against the run). NFL Total Def - ( New Window )
Personally I would prefer a Elijah Hood in the 6th, but you also have Samje, Cooner, Foreman, Hill, etc. lots of power runners this year. Cheaper, younger, more control, less issues.
since there is no guarantee any of our RB targets will be had in the round we want them. There really are no guarantees with the draft no matter how deep a position might be. That said, i'm guessing there's a few teams like us keeping tabs on Blount in case they come out of the draft without his style of RB so I can see someone jumping on him before Thursday.
since there is no guarantee any of our RB targets will be had in the round we want them. There really are no guarantees with the draft no matter how deep a position might be. That said, i'm guessing there's a few teams like us keeping tabs on Blount in case they come out of the draft without his style of RB so I can see someone jumping on him before Thursday.
I differ here. I'd sign him now to a 1 year deal, BEFORE other teams pursue him after the draft. I would draft a RB whether Blount is signed or not, so I don't see a downside to snapping him up before his services MIGHT become a necessity to a bunch of teams post-draft..
I would draft a RB whether Blount is signed or not, so I don't see a downside to snapping him up before his services MIGHT become a necessity to a bunch of teams post-draft..
The downside is whatever guaranteed money he receives and its impact on next year's compensation picks.
I'm against adding Blount. I would be concerned about his level of motivation. We saw what happened in Pittsburgh. He's won his Super Bowls and I'd worry that it's now all about the money for him. And on top of that, he could fuck up the Giants chances for a good comp pick in next year's draft. He's not worth it. Not in my opinion, but it's not like I'm an expert on Blount (if you want to talk blunts that's a different story).
really his career only stabilized when he went to New England. Left and had problems, came back and flourished.
The Giants definitely need to add talent to the RB spot. Blount would certainly represent an upgrade. Hopefully they can work something out and Blount brings his A game on and off the field. It could be a steal.
who often doesn't perform as well once he moves away from a coach the caliber of Little Bill.
Didn't he feel misled by Pittsburgh on his role after he signed?
.
Not quite, him, Bell and a woman were caught with reefer madness driving to an airport, bus, whatever.
IRC that it was for a preseason game against the
'beloved' Iggles...
It wasn't long after that, that the Steelers said adios to Blount for his blunt(s),
and possible influence on Bell.
Blount had at least a two year deal at the time as well.
Since Bell has been suspended a couple times,
guess that theory hasn't worked that well.
The downside is whatever guaranteed money he receives and its impact on next year's compensation picks.
I'm against adding Blount. I would be concerned about his level of motivation. We saw what happened in Pittsburgh. He's won his Super Bowls and I'd worry that it's now all about the money for him. And on top of that, he could fuck up the Giants chances for a good comp pick in next year's draft. He's not worth it. Not in my opinion, but it's not like I'm an expert on Blount (if you want to talk blunts that's a different story).
Not sure you know how the comp system works. Blount isn't getting big money, guaranteed or non-guaranteed and thus has no chance of offsetting Hankins' deal in the comp pick formula, which is really the only FA loss that would net us a 'good' comp pick.
Besides, we've only lost 4 players that signed elsewhere: Hankins, Gould, Newhouse, Sensabaugh. Hankins should net us a comp pick since we haven't signed anyone close to that level, but the other 3 would be 7th rd comp picks at best and could be offset by Ellison, Geno, Draughn, and Blake anyway.
He was a good player before he got to New England. Averaged 4.1 YPC with Pittsburgh. Averaged 4.55 YPC with the Bucs. He probably would have a much smaller role in New York than he did in New England.
people are talking about him being a nice complimentary player in our RB rotation. In that case, his price needs to be complimentary as well, otherwise his cost may affect the overall asset status. the value ratio is valid.
Didn't he feel misled by Pittsburgh on his role after he signed?
people are talking about him being a nice complimentary player in our RB rotation. In that case, his price needs to be complimentary as well, otherwise his cost may affect the overall asset status. the value ratio is valid.
You went too deep on my simple point..Asset as in complementary, short yardage, 5-10 carry back, nothing more..I thought that was implicit. Nothing to do with how much pr how little he's paid
Meanwhile we had 100+ post threads about BMarshall being a headcase and a problem child. You dudes are funny as hell sometimes.
Meanwhile we had 100+ post threads about BMarshall being a headcase and a problem child. You dudes are funny as hell sometimes.
Its a cost thing. He's likely pretty cheap which offsets a lot of worry the team may have. Marshall is going to be a focal point of the offense and we payed him as such; his road to getting help off the field is well documented anyway.
Complements Vereen and Perkins perfectly. Doesn't make RB a huge need in the draft (as much of one, at least)
Blount, if he comes here, I would imagine will be as a short yardage bruiser/goal line back and to occasionally spell Perkins.
That happens a lot though, 300 carries with a lot of goal line work is draining for anyone so I can see him fading out. I wouldn't give him anymore than 80/90 carries for the season barring injury to someone else.
Sometimes you have to plug holes where you can. Blount would certainly be more effective than Jennings.
you sure about that? He could also fall off a cliff this season and be out of the league this time next year. Put this guy behind our mediocre line and he might be out of the league by November. I just feel like you're more likely to get a guy who's cooked than get meaningful production when you're dealing with old RBs. We've seen this before (Drougns, Levens, Hillis, Cloud).
Quote:
Blount would certainly be more effective than Jennings.
you sure about that? He could also fall off a cliff this season and be out of the league this time next year. Put this guy behind our mediocre line and he might be out of the league by November. I just feel like you're more likely to get a guy who's cooked than get meaningful production when you're dealing with old RBs. We've seen this before (Drougns, Levens, Hillis, Cloud).
I'm fairly certain, yes.
Rashad Jennings was absolutely awful last year.
Blount isn't a star RB, but he's a tough runner who scored 18 times and rushed for over 1000 yards. A shade under 4 YPC isn't what you really want to see, but the bar Jennings set last year was quite low.
We won't need to lean on Blount as heavily as NE did. We aren't going to ask him to tote the rock 300 times.
I don't think guys like Dorsey Levens, who were about 3 years removed from their last productive NFL season when they got here, are apt comparisons here.
His big games were also against Mia, Pitt, Hou, and SF. Not exactly the greatest defenses.
Quote:
and his reaction was that Blount broke down as the season went on and was not the same runner. His stats bear this out somewhat. He cracked 4 yards per in Week 14 and then not again in the regular season or the postseason. Whether a limited role would keep him fresh remains to be seen, but even if our line is healthy I'm not sure he's going to have the same short yardage success in blue.
His big games were also against Mia, Pitt, Hou, and SF. Not exactly the greatest defenses.
Except for Hou that is.
Quote:
In comment 13441274 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
Blount would certainly be more effective than Jennings.
you sure about that? He could also fall off a cliff this season and be out of the league this time next year. Put this guy behind our mediocre line and he might be out of the league by November. I just feel like you're more likely to get a guy who's cooked than get meaningful production when you're dealing with old RBs. We've seen this before (Drougns, Levens, Hillis, Cloud).
I'm fairly certain, yes.
Rashad Jennings was absolutely awful last year.
Blount isn't a star RB, but he's a tough runner who scored 18 times and rushed for over 1000 yards. A shade under 4 YPC isn't what you really want to see, but the bar Jennings set last year was quite low.
We won't need to lean on Blount as heavily as NE did. We aren't going to ask him to tote the rock 300 times.
I don't think guys like Dorsey Levens, who were about 3 years removed from their last productive NFL season when they got here, are apt comparisons here.
his TDs last year are meaningless when predicting what he's going to do going forward. And the total is a huge outlier compared to what he's done previously. The dropoff for Blount is coming...it's a question of when, not if. And I'd rather not be the team that finds out when. I'd also have big concerns about plucking what was essentially a role player from one of the best offenses in football. I'm thinking he didn't face a lot of fronts geared up to stop him (excluding short yardage situations obviously).
Quote:
In comment 13441281 Enzo said:
Quote:
In comment 13441274 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
Blount would certainly be more effective than Jennings.
you sure about that? He could also fall off a cliff this season and be out of the league this time next year. Put this guy behind our mediocre line and he might be out of the league by November. I just feel like you're more likely to get a guy who's cooked than get meaningful production when you're dealing with old RBs. We've seen this before (Drougns, Levens, Hillis, Cloud).
I'm fairly certain, yes.
Rashad Jennings was absolutely awful last year.
Blount isn't a star RB, but he's a tough runner who scored 18 times and rushed for over 1000 yards. A shade under 4 YPC isn't what you really want to see, but the bar Jennings set last year was quite low.
We won't need to lean on Blount as heavily as NE did. We aren't going to ask him to tote the rock 300 times.
I don't think guys like Dorsey Levens, who were about 3 years removed from their last productive NFL season when they got here, are apt comparisons here.
his TDs last year are meaningless when predicting what he's going to do going forward. And the total is a huge outlier compared to what he's done previously. The dropoff for Blount is coming...it's a question of when, not if. And I'd rather not be the team that finds out when. I'd also have big concerns about plucking what was essentially a role player from one of the best offenses in football. I'm thinking he didn't face a lot of fronts geared up to stop him (excluding short yardage situations obviously).
How much do you think Blount is getting paid here?
This is going to be a relatively small, short-term deal. This isn't going to require a major investment. We're talking about a complimentary RB.
No, he's almost certainly not going to score 18 TD's again - but the point is, he's a good short yardage guy and a tough inside runner. Which is something this offense needs right now. I don't think signing LeGarrete Blount is going to be at all prohibitive to NYG's flexibility moving forward if they chose to do so.
We only have so many draft picks and we still have quite a bit of needs. Look at the available FA RB's right now. The options aren't exactly plentiful.
Quote:
and his reaction was that Blount broke down as the season went on and was not the same runner. His stats bear this out somewhat. He cracked 4 yards per in Week 14 and then not again in the regular season or the postseason. Whether a limited role would keep him fresh remains to be seen, but even if our line is healthy I'm not sure he's going to have the same short yardage success in blue.
His big games were also against Mia, Pitt, Hou, and SF. Not exactly the greatest defenses.
Houston was the #1 defense in the NFL last season (#12 against the run) and Pitt was #12 overall (#13 against the run).
NFL Total Def - ( New Window )
Legarrette Blunt to the Giants??? 🤔🤔🤔🤔 this could be great.
I differ here. I'd sign him now to a 1 year deal, BEFORE other teams pursue him after the draft. I would draft a RB whether Blount is signed or not, so I don't see a downside to snapping him up before his services MIGHT become a necessity to a bunch of teams post-draft..
but, that's only me!
I'm against adding Blount. I would be concerned about his level of motivation. We saw what happened in Pittsburgh. He's won his Super Bowls and I'd worry that it's now all about the money for him. And on top of that, he could fuck up the Giants chances for a good comp pick in next year's draft. He's not worth it. Not in my opinion, but it's not like I'm an expert on Blount (if you want to talk blunts that's a different story).
but, that's only me!
👍
The Giants definitely need to add talent to the RB spot. Blount would certainly represent an upgrade. Hopefully they can work something out and Blount brings his A game on and off the field. It could be a steal.
Yup...he definitely carries some concerns. Luckily the Giants won't be all in on this guy so it's not a terrible risk.
Quote:
who often doesn't perform as well once he moves away from a coach the caliber of Little Bill.
Didn't he feel misled by Pittsburgh on his role after he signed?
Not quite, him, Bell and a woman were caught with reefer madness driving to an airport, bus, whatever.
IRC that it was for a preseason game against the
'beloved' Iggles...
It wasn't long after that, that the Steelers said adios to Blount for his blunt(s),
and possible influence on Bell.
Blount had at least a two year deal at the time as well.
Since Bell has been suspended a couple times,
guess that theory hasn't worked that well.
The downside is whatever guaranteed money he receives and its impact on next year's compensation picks.
I'm against adding Blount. I would be concerned about his level of motivation. We saw what happened in Pittsburgh. He's won his Super Bowls and I'd worry that it's now all about the money for him. And on top of that, he could fuck up the Giants chances for a good comp pick in next year's draft. He's not worth it. Not in my opinion, but it's not like I'm an expert on Blount (if you want to talk blunts that's a different story).
Not sure you know how the comp system works. Blount isn't getting big money, guaranteed or non-guaranteed and thus has no chance of offsetting Hankins' deal in the comp pick formula, which is really the only FA loss that would net us a 'good' comp pick.
Besides, we've only lost 4 players that signed elsewhere: Hankins, Gould, Newhouse, Sensabaugh. Hankins should net us a comp pick since we haven't signed anyone close to that level, but the other 3 would be 7th rd comp picks at best and could be offset by Ellison, Geno, Draughn, and Blake anyway.