I started this because IMO I do bit think the current GM and his staff value OL nearly as much as they should
I don't believe you can judge any GM year to year. It isn't really fair. And I like he first two picks this year. And I also know it's harder to find NFL ready offensive linemen as the college game has changed.
But here's a quick loomaf Reese's investment in the OL over his tenure as GM vs the other position groups
OL. Rounds 1-3. 4 picks
DL. Rnds 1-3. 9 picks
WR 1-3. 9 picks
DB. 1-3. 9 picks
Now along w that the only two guys I can remember them targeting As starter level FAs were Baas who. Was never healthy and Schwartz. Neither guys you would say were studs. Not like grabbing Vernon or Rolle.
So you don't draft peremium players alll that much and you don't sign FAs.
So people who want to give Reese cover fine. But to me it's like LB. He just doesn't invest in it. Hence why that group is thin and for the 5th year in a row highly suspect
With the contracts out there for average lineman we took a different approach to fixing a weakness. We'll see how it pans out.
Well it wasn't fair to Miller somoenelsws thread. And please tell me my numbers are wrong. Tell me how much value In actual player fheubin invest
I don't care if you think it's dumb. Where the flaw. You have 30 opportunities to pick players on the OL. when you take over it's declining. And you don't pick guys until it's a mess. Never mind. You are so right
With the contracts out there for average lineman we took a different approach to fixing a weakness. We'll see how it pans out.
I think thAts why McAdoo was hired and was the pick to replace TC. But even GB Still finds the ball. The Giants and. It good at pass pro or running and haven't been in years. At some point scheming your way around a crappy OL catches up with you
That's 3/5th of the line with premium picks.
Compare that to the Suburbanites of the 80's, Rodney Hampton's line of the 90's, or 2000's line for Jacobs and Bradshaw.
Many will come along and point out all the resources that have been dedicated to the OL and just shrug their shoulders that they don't work out. Oh, well, Jerry gets a pass. Many will applaud that he doesn't spend market rate dollars on premier OL FAs, but then will applaud Jerry for signing Pugh who doesn't know what it means to play 16 games. When he is in the lineup, he is awesome compared to the rest of the group. But not so awesome that he isn't even considered to be a replacement for a replacement for a pro-bowl player.
At this point, we have Solari whom has a reputation for developing OL talent. But I wouldn't give him more resources in later rounds until he can prove that he can develop 1st and 2nd round talent. If he's not up to the task, then they need to find another coach who is capable.
Poor fatty. Sitting at his desk with his untucked shirt. So Reese has invested lot of players in the OL in 10 years. Missed that. PleAse copy and paste for me fatty
Quote:
your dumb take doesn't require another thread dedicated to it. It's already been shitted on by multiple posters.
Poor fatty. Sitting at his desk with his untucked shirt. So Reese has invested lot of players in the OL in 10 years. Missed that. PleAse copy and paste for me fatty
Not fat. That's now three swings and three misses for you this morning. Look at the rousing support you're getting on this thread. You got caught with your pants down in the logic department, and hurl an insult when cornered. That's the tactic of someone without a leg to stand on.
LG - Pugh - 1st Round Pick 2013
C - Richburg - 2nd Round Pick 2014
RG - Jerry - 3rd Round Pick 2010 (Dolphins)
RT - Fluker - 1st Round Pick 2013 (Chargers)
The Giants value the offensive line enough that our starting OL is made up of 3 1st rounders, a 2nd Rounder and a 3rd Rounder.
That's 3/5th of the line with premium picks.
At this rate, we may never take another O-lineman...
i guess they know how to develop them then...
The point is that the analysis you posted is very cursory and does not make your point at all. Are you suggesting most other teams spend a lot of picks in rounds 1-3 on the OL?
You do realize the investment the Cowboys have in their OLine is an anomaly in the league, right?
You seem to be grasping at the wrong argument. The front office values the OLine properly, the guys ey have picked with high picks have just not panned out. That is a different issue entirely.
Otherwise, the Giants have 2, #1 drafts choices and a # 2 draft choice currently on the OL which is hardly ignoring the position. They have also signed a number of FAs to the OL. The OL, however, is not a priority position. We all knew that.
Quote:
In comment 13451683 David in LA said:
Quote:
your dumb take doesn't require another thread dedicated to it. It's already been shitted on by multiple posters.
Poor fatty. Sitting at his desk with his untucked shirt. So Reese has invested lot of players in the OL in 10 years. Missed that. PleAse copy and paste for me fatty
Not fat. That's now three swings and three misses for you this morning. Look at the rousing support you're getting on this thread. You got caught with your pants down in the logic department, and hurl an insult when cornered. That's the tactic of someone without a leg to stand on.
David, you didn't respond to the comment about your shirt being untucked. I think we - as witnesses to this brilliant exchange - deserve to know the truth about these rumors of slovenly dress.
Quote:
where pass pro won't be as big a factor as it was under Gillbride. We have the weapons now to pull it off. We also invested in running the ball more.
With the contracts out there for average lineman we took a different approach to fixing a weakness. We'll see how it pans out.
I think thAts why McAdoo was hired and was the pick to replace TC. But even GB Still finds the ball. The Giants and. It good at pass pro or running and haven't been in years. At some point scheming your way around a crappy OL catches up with you
Some friendly feedback - the preview button is your friend. I think your posts get discredited because of the alphabet soup output.
They just stink at evaluating and developing it, even with turnover in personnel.
There's a big difference there, even though both are negatives.
2: why would he have invested top picks in OL early in his tenure when NYG had one of the best OL in football...that biases the numbers as well.
We have a small-ish and yes, weak ish in anchor but nifty mobile left guard and center, 3 giant wanna-be tall power right tackles (flowers, hart, fluker) and a random selection over the years of grab baggers with varied styles.
Obviously I advocated -strongly- to go all in on what Big Mac and co. tried or appeared to try to do last season, and yet which our line was not really matched well for:
Now, wait and see -
if they change the play calling and design or if the new receivers can run super shorts and get YACs, or if they go outside zone runs with play action to extend the route time or what the intended run system actually even IS here!
either way jerry loses
Invest 1st and second round picks on guards and centers that anchor much more strongly (doable that high) then use pugh and one of the existing OTs left and right to run lots of outside zone runs as an alternative to gain longer route time for WRs, while the new much better anchoring G-C-G trio would form a long lasting more stable pocket for manning to step up into, also garnering longer route times.
The idea being that fixing the OT is harder to do in draft % wise, whereas G-C-G you can get done.
And based on Green Bay style and Macs play calling (with the outside zone as a new twist).
Argue all you want, if it was the right way, but you cannot argue that it was not achievable.
Finding great OTs may not have been achievable, but my thing did not attempt that.
wait who specifically did you want?
the problem with the offensive line is left tackle, john jerry actually played wellaat year, rochburgh was hurt for the entire year...
top, top anchoring G and C, mid range TE (hodges) and a late round DT or two, Nose types.
All that said, hoping the actual round 2 DT stays healthy and am optimistic about that one.
its over now, check the archives.
its over now, check the archives.
fact still remains g-c-g is not the problem with the offensive line ao i dont get how that helps?
and that fixing the G-C-G to match Mac Ball was more doable than fixing the OTs (which is the party line, OT birds).
and also advocated schemeatics as above in a post to address tackle play
and Asiata a much stronger based / anchored heavier C than Richburg...Dawkins...others....
Why? This is a down year for OL's. Ereck Flowers probably would have been the first pick in this draft.
Why? This is a down year for OL's. Ereck Flowers probably would have been the first pick in this draft.
my point exactly
But, I stand -totally- by all of it, the draft and this thread shows that the questions remain,
>>>>lets wait and see the play of these guys, and the shematics changes if any, and hope for a fun season.
Right now we're in the middle of a cycle,he took the athlete in the first,the DT in the 2nd,and backup QB in the 3rd.Offense line is due next year.
Not saying John Hannah or Anthony Munoz were sitting there in this draft, but no way our Tackles and John Jerry cannot be challenged by guys on this board...
But he is not a strategist by any measure, does not appear to have any desire to 'see whole drafts' nor appears to delegate strategy or even certain units emphasis to anyone worth it, or to consider synergy beyond the unit level.
I don't know enough about the teams inner workings to know if those people are not on staff or are not being spoken to.
In short, it comes down to what type of ball do you enjoy as a fan.
- Younger fans seem to love the basketball aspect, big stars and fast athletes. Old farts like some of us seem to like solid line play and sustained drives that eat the clock, runs with emphasis and tough D the other way.
It is totally and fairly subjective and there are -no rules- about what anyone enjoys as a fan!
They run the team a certain way, in reality, not rhetoric.
They draft accordingly, by type, and most importantly, co-ordinate the 'whole draft market play' with the above factors.
All systems and even all creative endeavors are hierarchical - to a degree.
Different systems tend to best establish hierarchies very differently, and one should know which you are in.
Even in the arts, certain great artists have hierarchies and systems that are known only to themselves. But they stick with them religiously. Its up to you to get it or not, and the critics are like translators.
In theater, the director is like a dictator, must be, and should be, but also -has to- communicate his or her wishes very, very clearly and also find the right people to implement them. So, the hierarchy is clear, but it only extends to that one production. When it is over its over and it does not extend past the door after the last show. And has almost nothing to do with some other directors work.
In basketball, BPA is closer to league wide, system wide, quality of a singular player. So, your hierarchy is -league wide- to a degree. More unitary.
In football, BPA is much more team centric, fit centric. So, one would want to have a -very- clear view as to what the coach and position coaches are trying to do, and fit picks within that. Our OL seems like a mish mash from two or three different directors or artists. Our approach to the draft seems league centric not team centric or even a particular draft centric.
Such would require internal discussions.
It may take -years- to gel, if 'league wide type best quality' players are found (for which the system yet needs to change. i.e. proceeding without those conversations).
Conversely, a conversation may take 15 minutes or a few days at longest - to find fits that gel right away.