|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Kratch: ESPN's Mike Sando spoke to league executives and coaches to grade each team's 2017 moves, and the Giants only got a B-minus. "I don't think they really helped themselves," an unnamed personnel director told Sando. "They are counting on what they did the last two years as coming together for this year." |
The results inside the red-zone alone with these two has made this off-season a huge success as the focus had to be on that side of the ball. With that, added a nice RB from Clemson who runs hard and will push Perkins.
On D, we lose a quality DT but filled that need in the 2nd round.
And, perhaps the biggest coup is landing a QB whom had 2nd round talent and fell to us in the 3rd round. No trade-up's, no giving up valuable second day draft picks.
The best part is that he will have an experienced QB willingly mentor him and have a few years to master the play-book.
With camp cuts, fully expect adding OL and CB.
The OL debate is fair game, but to say the Giants didn't do anything to address their anemic offense is absurd beyond description.
it did ... it just wasn't necessary this year. I guess they should've overpaid for mediocre OL to get the "A"
The OL debate is fair game, but to say the Giants didn't do anything to address their anemic offense is absurd beyond description.
^This. They've made major changes. Discarding or trying to replace those players with Ellison, Engram, Marshall, and Gallman.
But for those who do follow the rest of the league, how many rosters can you confidently say are better than NYG?
I can't think of many. I don't even think the Patriots are necessarily more talented outside of the QB position, I think they'll just be masterfully coached/managed as usual.
Atlanta had a bad defense last year. Houston had a crappy offense. Denver's QB situation is unresolved. Dallas will be good but their defense is still a question mark. Seattle will be good, but I feel like they're slipping a bit.
Oakland and KC have good teams, but even those teams have some questions. Khalil Mack is an absolute stud but the OAK defense was crappy last year.
I don't know, I don't really see any team, especially in the NFC that is decisively better than NYG on paper. A couple teams may be just as good - but everyone has weaknesses.
And then there's always "Don't do something! Just stand there."
Many ways to skin a cat and it seems as though the Giants moves were well considered and appropriate.
...it's kinda funny how the game of football is played.
All three positions... TE, WR and RB ultimately depend on the performance of the O-line, not the other way around.
So, yea... the Giants made some significant changes, and I think for the better.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see if things come together for an O-line that lacks high-end quality and quality depth.
Fluker got paid less than 20 free agent OL.. San Diego chose to overspend on Okung (who by the way sucks) rather than pay Fluker $8M.. Raiders paid more money to Newhouse than we did to Fluker.. and they know fluker very well since they played them twice a year.. These facts just emphasizes that Fluker shouldn't be depended on as the big solution to our OL problem.. other than him we have invested our 6th and 7th round pick and are hoping our current OL progresses drastically.. he is great buy at $3M but there is very good chance (75% at the very least) he is not the solution.. Thats why I can't give us a A or even a B+...
Fluker got paid less than 20 free agent OL.. San Diego chose to overspend on Okung (who by the way sucks) rather than pay Fluker $8M.. Raiders paid more money to Newhouse than we did to Fluker.. and they know fluker very well since they played them twice a year.. These facts just emphasizes that Fluker shouldn't be depended on as the big solution to our OL problem.. other than him we have invested our 6th and 7th round pick and are hoping our current OL progresses drastically.. he is great buy at $3M but there is very good chance (75% at the very least) he is not the solution.. Thats why I can't give us a A or even a B+...
NYG didn't sign Ellison because of his receiving stats.
Marshall's yardage production dropped 50% last year; TDs from 14 to 3. He's 34 on his next birthday. Players drop off a cliff all the time at that age. Look up Randy Moss as an example.
Is it possible Marshall will have a great year? Sure, just as it was "possible" at this time last year that Cruz would do so. But he was far from a lock and the same is true with Marshall.
Yes, the Jets had poor QB play last year, so you can give Marshall that excuse. But when you give an excuse you are allowing it to take the place of a positive data point (e.g., Flowers and his ankle sprain).
And even if you impute a positive data point to Marshall for 2016, you still have the Randy Moss fall-off-cliff example at the same age Marshall is now.
I'm excited about Engram.
Might be underselling how bad the Jets were last season. Hard to 'yeah, but' that. It also doesn't take the place of a positive data point. There are plenty of positives to Brandon Marshall, and I wasn't even in favor of signing him.
For one, he's a hall of fame level player. Those types should be getting the benefit of the doubt.
Secondly, he's a much harder working player than Randy moss was later in his career. When moss was in bad environments, he shut it down. Marshall isn't in a bad environment.
Third, there's really no reason to think his skills have declined. And if they have, he's certainly still good enough to be a very capable #2 WR. He isn't a "run 50 yards downfield and catch it" guy anymore, but that wasn't the core of his game anyway.
Did they watch this team's TE play last season, or the WRs besides OBJ? The TEs were easily the worst position on the team.
Marshall will be the best gift from the Jets since Snacks.
(2) Trade
(3) Waiver Pick-Ups....now Free Agency also
and (4) Within.
Within might be the most crucial, as the Coaching, Training, Learning, and Maturing of your present Roster from year-to-year is essential in the development of any team.
Quote:
he is a blocker/FB..
NYG didn't sign Ellison because of his receiving stats.
Well they paid him like he had some.. he is a fullback/blocker.. you should be able to get one of those in the later rounds of your draft rather than pay one $18M..
Quote:
that worked out well last season...
it did ... it just wasn't necessary this year. I guess they should've overpaid for mediocre OL to get the "A"
ya' think?
Quote:
In comment 13491633 chuckydee9 said:
Quote:
he is a blocker/FB..
NYG didn't sign Ellison because of his receiving stats.
Well they paid him like he had some.. he is a fullback/blocker.. you should be able to get one of those in the later rounds of your draft rather than pay one $18M..
You want the proven commodity or do you want to cross your fingers and hope you find a good one?
Quote:
In comment 13491633 chuckydee9 said:
Quote:
he is a blocker/FB..
NYG didn't sign Ellison because of his receiving stats.
Well they paid him like he had some.. he is a fullback/blocker.. you should be able to get one of those in the later rounds of your draft rather than pay one $18M..
Well, for starters, 18M is not guaranteed. So, citing that number and that number only is a bit disingenuous.
Second, "should" does not mean it was a certainty.
I get why people want to simplify Ellison's signing down to "we just spent 18M on a blocker who can't catch!" but the Giants clearly thought this was an investment worth making and I bet he'll have a pretty legitimate impact here.
Quote:
In comment 13491634 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
In comment 13491633 chuckydee9 said:
Quote:
he is a blocker/FB..
NYG didn't sign Ellison because of his receiving stats.
Well they paid him like he had some.. he is a fullback/blocker.. you should be able to get one of those in the later rounds of your draft rather than pay one $18M..
Well, for starters, 18M is not guaranteed. So, citing that number and that number only is a bit disingenuous.
Second, "should" does not mean it was a certainty.
I get why people want to simplify Ellison's signing down to "we just spent 18M on a blocker who can't catch!" but the Giants clearly thought this was an investment worth making and I bet he'll have a pretty legitimate impact here.
With the addition of guys like Marshall and EE at TE (ha!), I don't care if Ellison can't catch a cold as long as he's one more capable blocker that can give Manning even a second more to make a play. Remember watching Larry Dumbbell last year just stand there like a statue while DEs just blew past him on their way to Eli?
Quote:
In comment 13491634 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
I get why people want to simplify Ellison's signing down to "we just spent 18M on a blocker who can't catch!" but the Giants clearly thought this was an investment worth making and I bet he'll have a pretty legitimate impact here.
I sure hope so otherwise they just paid $18m to someone who they think wasn't worth that kind of money.. anyhow I listed the reasons above why an objective person wouldn't give us an A for the off-season..
And that seems to be what fans - rightfully - take umbrage with.
You can't argue that the Giants didn't improve the TE and WR corps Engram and Marshall are clear upgrades for those two groups Ellison may be an upgrade too if he can get back on the field - or he was a waste of a signing if he can't
You could argue that signing JPP was not an improvement -- but I don't see improvement by subtraction in his case - you could argue that Owa is going to be a liability and that replacing him with a 4th rounder was not an improvement.
You could argue that losing Hankins was a loss and that you can't replace his kind of player with a rookie and that there wasn't an equal replacement for him on the team.
You could argue that the LB corps was not improved and was a weak area on the team and that losing Sheppard hurt the LBs
You could argue that the Giants did very little, to nothing, to improve backfield depth.
Those are all the corps arguments in my mind.
Thats my bias as I think that their OL is still very thin In depth. I also think Pugh won't be here next year due to some team over paying him.
That being said Engram is going to be a stud and a great pick up for he O. Webb looks good early. Let's pray he's the heir apparent. Marshall is a huge upgrade IMO as a third WR. Ellison gives them a guy who can actually block at TE. Tomlinson should easily be able replace Hankins as a Snacks Vernon and JPP. And at a huge savings.
They helped themselves. Saying Otherwise is a bit silly.
They improved 2 out of the 4 positions of need (WR and TE). They are counting on young players step up at the other 2 positons (LB and OL with Goodson, Flowers, Hart, Fluker, Bisno). I am fairly certain all of the other contenders have at least 2-3 positions that need young players to perform at as well.
Right? It's like whoever wrote that totally ignored everything including the draft
The second approach is better blocking from the TE and WRs. I think that can help but not make a crappy OL become a good OL, just a better OL.
The upgrades with the skill position players will make a difference but not if the running game is weak and/or Eli has to throw the ball way earlier than he wants to.
So, I think the Giants made some assumptions regarding the team re the biggest hole, the OL. If they are right and the injury bug doesn't bite the way it did for years before last, tougher schedule notwithstanding, this team can go deep into the playoffs which is all you can ask. But, if the OL tanks, or injuries reveal a real lack of depth on the OL, and game planning around weak tackles doesn't do the trick, we could have a bad year. I'm hopeful that Perkins will do alot more with this OL than Jennings did last year because I do think there were yards left on the field last year when Jennings was playing. But, to my point, the OL will dictate how far this team goes and it remains to be seen how much the off season moves, or lack of, helped.
NYG didn't sign Ellison because of his receiving stats.
Well they paid him like he had some.. he is a fullback/blocker.. you should be able to get one of those in the later rounds of your draft rather than pay one $18M..
Have you seen what TEs are making these days? $18 million over four years is peanuts (and only $8 million of that is guaranteed). And just wait until next year's crop of UFA TEs is ready to get paid. For what he brings to the table, Ellison is a real bargain.
The OL debate is fair game, but to say the Giants didn't do anything to address their anemic offense is absurd beyond description.
Eric, It's just the typical Giant's haters. Whatever they do or not do they are wrong. Last year they were blasting the Giants for spending all that money for free agents that really doesn't work. How did that turn out? Haters will hate.
You really can't expect the Giants to get an "A" because they added a blocking TE and an OL generally considered a bust in Fluker.
That said, this year was about retaining the guys they needed to retain and they did that.
If Sando had to name names, he wouldn't have anything to report because the sources he quotes can't be attached publicly to these comments.
Just because you don't like something or even if it's an off base piece of analysis in the end doesn't mean it's made up.
Anyhow... writers gotta write something I guess.
The key to their season will be the play of Eli. They are old at quarterback, sometimes skittish at quarterback. Contrary to public belief, the Giants will see more pressures in '17 than they saw in '16. The availability of big plays both for and against.
Tempering expectations should be (but it won't) that the Giants were actually pretty lucky last season. The schedule broke nicely for them. They played three teams with impotent offenses. There was an undeniable element of luck in the two wins over the Cowboys. And I think they will suffer a higher injury rate this year than last, although the change in regarding health history as a metric instead of adhering to Cosmic Pinball Theory is a welcomed development.
You can throw Linus's blanket, talent-wise, over the four teams in the division. I'm cautiously optimistic. Hardly euphoric though. Too many issues for that.
And, yes, we will be a better, more dangerous team in the playoffs.
But just going 'nah, no good' isn't an opinion, it's just shitting on the floor and walking away.
The key to their season will be the play of Eli. They are old at quarterback, sometimes skittish at quarterback. Contrary to public belief, the Giants will see more pressures in '17 than they saw in '16. The availability of big plays both for and against.
Tempering expectations should be (but it won't) that the Giants were actually pretty lucky last season. The schedule broke nicely for them. They played three teams with impotent offenses. There was an undeniable element of luck in the two wins over the Cowboys. And I think they will suffer a higher injury rate this year than last, although the change in regarding health history as a metric instead of adhering to Cosmic Pinball Theory is a welcomed development.
You can throw Linus's blanket, talent-wise, over the four teams in the division. I'm cautiously optimistic. Hardly euphoric though. Too many issues for that.
Luck in the two wins over the Cowboys? First game was tight and Cowboys screwed up last drive otherwise they probably win but not sure that is luck. Second game, Giants turned the ball over 3 times, twice in deep scoring areas because edge rushers ran over our Tackles. But where is the luck?
Quote:
he is a blocker/FB..
NYG didn't sign Ellison because of his receiving stats.
Well they paid him like he had some.. he is a fullback/blocker.. you should be able to get one of those in the later rounds of your draft rather than pay one $18M..
Have you seen what TEs are making these days? $18 million over four years is peanuts (and only $8 million of that is guaranteed). And just wait until next year's crop of UFA TEs is ready to get paid. For what he brings to the table, Ellison is a real bargain.
Wait are you comparing Rhett Ellison to guys like Marty Bennett?
I tried hard but couldn't find any site or anyone that had him rated as a top 100 FA this off season.. Walter football had him rated as 16th best free agent TE this off-season.. and we just paid this dude somewhere between 8 and 18 million.. If I had asked you before we signed him " hey what do you think about Rhett Ellison" you would've said who?.. we can now only hope he performs up to his salary.. but don't tell me this BS about how he is a bargain..
Quote:
In comment 13491734 chuckydee9 said:
Quote:
he is a blocker/FB..
NYG didn't sign Ellison because of his receiving stats.
Well they paid him like he had some.. he is a fullback/blocker.. you should be able to get one of those in the later rounds of your draft rather than pay one $18M..
Have you seen what TEs are making these days? $18 million over four years is peanuts (and only $8 million of that is guaranteed). And just wait until next year's crop of UFA TEs is ready to get paid. For what he brings to the table, Ellison is a real bargain.
Wait are you comparing Rhett Ellison to guys like Marty Bennett?
I tried hard but couldn't find any site or anyone that had him rated as a top 100 FA this off season.. Walter football had him rated as 16th best free agent TE this off-season.. and we just paid this dude somewhere between 8 and 18 million.. If I had asked you before we signed him " hey what do you think about Rhett Ellison" you would've said who?.. we can now only hope he performs up to his salary.. but don't tell me this BS about how he is a bargain..
Take a look, then tell me Ellison is not a bargain. $18 million over four years with only $8 million guaranteed is nothing.
And, no, if you would have asked me about Rhett Ellison before we signed him I would not have said, "who?" Just because you never heard of him, don't assume that I didn't, either. That reminds me of the guy who didn't believe that I mentioned OV in a post a year before we signed him (as a possible replacement for JPP, when it looked like he might not make it back). I don't need Walter Football to stay up to date.