|
|
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." |
A big issue for the offense last season was it was Beckham or bust.
Marshall/Cruz and Engram,Ellsion/Tye are huge upgrades
We also helped ourselves on the OL a bit by adding Fluker. We also improved our blocking by adding Ellison.
But sure.. we're just relying on the same thing we relied on the last 2 years.
Who the fuck are these people and how are they getting paid to be so goddamn stupid?
They went into the offseason with weaknesses at #2 WR, TE, OL, and needed to resign a few guys on a strong defense: JPP, Robinson, and Hankins.
They satisfied two of those three needs via Marshall, Engram, and Ellison for a combined 12-14 million in salary. They also re-signed two of those three guys above and got a Hankins replacement in Tomlinson who obviously won't be as good year 1 but is much cheaper.
The OL is obviously still an issue but as discussed many times, the value was pretty awful this year in both FA and the draft.
Ultimately did the Giants make enormous improvements from last year? No - but they also had far less resources and that has to be taken into consideration. Ultimately, they made small but notable improvements on offense and kept most of the defense next year.
I think the team is also counting on some younger, cost controlled guys, stepping up such as Perkins, Apple, Shepard, Goodson, etc.
Isn't that the way things are supposed to work? Build through the draft, develop your young players, augment them with smart free agent moves, hope it all adds up to becoming a legitimate contender.
1) The OL
2) The TE's
3) The WR depth behind Beckham
....all would have been near the top of the list.
The Giants added a lineman, one of the best blocking TE's in the sport right now, drafted a kid who has all the potential in the world to be an electric, playmaking TE, and replaced Victor Cruz with Brandon Marshall.
So, how exactly are they counting on the same things they did the last 2 years?
Furthermore, how is what they counted on last year at all like what they counted on in 2015? We completely overhauled the defense last offseason and turned it into a top 5 unit. Why is this idiot lumping the 2015 and 2016 teams together? One of them won 6 games, the other won 11 and made the playoffs.
So dumb.
He didn't say we're doomed, you did.
Like most of us know, ELi really had no option, other than OBj, and an inconsistent SS....he had no third receiver that he could count on....he had no running game.....it was hampered by no FB and no TE that could block his grandmother.....many running plays were blown up because of this, before the OL could get going....we counted on Jennings, who stayed one year too long....
Even though the OL is more or less status quo, Eli now has more options, especially on third down......I am really excited for this offense this year....and if the defense can play like last season, and we can avoid injuries, this will be a team to be reckoned with....
We signed a blocking TE, which we were missing last year and upgraded the #2 WR position via FA. We drafted a replacement for Hankins and drafted depth along with Fluker for the OL.
The team obviously made some huge improvements, but due to a very limited FA OL market and weak OL draft class, they were unable to make a significant upgrade to the team's biggest weakness.
Quote:
"They are counting on what they did the last two years as coming together for this year."
Yea that comment is mystifying to me as well. They added Marshall a borderline #1 WR as they're #2 as an upgrade over the 2016 Cruz that may as well be as big as a mountain. They also majorly addressed the TE spot with 2 huge additions. Yes as stated they didn't do much for the OLine but that's was really due to the lack of availability as you all said. I wouldn't have minded signing a vet RB but I don't think that's glaring.
Zzzzzzzzzzzz
*The biggest weakness was by far other teams in Cover 2 smothering the
pass game.
*Adding a blocking TE who can catch.
*Another TE who can run and catch like a WR.
*Added a huge possession WR who has proven how good he can be.
You now can destroy Cover 2 with the additions made this offseason.
Who was the scout the Cowboys? Eagles? The teams afraid of the offense clicking because they know the defense is going to limit them.
This offense scores 3 times a game we are going to win many games.
I love their faith in the two young tackles, it shows the type of continuity the Giants have always gone after.
Marshall helps the receiving core with a big bodied receiver we've been missing since Plaxico and Engram will open the field up, no matter wheere he lines up.
Tomlinson will replace Hankins, imo,
Fluker im not big on but hes an upgrade over Newhouse how ever you chalk it up. John Jerry probably got more money then most would like to see but his veteran presence and versatility make him a very important cog on the line. He can start at either G or T and or can spell 4/5 spots on the line. Hes also been playing with the same guys for the past few years now.
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.
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..