Reese has been getting destroyed, deservedly so. I'd say the modern day Giants run was from 2005-November 2012. After Hurricane Sandy, it all went downhill for this franchise. Reese has yet to get it back in order aside from spending $200M which gutted us some close wins and a 11-5 record. No division title since 2011 in what is arguable the division with the most parity in the NFL.
With all that said, I remember Accorsi being ridiculed by most here as well. So much so that people even ripped him for taking Eli interviews after SB46. Here's a guy who had the conviction to trade for Eli & built the nuts and bolts of the team that went 25-5 during a 30 game stretch in 07-08 which included a Super Bowl. Yet, he wasn't liked either.
Also, to be fair. Jerry Reese's fingerprints are over the 2007 & 2011 (more so) SB teams as well. He deserves credit. But, man this has been a bad team for awhile now. This team finished the year 3-5 in 12, was 0-6 in 13, 3-9 in 14, finished the year 1-6 in 15 & is now 0-3 in 16. Yikes.
This isn't a casino, you don't have to double down on stupid pal.
Quote:
In comment 13619083 burtmanjack said:
Quote:
If the fact that the last Reese fanboys have to rely upon the alleged failings of a GM who hasn't been around since OBJ was thirteen years old in order to defend his indefensible track record isn't the ultimate indictment of Reese's tenure then I don't know what is.
So you really believe that Reese saw Flowers as a guard? Then what's stoppedhik from saying that ever again instead of consistently asserting he's a LT ever since draft night?
And what's stopped him from trying him at guard ever since?
The level of apologism on this board is maddening.
What's to stop the GM from playing a player at a different position? I don't know, maybe the fact that he doesn't coach the team?
Of course, I posted those articles here for people who can read, so you can just move along now.
Give me a break. If you think Reese has no input on personnel issues I have a bridge to sell you.
And talk about cherry picking. How about you go find all the articles since where Reese speaks of Flowera as a guard?
You will be looking for a long, long time.
All of the bad picks during the Accorsi era were on Accorsi. The bad picks of the Reese era are on others. Duh.
This isn't a casino, you don't have to double down on stupid pal.
If anyone is doubling down on stupid, it's you.
Selectively relying on a few comments made "with now track record" while ignoring the mountain of comments made in the years since? That is cherry picking, my friend.
The record as a whole -- both Reese's word AND actions -- belies any assertion that Reese saw Flowers as a guard but that others have made him stick with EF as a tackle since the very day he walked through the doors of the Timex Center.
Are you Reese' mother -- or Jerry himself? Because you have come up with some desperate, novel theories to absolve him of any responsibility for the garbage OL in the team that it has been his job to run for over a decade.
Quote:
In comment 13619094 jcn56 said:
Quote:
In comment 13619083 burtmanjack said:
Quote:
If the fact that the last Reese fanboys have to rely upon the alleged failings of a GM who hasn't been around since OBJ was thirteen years old in order to defend his indefensible track record isn't the ultimate indictment of Reese's tenure then I don't know what is.
So you really believe that Reese saw Flowers as a guard? Then what's stoppedhik from saying that ever again instead of consistently asserting he's a LT ever since draft night?
And what's stopped him from trying him at guard ever since?
The level of apologism on this board is maddening.
What's to stop the GM from playing a player at a different position? I don't know, maybe the fact that he doesn't coach the team?
Of course, I posted those articles here for people who can read, so you can just move along now.
Give me a break. If you think Reese has no input on personnel issues I have a bridge to sell you.
And talk about cherry picking. How about you go find all the articles since where Reese speaks of Flowera as a guard?
You will be looking for a long, long time.
All of the bad picks during the Accorsi era were on Accorsi. The bad picks of the Reese era are on others. Duh.
Of course. Sorry. My bad.
Quote:
In comment 13618804 jcn56 said:
Quote:
if you read articles at the time, Coughlin gushed about how strong Flowers was, how he was mauling people down field. These are both from articles just after the draft:
Quote:
No coach was more impressed than Giants head man Tom Coughlin, who compared the 21-year-old to a war-like machine. He is a battleship, an aircraft carrier or however you want to describe him at six-foot-six, 329 [pounds], noted Coughlin. Strongest guy in the draft. Strongest, doesnt always mean best, but in the case of the Giants draft board, Flowers was the top guy for Coughlin and company. Yeah, but you know how the Giants operate the best player on the board is going to get the majority of the consideration, and that was the case right here, noted Coughlin. Despite being described as a little bit on the quiet side Coughlin isnt letting Flowers' soft-spoken manner fool him. The offensive tackle prospect can be a wrecking ball between the lines and this became immediately apparent when the Giants studied him on game tape. "You see him on film," said Coughlin of Flowers' toughness on the gridiron. You see him at the second level trying to finish people off. Arriving in a bad humor at a pile. You see all that stuff.
Reese was the only one to mention that Flowers might be meant for guard at first:
Quote:
Obviously, hes a gigantic human being, and he played at a high level of competition, Reese said. We think this can help solidify the offensive line, so hopefully this will settle the offensive line down and we dont have to keep talking about the offensive line as much.
Hes a big, tough, good football player, and hes got a nasty streak.
While Reese said Flowers could play either guard or tackle, Coach Tom Coughlin spoke to reporters after Reese did and said unequivocally that Flowers was a tackle. Flowers played on the left and the right sides at Miami, although he spent the last two seasons at left tackle, the most prominent position on the line because it protects the blind side of a right-handed quarterback like Manning
...
Asked if Flowers was viewed as an eventual left tackle, Reese answered, Yeah, you would think so.
Excellebt find. Very interesting.
Incredible find. Puts the Flowers pick in a whole different light.
Eh, I dunno. If it were true that Flowers was a Coughlin-influenced pick that Reese disagreed with, Reese would have publicly said so by now.
This isn't a casino, you don't have to double down on stupid pal.
And while you are at it, why don't you find some quotes to explain away this:
Jerry Reese OL draft picks:
Adam Bisnowaty: 2017 sixth round
Ereck Flowers: 2015 first round
Bobby Hart: 2015 seventh round
Weston Richburg: 2014 second round
Justin Pugh: 2013 first round
Eric Herman: 2013 seventh round
Brandon Mosley: 2012 fourth round
Matt McCants: 2012 sixth round
James Brewer: 2011 fourth round
Mitch Petrus: 2010 fifth round
Will Beatty: 2009 second round
Adam Koets: 2007 sixth round
Yeah we got a title in 2011, but that wasn't a great team by any stretch.
This team had the good fortune of rare continuity at coach and quarterback since 2004, and has managed just 1 (what I would call) excellent team in that stretch. The 2008 team.
I will wonder about that year forever.
This "2011 wasn't a great team by any stretch" nonsense continues to be one of BBI's IQ tests. Usually repeated as fact by some posters trying to change history to fit a narrative.
The 2011 team was excellent - we got pretty banged up early that season, especially on defense and on the OL, which played a huge part in why we looked bad at times early that year, and our running game overall was statistically poor - a reason often cited by fans as to why that team wasn't great.
Quite unusually, that team got healthy down the stretch - Tuck, Rolle, Osi, and David Baas all came on strong down the stretch, pluse Chase Blackburn somehow got off his couch and played very well at MLB when we needed him
The 2011 team at its peak was the team that smoked Green Bay on the road in the playoffs, won that war in SF, then beat Brady and the Pats again.
A lot of fans should really go back and rewatch games and highlights from that season
Quote:
I will always think of 2008 as the one that got away, and the season that could have have launched us into shaping this era very differently.
Yeah we got a title in 2011, but that wasn't a great team by any stretch.
This team had the good fortune of rare continuity at coach and quarterback since 2004, and has managed just 1 (what I would call) excellent team in that stretch. The 2008 team.
I will wonder about that year forever.
This "2011 wasn't a great team by any stretch" nonsense continues to be one of BBI's IQ tests. Usually repeated as fact by some posters trying to change history to fit a narrative.
The 2011 team was excellent - we got pretty banged up early that season, especially on defense and on the OL, which played a huge part in why we looked bad at times early that year, and our running game overall was statistically poor - a reason often cited by fans as to why that team wasn't great.
Quite unusually, that team got healthy down the stretch - Tuck, Rolle, Osi, and David Baas all came on strong down the stretch, pluse Chase Blackburn somehow got off his couch and played very well at MLB when we needed him
The 2011 team at its peak was the team that smoked Green Bay on the road in the playoffs, won that war in SF, then beat Brady and the Pats again.
A lot of fans should really go back and rewatch games and highlights from that season
Definitely agree, by the time the playoffs started their run game was actually pretty decent.
He rewarded players past their prime with contracts that crippled our ability to do anything in FA. Perhaps his biggest offense was ignoring the offensive line. For those too young to remember him, the lines he put out make the current one look like the 90s cowboys. His reputation isn't helped since it was widely believed that he lost power when Coughlin was hired. I don't know how true that is, but that was the belief at the time.
He rewarded players past their prime with contracts that crippled our ability to do anything in FA. Perhaps his biggest offense was ignoring the offensive line. For those too young to remember him, the lines he put out make the current one look like the 90s cowboys. His reputation isn't helped since it was widely believed that he lost power when Coughlin was hired. I don't know how true that is, but that was the belief at the time.
Late but a pretty good summation. If anything Accorsi got a much easier pass than Reese during down times because he had great relationships with the media.
Quote:
In comment 13618903 EricJ said:
Quote:
In comment 13618821 joeinpa said:
Quote:
And we watch every game, and even a lot of college games, and we just know more than the people who run this franchise.
Some are even really good at fantasy football.
OMG If I could draft a left tackle for my fantasy team, I would totally take the championship in the league where I am up against Reese and Acorsi. This past year, in our draft Acorsi tried to draft Elway again. Reese reached for someone in the first round but hell if I knew who he was. Marc Ross was on auto draft because he was playing Madden and forgot about our draft.
You were the worst poster on this board as TylerAimee and not much has changed since you changed your handle.
Good God
you take yourself and this place way too seriously. Everything I said in my prior post was of course just a joke and sarcastic. You need to get a grip.
Meanwhile, every other thread I read here someone says to someone else "you are the worst poster". Can we get a consensus as to who the worst really is? If it is me can I also get a BBI trophy at training camp? Maybe you can present it to me?
It's possible Coughlin helped. It's also just as possible that Coughlin's hiring was exactly timed with the first year that the Giants had any cap space at all (I don't think that's coincidental - it's doubtful Coughlin would have come on board to a team without cap room(. Upon Coughlins arrival the Giants went on a signing spree of high dollar free agents that hasn't stopped since. That's going to positively impact your drafting (or at least it should).
1 - Shaun Williams
2 - Joe Jurevicius
3 - Brian Alford...Ernie traded up for that clown. Career stats - 2 catches for 18 yards. He makes Ramses Barden look like Jerry Rice in comparison.
5 - Toby Miles
6 - Todd Pollack, Wellington Mara's lawn care specialist. Never made an NFL roster
7 - Ben Fricke
1999
1 - Luke Petitgout
2 - Joe Montgomery....shockingly, a guy who was never healthy in college was never healthy in the pros either. 13 career games.
3 - Dan Campbell
4 - Sean Bennett....I was assured by MiS that he was a Jim Brown level talent. Between him and Montgomery, the Giants took two RBs in the first 112 picks of the draft and got a combined 498 career yards of rushing from them.
5 - Mike Rosenthal
6 - Lyle West
6 - Andre Weathers
7 - Ryan Hale
7 - O.J. Childress
2000
1 - Ron Dayne.....ol'Donuts Dayne, the pick everyone knew he was going to make, and everyone knew would be a massive flop.
2 - Cornelius Griffin
3 - Ron Dixon
4 - Brandon Short
5 - Ralph Brown
6 - Dhani Jones and his air guitar
7 - Father of the Year Jeremiah Parker
2001
1 - Will Allen, noted investment wizard
2 - William Peterson
4 - Cedric Scott
4 - Jesse Palmer
5 - John Markham, a kicker they never even scouted
6 - Jonathan Carter
7 - Ross Kolodziej
2002
1 - Jeremy Shockey
2 - Tim Carter
3 - Jeff Hatch...suited up for all of 4 games
5 - Nick Griesen
6 - Wes Mallard
7 - Daryl Jones
7 - Quincy Monk
Here are some statistics from 2011:
- 9-7 record
- 3-5 record in the second half of the season
- Outscored 400-394 in the regular season
- Defense was 25th in the league in points allowed
- Rushing offense ranked 32nd in the league
That team is almost certainly the worst Super Bowl winner in the history of the league. Only 9-7 team to do it; only team to be outscored in the regular season.
You never give a title back, and it's as cherished as the others, but that team just got hot at the right time. That's not the same as being a great team.
Have you done the math to say that we've got a disproportionate number of good years? Or checked the winning percentage for that matter?
You should fish around a bit - I think you'd find your complaint about the post-GY years to be reflective of almost all of the NFL in the parity era that ensued. GY's demise was FA, which was basically the beginning of parity.
Quote:
At the end of the day the Giants have not had a consistently good GM since Young . For a team with 4 SB championships we have a disproportionate number of bad years. This all relates to the last 2 GM's. They do occasionally put together a roster that exceeds expectations, but do a crappy job drafting and do not having priorities correct on what positions are important to have a consistently good team. It's disheartening to see our divisional rivals be so much more astute at drafting and team building.
Have you done the math to say that we've got a disproportionate number of good years? Or checked the winning percentage for that matter?
You should fish around a bit - I think you'd find your complaint about the post-GY years to be reflective of almost all of the NFL in the parity era that ensued. GY's demise was FA, which was basically the beginning of parity.
It's a parity league, yes.
However a handful of organizations have still manage to contend nearly every year over that period -- NE, GB, Pitt, Denver, Balt for starters. So it is far from impossible with competent management and ownership.
I guess if you are happy with average, that's your prerogative . . .
It sure does seem that Reese, Ross and Co. too often decide that they know something that no one else does, and select accordingly.
Sometimes I wish they just would choose whoever Ourlads (whom Sy writes for) says is the highest player on the board every time and leave it at that. It's gotten to the point where I trust crowdsourcing more than the FO.
One of the media outlets did the numbers for the last 10 years - which for us happened to include 2 SB titles. Guess where we ranked?
The difference between the 5th best overall and the 12th best overall - was 4 games.
Learn your math, or just keep having loud, angry arguments with the ether about how the team that has delivered you two titles in the past decade keeps letting you down.
The difference between the 5th best overall and the 12th best overall - was 4 games.
Learn your math, or just keep having loud, angry arguments with the ether about how the team that has delivered you two titles in the past decade keeps letting you down.
Hey, if finishing on average between 5th and 12th floats your boat, then yay. But it seems pretty damning to me that in order to defend Reese you have to grade him on a curve,
All I know is that in a division that has over that period more often than not required only a slightly above average record to win, the Giants have finished first exactly one time.
They won two SB you say? Yes, and if management gets a pass for what is inexorably becoming the distant pass, then so does Eli (who -- unlike Reese -- can indisputably lay claim to having been a principal contributor to both).
Quote:
A ten year span (they only took into consideration the regular season) - includes 160 overall games.
The difference between the 5th best overall and the 12th best overall - was 4 games.
Learn your math, or just keep having loud, angry arguments with the ether about how the team that has delivered you two titles in the past decade keeps letting you down.
Hey, if finishing on average between 5th and 12th floats your boat, then yay. But it seems pretty damning to me that in order to defend Reese you have to grade him on a curve,
All I know is that in a division that has over that period more often than not required only a slightly above average record to win, the Giants have finished first exactly one time.
They won two SB you say? Yes, and if management gets a pass for what is inexorably becoming the distant pass, then so does Eli (who -- unlike Reese -- can indisputably lay claim to having been a principal contributor to both).
Finished first TWO times. My error.
In fact, if I beat 2/3s of my peers on a consistent basis in a very competitive field, I'm pretty happy with it.
As for Eli - if you were to take a poll of impartial NFL observers - and look at those top 4 QBs (Brady, Rodgers, Roethlisberger and Peyton Manning) - how do you think he'd stack up? It's not coincidence those teams are ranked that way - in no small part due to the franchise QBs that lead them.
There were only 4 teams on that list that you could consider *significantly* above average - the next 6 teams were separated by 5 wins.
The 4 teams - NE (Brady), GB (Rodgers), Pitt (BRoeth), Colts (Manning).
It's possible we overrate Eli a bit. I think he's a HOFer, but I don't think given his performances over the years that we somehow left a ton of wins on the field, or that we were a guard or tackle short of another title.
In fact, if I beat 2/3s of my peers on a consistent basis in a very competitive field, I'm pretty happy with it.
As for Eli - if you were to take a poll of impartial NFL observers - and look at those top 4 QBs (Brady, Rodgers, Roethlisberger and Peyton Manning) - how do you think he'd stack up? It's not coincidence those teams are ranked that way - in no small part due to the franchise QBs that lead them.
Seriously? "[C]ontinues to hit when bringing in players"?
How about answering the questions I have posed previously and then reconsidering that assertion:
How many of his own draft picks over that period has Reese himself deemed worthy of a second contract?
How do you defend that list of garbage and/or overdrafting that Reese has brought in at OL?
And why was a $200MM (in NFL money) spending spree even necessary?
The objective facts are pretty damning. No way around it.
Quote:
over a decade - and continues to hit when bringing in players, I don't fire him.
In fact, if I beat 2/3s of my peers on a consistent basis in a very competitive field, I'm pretty happy with it.
As for Eli - if you were to take a poll of impartial NFL observers - and look at those top 4 QBs (Brady, Rodgers, Roethlisberger and Peyton Manning) - how do you think he'd stack up? It's not coincidence those teams are ranked that way - in no small part due to the franchise QBs that lead them.
Seriously? "[C]ontinues to hit when bringing in players"?
How about answering the questions I have posed previously and then reconsidering that assertion:
How many of his own draft picks over that period has Reese himself deemed worthy of a second contract?
How do you defend that list of garbage and/or overdrafting that Reese has brought in at OL?
And why was a $200MM (in NFL money) spending spree even necessary?
The objective facts are pretty damning. No way around it.
And as for Eli, how about you look at the OL that those QB played for and then get back to me. You may reasonably believe that those other QB are inherently more talented that Manning, but you are being willfully unreasonable if you believe that anyone else has a consistently winning record behind Reese's OL, and with Reese's defensive draft picks (see: 2015 @ New Orleans).
Second contracts? Well - I'm pretty sure we had a core of a SB winning team stick around - were they all on rookie contracts?
As for the list of OL you've provided above - all were late round picks except Flowers, Pugh and Richburg. I've already pointed out the above on Flowers - and it was public knowledge that Reese preferred Scherff, who went a few picks higher to the Redskins and has proven to be a good guard. Pugh and Richburg have been good, not great players that everyone wants to run out the door, which would be ironic if they leave and perform elsewhere.
Hell, even a 6th rounder left and went elsewhere and started a few games on a good line before being a quality reserve (McCants/Oak).
Meanwhile -objectively, Flowers remains Reese's only 1st round bust, unless you want to throw Wilson in there because of his degenerative disease. In the past few years, he's brought in one of the most dynamic WRs in league history (not even in the top 10) and one of the top defensive players in Collins.
But yeah, let's can him - since I'm sure we can do better by picking based on averaging out the draft magazines, that sounds like a fantastic idea.
Second contracts? Well - I'm pretty sure we had a core of a SB winning team stick around - were they all on rookie contracts?
As for the list of OL you've provided above - all were late round picks except Flowers, Pugh and Richburg. I've already pointed out the above on Flowers - and it was public knowledge that Reese preferred Scherff, who went a few picks higher to the Redskins and has proven to be a good guard. Pugh and Richburg have been good, not great players that everyone wants to run out the door, which would be ironic if they leave and perform elsewhere.
Hell, even a 6th rounder left and went elsewhere and started a few games on a good line before being a quality reserve (McCants/Oak).
Meanwhile -objectively, Flowers remains Reese's only 1st round bust, unless you want to throw Wilson in there because of his degenerative disease. In the past few years, he's brought in one of the most dynamic WRs in league history (not even in the top 10) and one of the top defensive players in Collins.
But yeah, let's can him - since I'm sure we can do better by picking based on averaging out the draft magazines, that sounds like a fantastic idea.
Ok, let's take that one by one:
No, most teams (there are in fact some exceptions) spend to the cap. However, that is not the point at all. Good management leads to a reasonable allocation of available resources across the entire roster. In order to do so, you need to draft well so that there is a pipeline of young, cheap talent coming in. When you fail to do that, you have to overpay in the FA market to cover your mistakes, and you tie up resources that would otherwise be spent on other areas of the team (say, perhaps, like OL?). Jerry blew the draft. So he had to blow disproportionate cap space on vets to fill jobs that his draft picks could not. There really is no debate about that.
Second -- you simply avoid the question by asking an unrelated question. Of course, not everyone on those SB teams was on rookie contracts. But you are the one who framed this as a 10-year analysis. You obviously don't want to look at the data -- or you have and don't want to mention it --because the cold, hard facts is that way too many Reese picks just haven't performed at a level that even he could justify paying to keep. Again, no debate here.
Third, you sidestep the fact that Reese hasn't picked any quality/value OL by emphasizing that many were late round picks. Doesn't that in fact beg the question, rather than disprove my assertion? Bottom line is that both the choices that Reese made and the picks he didn't make have resulted in the garbage on that list. And as for Schereff, so what? Teams lose players all the time because they are chosen by teams ahead of them. It is what Jerry actually DID in response that is his failing. He invested a Top-10 selection in a player that by all accounts no one else thought was worthy of that high a selection, AND that by all accounts that no one else thought would play LT in the league. And before you draw any conclusions if Pugh or Richburg perform better in greener pastures, take a look at what their new GM puts around them on the OL - I suspect there will be a correlation between that new GM's greater skill at evaluating OL.
OBJ and Collins were good picks. Wilson (and lately it seems Apple) were poor ones. Every GM has both. To me, you have to look at the overall performance. And when you do that, over a ten year period -- Reese just looks pretty bad.
Finally, as for Ourlads, do you thing I'm really serious? My point was simply that Jerry's "insights" that deviated from the consensus of NFL professionals and draft evaluators have too often been incorrect. He is mesmerized by athletic flash and measurables that do not translate to football skill and sense in the NFL. And the Giants have paid.
So you wouldn't fire him? You are entitled to your opinion.
But every employee in this country should be so lucky as to work for the Maras or you, who accept average to below-average performance and don't hold their people accountable for more than a decade of shoddy decisions.
Exactly! EA's best move was bringing Reese into the facility as director of scouting from being an area scout if I remember correctly. Reese payed a big part in revamping our scouting. I remember long time ago I posted an article about it and what he did. Once that happened our draft picks got better. Marv Sunderlands last draft if I remember correctly was the Shockey draft.
Of course the consensus can be -- and sometimes is -- wrong. But it is well-accepted among scientists, statisticians and researchers that it is much more likely to be correct than not.
Doubt me? Look at the NFL draft historically -- while there have been failures in the first round, and the top 10 (some glaring ones) -- they are fewer and farther between than in the later rounds. And many more players drafted in the first round (controlling for injury) go on to have multi-year and multi-contract years in the league then not.
And while there are indeed many excellent players that were drafted in the later rounds, they tend to stand out as diamonds in the rough. It isn't like the majority of late round picks go on to have similar careers as first rounders. Why? Because the consensus is usually much closer to accurate than not.
Quote:
is risky business. You can very easily discredit that line of thinking just by looking at how many currently excellent players in the league were passed over or afterthoughts.
Of course the consensus can be -- and sometimes is -- wrong. But it is well-accepted among scientists, statisticians and researchers that it is much more likely to be correct than not.
Doubt me? Look at the NFL draft historically -- while there have been failures in the first round, and the top 10 (some glaring ones) -- they are fewer and farther between than in the later rounds. And many more players drafted in the first round (controlling for injury) go on to have multi-year and multi-contract years in the league then not.
And while there are indeed many excellent players that were drafted in the later rounds, they tend to stand out as diamonds in the rough. It isn't like the majority of late round picks go on to have similar careers as first rounders. Why? Because the consensus is usually much closer to accurate than not.
Case in point: All the "accounts" on Flowers have been proven to be accurate.
Second case in point: "Accounts" of Apple's tendency to get handsy, his inability to find the ball, and his becoming a PI machine also seem to be pretty dead-on too, no?
Here's Mayock:
Here's Walter Football:
Player Comparison: Donald Penn.
Seems like the consensus was just as wrong as we were.
Here's Mayock:
Quote:
"Flowers is a big, strong, power man. He's a powerful run blocker and has prototypical tackle traits. He reminds me of the 49ers' Anthony Davis when he came out of Rutgers." -- Mike Mayock
Here's Walter Football:
Quote:
In the 2015 NFL Draft, Flowers is worthy of being selected in the top 20. Multiple teams have indicated to WalterFootball.com that they have a first-round grade on Flowers. He should hear his name called on Thursday night.
Player Comparison: Donald Penn.
Seems like the consensus was just as wrong as we were.
There is a BIG difference between first round, and Top 10. Or, in Jerry's terminology, the blue chips and the red chips.
Find a consensus that Flowers was a top 10 pick . . . or a lock for LT . . . and then you will have something . . .
Quote:
Everyone had him as a first rounder - top 20.
Here's Mayock:
Quote:
"Flowers is a big, strong, power man. He's a powerful run blocker and has prototypical tackle traits. He reminds me of the 49ers' Anthony Davis when he came out of Rutgers." -- Mike Mayock
Here's Walter Football:
Quote:
In the 2015 NFL Draft, Flowers is worthy of being selected in the top 20. Multiple teams have indicated to WalterFootball.com that they have a first-round grade on Flowers. He should hear his name called on Thursday night.
Player Comparison: Donald Penn.
Seems like the consensus was just as wrong as we were.
There is a BIG difference between first round, and Top 10. Or, in Jerry's terminology, the blue chips and the red chips.
Find a consensus that Flowers was a top 10 pick . . . or a lock for LT . . . and then you will have something . . .
Or, in other words, why are you drafting a top 20 player at 10?
That's a case of bad judgment, or poor asset management (trade down).
NO ONE thought that he was good value at 10.
And btw, I don't care if you, me, or anyone else was right or wrong. None of us spend years evaluating players, and get paid a handsome sum to make solid choices.
Jerry does.
Up until that point - this was Reese's first failure in the first round, which is uncommon. And that's despite the fact that the hit rate on 1st rounders is higher.
Picking Flowers ten spots too early is a bit of a reach (Walter says top 20, others say first round, two publications said he was rising to a possible top ten pick). But picking a guy a few spots early isn't indicative of somehow going against what you're considering this magical consensus that he should have followed.
All those outlets thought he was going to be a good player. A few raised concerns about tackle, thinking he could be a guard (news flash - Reese said this right after he was drafted, only to be corrected by Coughlin).
Nobody thought he was going to be a bad pick. They were all wrong, apparently.
Quote:
Are you aware of an NFL team that doesn't spend it's salary cap money?
Second contracts? Well - I'm pretty sure we had a core of a SB winning team stick around - were they all on rookie contracts?
As for the list of OL you've provided above - all were late round picks except Flowers, Pugh and Richburg. I've already pointed out the above on Flowers - and it was public knowledge that Reese preferred Scherff, who went a few picks higher to the Redskins and has proven to be a good guard. Pugh and Richburg have been good, not great players that everyone wants to run out the door, which would be ironic if they leave and perform elsewhere.
Hell, even a 6th rounder left and went elsewhere and started a few games on a good line before being a quality reserve (McCants/Oak).
Meanwhile -objectively, Flowers remains Reese's only 1st round bust, unless you want to throw Wilson in there because of his degenerative disease. In the past few years, he's brought in one of the most dynamic WRs in league history (not even in the top 10) and one of the top defensive players in Collins.
But yeah, let's can him - since I'm sure we can do better by picking based on averaging out the draft magazines, that sounds like a fantastic idea.
Ok, let's take that one by one:
No, most teams (there are in fact some exceptions) spend to the cap. However, that is not the point at all. Good management leads to a reasonable allocation of available resources across the entire roster. In order to do so, you need to draft well so that there is a pipeline of young, cheap talent coming in. When you fail to do that, you have to overpay in the FA market to cover your mistakes, and you tie up resources that would otherwise be spent on other areas of the team (say, perhaps, like OL?). Jerry blew the draft. So he had to blow disproportionate cap space on vets to fill jobs that his draft picks could not. There really is no debate about that.
Second -- you simply avoid the question by asking an unrelated question. Of course, not everyone on those SB teams was on rookie contracts. But you are the one who framed this as a 10-year analysis. You obviously don't want to look at the data -- or you have and don't want to mention it --because the cold, hard facts is that way too many Reese picks just haven't performed at a level that even he could justify paying to keep. Again, no debate here.
Third, you sidestep the fact that Reese hasn't picked any quality/value OL by emphasizing that many were late round picks. Doesn't that in fact beg the question, rather than disprove my assertion? Bottom line is that both the choices that Reese made and the picks he didn't make have resulted in the garbage on that list. And as for Schereff, so what? Teams lose players all the time because they are chosen by teams ahead of them. It is what Jerry actually DID in response that is his failing. He invested a Top-10 selection in a player that by all accounts no one else thought was worthy of that high a selection, AND that by all accounts that no one else thought would play LT in the league. And before you draw any conclusions if Pugh or Richburg perform better in greener pastures, take a look at what their new GM puts around them on the OL - I suspect there will be a correlation between that new GM's greater skill at evaluating OL.
OBJ and Collins were good picks. Wilson (and lately it seems Apple) were poor ones. Every GM has both. To me, you have to look at the overall performance. And when you do that, over a ten year period -- Reese just looks pretty bad.
Finally, as for Ourlads, do you thing I'm really serious? My point was simply that Jerry's "insights" that deviated from the consensus of NFL professionals and draft evaluators have too often been incorrect. He is mesmerized by athletic flash and measurables that do not translate to football skill and sense in the NFL. And the Giants have paid.
So you wouldn't fire him? You are entitled to your opinion.
But every employee in this country should be so lucky as to work for the Maras or you, who accept average to below-average performance and don't hold their people accountable for more than a decade of shoddy decisions.
Good psot.
#PHI DC Jim Schwartz told Philly media that Eli Manning got rid of 34 passes in less than two seconds Sunday. Was 35-47, 366 yds, 3TD, 2INT.
But let's keep making excuses for the same GM that has had *years* to make this line at least decent; yet has failed miserably even for just a decent line.
Up until that point - this was Reese's first failure in the first round, which is uncommon. And that's despite the fact that the hit rate on 1st rounders is higher.
Picking Flowers ten spots too early is a bit of a reach (Walter says top 20, others say first round, two publications said he was rising to a possible top ten pick). But picking a guy a few spots early isn't indicative of somehow going against what you're considering this magical consensus that he should have followed.
All those outlets thought he was going to be a good player. A few raised concerns about tackle, thinking he could be a guard (news flash - Reese said this right after he was drafted, only to be corrected by Coughlin).
Nobody thought he was going to be a bad pick. They were all wrong, apparently.
Skippy? Cute.
That's a better nickname for you, however since you just skipped over basically everything I said. Your silence is deafening.
Anyway, go back and read what I wrote -- "He invested a Top-10 selection in a player that by all accounts no one else thought was worthy of that high a selection, AND that by all accounts that no one else thought would play LT in the league."
NOTHING you have said contradicts that.
Your defense of Reese seems to be that because the league-wide consensus (also reported in a multitude of outlets beyond those you cite) was that Flowers was a first rounder who was probable a LT, he didn't blow it by investing a TOP 10 pick without trading down to select a player who has demonstrated beyond a doubt that he can't hold down the left side. Weak. Very weak.
In any event, this hyperfocus on Flowers misses the real issue, which is that that particular screw up was only one of many that has resulted in a neutered offense that cannot utilize most of the playbook and a QB that has to release the ball at near-record speed in order to generate any yardage and avoid getting killed.
Nice job, Jerry.
Quote:
picks wrong. Reese along with the rest of them.
Up until that point - this was Reese's first failure in the first round, which is uncommon. And that's despite the fact that the hit rate on 1st rounders is higher.
Picking Flowers ten spots too early is a bit of a reach (Walter says top 20, others say first round, two publications said he was rising to a possible top ten pick). But picking a guy a few spots early isn't indicative of somehow going against what you're considering this magical consensus that he should have followed.
All those outlets thought he was going to be a good player. A few raised concerns about tackle, thinking he could be a guard (news flash - Reese said this right after he was drafted, only to be corrected by Coughlin).
Nobody thought he was going to be a bad pick. They were all wrong, apparently.
Skippy? Cute.
That's a better nickname for you, however since you just skipped over basically everything I said. Your silence is deafening.
Anyway, go back and read what I wrote -- "He invested a Top-10 selection in a player that by all accounts no one else thought was worthy of that high a selection, AND that by all accounts that no one else thought would play LT in the league."
NOTHING you have said contradicts that.
Your defense of Reese seems to be that because the league-wide consensus (also reported in a multitude of outlets beyond those you cite) was that Flowers was a first rounder who was probable a LT, he didn't blow it by investing a TOP 10 pick without trading down to select a player who has demonstrated beyond a doubt that he can't hold down the left side. Weak. Very weak.
In any event, this hyperfocus on Flowers misses the real issue, which is that that particular screw up was only one of many that has resulted in a neutered offense that cannot utilize most of the playbook and a QB that has to release the ball at near-record speed in order to generate any yardage and avoid getting killed.
Nice job, Jerry.
Was a probable RT.
That was a whopper of a typo.
My bad.
Hahahahahaha true story. Dude was so clumsy he once tripped over his own feet on a play and fell on his ass.