Crossroads: Biggest interview question for new Coach and GM

drafting a "mobile" QB in order to make up for deficiencies in protection seems more trendy these days, rather than the tried and true methods of building a solid foundation in the trenches.

See the Dallas Cowboys.

doesn't necessarily have to be a "mobile" QB in the traditional sense. A guy with movement like Alex Smith would be fine as he can move when necessary but isn't an athletic freak who's breaking tackles behind the LOS.

of football, and we want to protect the Duke.

Did you just respond to yourself?

The biggest question I'd have for potential GMs is how do you plan on using analytics? What does your data science and analytics support staff look like?

I added an additional thought.

How are you going to transform the OLine into being dominant in both run and pass?

Don't worry...unless he starts arguing with himself.

For the past few years, the Giants have been trying to establish the run with a crappy O-Line and no blue chip running back. That has not worked. No one has respected our running game for a long time. Add to that, very predictable play-calling, and it has really limited our offense.

Our drafts have not adequately addressed the O-Line or RB needs. The new Coach and GM must be in sync to make sure the team works effectively. This has not been the case for a while.

Hopefully, this will all change starting with the next draft.

When you have a Top 5 pick, if there's a QB you like, you have to roll the dice and hope you get a guy that will consistently help you compete for the playoffs for the next decade.

Some folks (not saying you Britt) think that picking an offensive lineman in the top 5 is somehow without risk. They are probably just as many blown top 5 picks on offensive linemen (who could forget Robert Gallery, for example?) as there are blown picks on QBs. I'd rather gamble on a franchise changing QB than a franchise changing offensive lineman.

Don't like picking a RB with a Top 5 (especially a top 3 pick) here. Two reasons: With our offensive line as depleted as it is and without a QB that can operate behind a dysfunctional offensive line, even a standout RB won't be much of a game changer. Plus, the shelf-life of the average NFL RB is so short (e.g., 3 years), by the time you build a cohesive offensive line you have to wonder how much tread will be left on the tires of a RB. Finally, history shows that you can get an above-average RB in the later rounds (much more so than a QB - guys like Wilson and Brady notwithstanding).

A lot of intriguing QBs in this draft class. If there's a guy you like at the top of the draft, you pull the trigger and don't look back.

In comment 13736992 Bob in Vt said:

Quote:

For the past few years, the Giants have been trying to establish the run with a crappy O-Line and no blue chip running back. That has not worked. No one has respected our running game for a long time. Add to that, very predictable play-calling, and it has really limited our offense. Our drafts have not adequately addressed the O-Line or RB needs. The new Coach and GM must be in sync to make sure the team works effectively. This has not been the case for a while. Hopefully, this will all change starting with the next draft.

We also try to "run" a lot by being tricky and less physical. Then when it requires a physical nature (3rd adn short, 4th and short and goal line) we can't do it. This ahs been a problem for a while now. We need to be able to run more out of a standard set and all these BS shotgun draws.

to me, that is [b]THE[\b] key question moving forward.

Answer that and then go out and get the GM to implement that philosophy.

I hope for a Giants philosophy of "championships are won at the line of scrimmage".

After selecting the GM with the shared philosophy, find the coaches to maximize the current talent and the scouting department to assess and select (FA and Draft) to bring in the new talent that supports the philosophy.

Key to this is assessing the current roster after the new GM and coaching staff is on board. Does the team have what it needs (BBI would say no, regardless of philosophy and schemes)

Do the Giants continue to run a 4-3 defense and place value on the front and back 4 positions, while economizing on the LBers. Many on BBI squeal for increased investment in LBs - ignoring the team 4-3 scheme and positional priorities.

What is the future offensive scheme - a continuation of the west coast variations? Or a move towards a blended offense, with more vertical attacks?

What style of offensive blocking scheme will the team use as part of the new offense?

Regardless of whether the team selects a QB or not, investments in the OL and Dl should be priorities. Answer the questions above before placing names of draft candidates for the Giants.

The team is weeks away from having a clue to these answers.

and that's why Jerry Reese standing completely pat for two years has been so maddening.

Flowers, Pugh, and Richburg are not completely without talent to varying degrees. A thrifty vet signing or two to put in between them and serve in tandem with them in some instances might do wonders, and bring out the talent that they should have had from the get go.

They spend an awful lot of time on the DL

Have pieces in place to run anything. They usually have a power back, 3rd down backs, terrific slot WRs and two big lunkheads at TE. Keep the pieces you need to be able to combat anyone, don't marry a system exclusively, have a blue print for how to build a team and find easily replaceable parts. Guys like Odell are next to impossible to find, same with a Zeke Elliott or Le'Veon Bell and when they go down your team eats it.

The Pats have relied on the same groupings of types of players since they were the Giants under Ron Erhardt and Parcells. It's simple NE smash mouth, or spread em out, occasionally take the deep shot. They spread the field in all 4 areas and isolate matchups in space that guys like Troy Brown and Wes Welker and Danny Amendola and Julian Edelman and Kevin Faulk and James White and LeGarrette Blount have won repeatedly. This is a team game built on individual wins in individual situations. These aren't world beating talents, they aren't impossible to find, they just have to be identified to fit a mold and you have to pick them and coach them.

Looking for "franchise" anything is going to get you pinned to a player who can literally ruin a season if he gets hurt. I understand the Brady factor, I understand the Belichick factor, but it's a simple blueprint that we should absolutely copy. You can bring in any coach or player and find a role within that organism so long as you're clear that you're looking for specific parts. It's the same thing as the assembly line, it revolutionized manufacturing as Belichick has revolutionized maintaining excellence in the modern FA period of the NFL. They have an identity and they maintain it year in and year out.

at the line of scrimmage, but does it really apply to most of the recent SB winners? It definitely allowed us to upset the Pats twice, and I think it's a good philosophy for winning the regular season -- especially in Giants stadium -- yet I'm not convinced. Good schemes and disciplined players can negate the skill advantage, which is why Belichick/Adams/Brady are so consistently excellent.

...has to be a priority. By mobile, I mean a QB that doesn't have to be the leading rusher on the team, but one that can extend plays and hurt you with his legs only when he HAS to. A throw-back statue sitting back in the pocket is not suited for today's game especially when you see the shitty OL the Giants have, as well as the lousy OL players coming out of college the last few years. Also the increased speed and size of NFL bound defensive players is a factor.

Yeah, everybody will say look at the mobile QBs in the league and see how short their careers are. I get that. But a guy like Aaron Rodgers to me is THE quintessential QB that every team wish they had. That incidentally is why the Giant's offense tanked once McAdoo arrived in NY. He thought he could take the GB system and apply it anywhere. Soooooo not true. Aaron Rodgers made that system work. Nobody else could, or ever will duplicate that.

Everyone would agree that building an offensive line and running the ball is a key to success. But most would also agree that without a top QB, you are likely going to be a perennial playoff contender, but not a perennial title contender.

My question would be this - What is the priority in investing limited resources? Do you draft a QB who is cost contained for the next 5 years and spend on the O-Line? Do you let OBJ walk and hope to replace him with a lesser, but more affordable talent?

I agree the key is "what is the identity of the team," but to an extent that is easy. Nobody is going to come in and suggest a run and shoot where we win 45-38 most weeks. Everyone will say they want to control the LOS on both sides and control the clock. The more important question is how do you manage your resources to accomplish that?

Wentz like?
RG III like?

IMO, the Giants need a pocket passer who can move in the pocket to avoid pressure, and slide outside of the pocket to create different passing lines. Avoid a pocket statue. Avoid a running QB - they don't seem to last long in the NFL.

While we are talking about mobile QBs. I am among the anti Mayfield crowd. Maturity and long term survival doubts. I think of Jonny Manziel when Mayfield is mentioned.

1. Hire a GM/coach combo that is both on the same page and completely fluid in its approach. The number one job requirement for the GM should be twofold: external talent acquisition and internal talent assessment. The coach's job should be to optimize the gameplan and depth chart to the talent the GM has assembled.

2. Move away from the franchise quarterback concept. Treat the position as you do the others on the field. Doing this has multiple advantages:

a) Insulates against a single injury derailing the entire team
b) Protects the franchise from being stuck in what could be a decade+ long search for the right guy
c) Allows for greater investment in the backup QB positions
d) Opens the possibility of using a mobile quarterback that could be more likely to get hurt

Insisting on a "franchise" QB just because you are at the top of the first round, regardless of whether you feel they are worthy of the pick hasn't worked out great for teams in the past.

I'd rather they take the best player available for what the future identity of the franchise is, moving forward. If that's a QB, great. If it's another position, then I'm all for whatever is going to help us build the new identity.

In comment 13737029 Joey in VA said:

Quote:

Have pieces in place to run anything. They usually have a power back, 3rd down backs, terrific slot WRs and two big lunkheads at TE. Keep the pieces you need to be able to combat anyone, don't marry a system exclusively, have a blue print for how to build a team and find easily replaceable parts. Guys like Odell are next to impossible to find, same with a Zeke Elliott or Le'Veon Bell and when they go down your team eats it. The Pats have relied on the same groupings of types of players since they were the Giants under Ron Erhardt and Parcells. It's simple NE smash mouth, or spread em out, occasionally take the deep shot. They spread the field in all 4 areas and isolate matchups in space that guys like Troy Brown and Wes Welker and Danny Amendola and Julian Edelman and Kevin Faulk and James White and LeGarrette Blount have won repeatedly. This is a team game built on individual wins in individual situations. These aren't world beating talents, they aren't impossible to find, they just have to be identified to fit a mold and you have to pick them and coach them. Looking for "franchise" anything is going to get you pinned to a player who can literally ruin a season if he gets hurt. I understand the Brady factor, I understand the Belichick factor, but it's a simple blueprint that we should absolutely copy. You can bring in any coach or player and find a role within that organism so long as you're clear that you're looking for specific parts. It's the same thing as the assembly line, it revolutionized manufacturing as Belichick has revolutionized maintaining excellence in the modern FA period of the NFL. They have an identity and they maintain it year in and year out.

this is our major issue IMO we dont have an identity or culture. and we dont draft to support that identity and culture.

Ive felt for years there is a total disconnect between the scouting and coaching. we are drafting players often times to make them fit a system that they are ill suited for? Or we get players. like Te's and Fb's and the coaching doesnt utilize them..

I don't understand this mentality at all. Either you've evaluated the QBs and feel the guy is your franchise or you don't. If you truly believe in the guy, you do not risk trading back for him, that would be foolish.

Above all else, I want them to have conviction in the QB that they take. They should completely believe in and sell out for the next QB. Trading back for a QB is total contradiction.

In comment 13737240 AcesUp said:

Quote:

I don't understand this mentality at all. Either you've evaluated the QBs and feel the guy is your franchise or you don't. If you truly believe in the guy, you do not risk trading back for him, that would be foolish. Above all else, I want them to have conviction in the QB that they take. They should completely believe in and sell out for the next QB. Trading back for a QB is total contradiction.

I said trading "back into the first round"... Meaning if you like Mayfield but don't want to take him at 2, you draft somebody else then try to trade back into the first round to get him later in the round if he falls.

and yes Houston's talent level back then was shaky at best but David Carr wasn't any good. Period. Blame him for lack of pocket presence and an inability to elevate the offense. The guy sucked.

Draft a great QB with serious chops and the offense will follow him every time, barring extreme circumstances.

But I believe that if you feel that Mayfield is a guy worth taking in the first round, you take him where we sit in the first. You don't play games and risk another team grabbing him before you. As large as a high first investment is, the larger investment is the organizational investment of 3-4 years that you'll sink in developing and evaluating this player. If they have a first round grade on QB, just take him and start evaluating players for the 2nd round.

In comment 13737280 AcesUp said:

Quote:

But I believe that if you feel that Mayfield is a guy worth taking in the first round, you take him where we sit in the first. You don't play games and risk another team grabbing him before you. As large as a high first investment is, the larger investment is the organizational investment of 3-4 years that you'll sink in developing and evaluating this player. If they have a first round grade on QB, just take him and start evaluating players for the 2nd round.

What gives me pause about taking ANY quarterback in the Top 5 is the proliferation of the spread offense, and the inability and unreadiness most QB's are coming out of college needing that redshirt year to learn to read a defense, and there are no guarantees they ever will.

That's why I agree with Joey and Terps about moving away from that model of drafting.

I just wouldn't assume that means he'll be the quarterback for ten years.

the player.

To answer the broader theme of of thread I think it's important to exercise conviction, direction and patience. All of that starts at QB. I'd prefer they try and fail giving a highly drafted QB a longer leash than taking a bunch of smaller cuts with shorter eval periods on a other players. The possibility of choosing wrong is high, but you try again in a few years.

In comment 13737092 Go Terps said:

Quote:

1. Hire a GM/coach combo that is both on the same page and completely fluid in its approach. The number one job requirement for the GM should be twofold: external talent acquisition and internal talent assessment. The coach's job should be to optimize the gameplan and depth chart to the talent the GM has assembled. 2. Move away from the franchise quarterback concept. Treat the position as you do the others on the field. Doing this has multiple advantages: a) Insulates against a single injury derailing the entire team b) Protects the franchise from being stuck in what could be a decade+ long search for the right guy c) Allows for greater investment in the backup QB positions d) Opens the possibility of using a mobile quarterback that could be more likely to get hurt

I have also think this would be an interesting experiment. You can pretty much find good college spread QBs late in the draft or as UDFAs. What if a team just kept 4 around (3 on the roster, 1 on the practice squad?) The QB position is treated differently in college than in the NFL. Why is a “franchise” guy necessary to win?

grammar fail

Then you might as well stick with Webb he’s already got a year in....

what having a dominant RB does for an offense. There was an interesting piece recently on that - look at the Cowboys for example. With Zeke they are a major PIA to defend. A great RB "sucks everyone in" and makes it difficult to defend the other players. Remember Westbook and McCoy, Edgerrin James, Marshall Faulk, Fred Taylor. Emmitt Smith. These guys were terrifying to play against and every team was built around having one.

For a long time, the RB position was king. All the big stars were RBs. Then everyone decided they weren't important.

I don't really give a sh#t what other teams are doing. Playing in the Northeast, I want the Giants to go back to a great running game. Physical, technical OL with great RBs. A passing game with a strong arm QB that pushes the ball down the field when opponents defend the run.

The key is finding that great feature Tailback. I'm not as high on Barkley as most.

coming up on the open market: Le'Veon Bell.

Potential Bold move: trade/cut Manning and sign Bell.

and why?


Biggest interview question for both coach and GM.

with a top 3-5 pick. Accept it.

In comment 13737532 Dave in Hoboken said:

Quote:

with a top 3-5 pick. Accept it.

I've accepted it for weeks now. We may not be in the position of having a top 5 pick AND a handful of solid looking rookie QBs to pick from for a long time.

If we are ever going to see power sweeps and runs off tackle again and can he please work on screen passes

"Hotdog"

Question:

'Mustard' or 'ketchup'.

"Don't fuck this up"

In comment 13742858 NikkiMac said:

Quote:

If we are ever going to see power sweeps and runs off tackle again and can he please work on screen passes

Three things that require a certain talent level at offensive line to run.

nobody just knows it yet because they won't let him play any reindeer games...

hope for a brady...yeah

how many times, unless you are a Cleveland pick in top 3? they are there. AND should NOT be planning to make it an annual thing. no brainer draft a qb..but do your damn homework and get it right as possible..this is why I like they brought Ernie in as a consultant here now

In comment 13743201 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

nobody just knows it yet because they won't let him play any reindeer games...

lmfao..it's so pathetic to say the least