I never knocked the team for losing Cofield or Hankins. I think both signed contracts well above what they were worth. But Joseph's contract with the Vikings was not over the top. Given that he was a relatively high 2nd round pick and was pretty much red shirted as a rookie, what was the rationale for not re-signing Joseph? I dont remember if the team was strapped for cash then. If you think about it, keepimg Joseph would mean not using a 2nd pick on Hankins or Tomlinson and not spending what what we spent on Snacks. We'd probably have a pretty good OL with those picks and/or that money. Something went wromg in losing Joseph. Am I missing something?
How did he let a homegrown talent like that walk? The number of early round Reese picks that weren’t resigned to extensions was a red alarm for me.
Because it’s better to keep LJ at 6 mil per than to spend multiple picks on the position that could’ve been used to improve other areas of the roster.
Quote:
it wasn’t a right or wrong move but it’s one hey handled very well, IMO. And they usually succeed in taking a DT in the second so why not keep that up and pay next to nothing for a position that’s generally hard and expensive to fill?
Because it’s better to keep LJ at 6 mil per than to spend multiple picks on the position that could’ve been used to improve other areas of the roster.
Hindsight sure is sweet. Read my post, it wasn’t a good or bad move at the time but it’s one they’ve handled well since. Not sure what more there is to say on it.
Quote:
In comment 13752383 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
it wasn’t a right or wrong move but it’s one hey handled very well, IMO. And they usually succeed in taking a DT in the second so why not keep that up and pay next to nothing for a position that’s generally hard and expensive to fill?
Because it’s better to keep LJ at 6 mil per than to spend multiple picks on the position that could’ve been used to improve other areas of the roster.
Hindsight sure is sweet. Read my post, it wasn’t a good or bad move at the time but it’s one they’ve handled well since. Not sure what more there is to say on it.
Because just about everything about it is wrong.
“He isn’t the player he is now.” — he was very good here and helped the Giants win a SB.
“It’s a move they handled well” — so letting a good, young, DT who was willing to sign a very reasonable deal is handling the situation well?
“...why not keep drafting the position with cheap talent” — like I said earlier, the multiple picks they spent at DT could’ve been used on other talent deficient areas of the team. Look at the guys picked after Jay Bromley, a trash pick to try to replace LJ.
Trading for a shell of his former self Jon Beason was Reese’s answer to fixing the teams perpetually awful LB corps.
It’s not hindsight. Most Giants fans had the attitude at the time, “gee, if we could’ve signed him for 6 mil per we should’ve kept him.”
He simply wasn’t the player on the Giants that he is on the Vikings and there’s no guarantee he’d be this good if he stayed. Like I said, hindsight is awesome.
Now, let me finish my thought...
We either..
A. Do not draft well
OR
B. When we do happen to draft a decent player, we cannot find a way to keep him after his rookie contract.
Is that right? What are we left with?
Jerry Reese didn't put much thought into paying a DT since it wasn't one of his premium positions (QB/WR/LT/DE/CB).
Now I dont remember the CAP situation and some have said money was an issue. But,he signed a contract not over the top. By the way, I disagree that he was not that good. He was a very good DT in his last year here
Not sure if serious 🤔
I disagree. The Giants were a the 14th ranked rush defense his last year here (2013). Not great, but slightly above average. In 2014 they were 30th, and in 2015 they were 24th. The Giants had to spend bank in 2016 to get another run-stopping DT FA to fill the gap he left.
IMO he was clearly a quality player and DTs often take time to develop. Letting a good DT walk and then still having to use high draft picks on DT and sign DT FAs for big money is a horrible way to build a roster.
Now I dont remember the CAP situation and some have said money was an issue. But,he signed a contract not over the top. By the way, I disagree that he was not that good. He was a very good DT in his last year here
Or what Samian said.
Letting him go was ridiculously stupid, and time has proven that right.
Idk why some act like he didn't play great at times during his stint in Blue, and prove at age 24/25 to be well worth the $36 million dollars entering his prime with very little wear and tear.
He was a force in 2011 at times. "linval you don't got one you don't know what it feel like!!!"
Last 3-4 years he's been an absolute beast for the Vikings.
He might be the strongest player in the NFL.
LV was looking at minimum $36/$6M p.annum + but was hoping for more.. Wilfork, Atkins, Suh were all making $40M/$7-10M+ per annum. This was after Cofield signed 6 for $36 money in Wash.
JinVA correct, LV coming off season where he was ranked below 15th out of all DTs. Canty and Hankins still on roster that year. 2014 draft was ‘loaded’ (sic) at the draft.
Fans forget 2014 was a cap purge. Got balance sheets into perspective and moved forward. Drafts improved after that year.
Hindsigh easy for fans. Don’t have to take into consideration all the factors. Don’t forget 2014 draft was good for DTs ... Easley (knee?) Sutton, Jernigan, the one I liked, Daquan Jones.
Sure losing LJ not a ‘good’ thing, but you would have had to lose something to keep him. That ought to be part of your position. What would have have given up to keep him. Player? Cap Space? Or draft a position that wasn’t as strong in that draft.
Losing that 7th round pick was BRUTAL I’ll tell ya...
Trading for Beason was actually one of Reese’s best moves as it actually showed it’s upside for a bit. He shouldn’t have been resigned, but trading for him was 100% a great move.
Quote:
In comment 13752383 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
it wasn’t a right or wrong move but it’s one hey handled very well, IMO. And they usually succeed in taking a DT in the second so why not keep that up and pay next to nothing for a position that’s generally hard and expensive to fill?
Because it’s better to keep LJ at 6 mil per than to spend multiple picks on the position that could’ve been used to improve other areas of the roster.
Hindsight sure is sweet. Read my post, it wasn’t a good or bad move at the time but it’s one they’ve handled well since. Not sure what more there is to say on it.
Now I dont remember the CAP situation and some have said money was an issue. But,he signed a contract not over the top. By the way, I disagree that he was not that good. He was a very good DT in his last year here
Quote:
decided to give the money to ancient, broken Jon Beason who he traded a draft pick for.. because he can't find linebackers.
Losing that 7th round pick was BRUTAL I’ll tell ya...
Trading for Beason was actually one of Reese’s best moves as it actually showed it’s upside for a bit. He shouldn’t have been resigned, but trading for him was 100% a great move.
LV was looking at minimum $36/$6M p.annum + but was hoping for more.. Wilfork, Atkins, Suh were all making $40M/$7-10M+ per annum. This was after Cofield signed 6 for $36 money in Wash.
JinVA correct, LV coming off season where he was ranked below 15th out of all DTs. Canty and Hankins still on roster that year. 2014 draft was ‘loaded’ (sic) at the draft.
Fans forget 2014 was a cap purge. Got balance sheets into perspective and moved forward. Drafts improved after that year.
Hindsigh easy for fans. Don’t have to take into consideration all the factors. Don’t forget 2014 draft was good for DTs ... Easley (knee?) Sutton, Jernigan, the one I liked, Daquan Jones.
Sure losing LJ not a ‘good’ thing, but you would have had to lose something to keep him. That ought to be part of your position. What would have have given up to keep him. Player? Cap Space? Or draft a position that wasn’t as strong in that draft.
The cap was an issue that year. I believe they drafted LJ in ‘10 and Hankins in ‘13. They signed Cullen Jenkins in ‘13. LJ hit FA in ‘14, so the FO made the decision to stick with the 32 year old Cullen Jenkins and Hankins instead of keeping LJ.
I can’t remember the contracts at the time, but the Giants had a lot of older vets on the team. Usually the smart play is to shed an older contract to keep the young talent. Reese decided not to.
Losing Linval Joseph
Joseph had much, much more guaranteed money and a much longer term. Beason also had about half the cap hit in 2014 and had a contract that was easily re-done and then terminated.
The Giants actually opted more for DRC that off-season - and that's the comparison that should be made.
Quote:
In comment 13752475 Mr. Nickels said:
Quote:
decided to give the money to ancient, broken Jon Beason who he traded a draft pick for.. because he can't find linebackers.
Losing that 7th round pick was BRUTAL I’ll tell ya...
Trading for Beason was actually one of Reese’s best moves as it actually showed it’s upside for a bit. He shouldn’t have been resigned, but trading for him was 100% a great move.
trading for Beacon proved to be pointless as many said at the time. It was too late to save the season. The pick they gave up wasn't much but in the end the trade accomplish absolutely nothing of worth and resigning him at the expense of LJ was incredibly dumb.
No, it wasn’t pointless. He was the best LBer we had since pierce and it took a bag of balls to get that production for half a season. It also allowed us to negotiate with him for an extension which we overpaid for - the upside of him not getting injured would have been well worth the overpay but we lost that one.
Think what you want about Linval or whoever, but the Beason trade was a good move.
Joseph had much, much more guaranteed money and a much longer term. Beason also had about half the cap hit in 2014 and had a contract that was easily re-done and then terminated.
The Giants actually opted more for DRC that off-season - and that's the comparison that should be made.
And if we're going to play hindsight - as everything shook out, Snacks is making about the same amount of money on a similar contact to the extension Joseph signed and is arguably the better player.
In that one simple respect, the Giants are better off.
Quote:
Beason and Joseph are supremely unrelated and signed very different deals.
Joseph had much, much more guaranteed money and a much longer term. Beason also had about half the cap hit in 2014 and had a contract that was easily re-done and then terminated.
The Giants actually opted more for DRC that off-season - and that's the comparison that should be made.
And if we're going to play hindsight - as everything shook out, Snacks is making about the same amount of money on a similar contact to the extension Joseph signed and is arguably the better player.
In that one simple respect, the Giants are better off.
In theory, they could’ve kept LJ and still signed Snacks. They would’ve had a sick rotation in ‘16 w Snacks/LJ/Hankins and had LJ/Snacks this year. That move would’ve saved a ‘14 3rd (Bromley) and a ‘17 2nd (Tomlinson).
That's how defensive minded head coaches build teams.
Linval got more money than the Giants were willing to spend. So they let him walk. Reese has consistently found good DT's in the second round of the draft (ie, cheap). So he figured Linval was replaceable.
Beason was on a one year prove it contract; and prove it he did. He deserved the follow-on contract that he received. Unfortunately, his body was done.
The massive FA signing that Reese and Co. performed was a desperate move. Reese knew his days were numbered.
Now I dont remember the CAP situation and some have said money was an issue. But,he signed a contract not over the top. By the way, I disagree that he was not that good. He was a very good DT in his last year here
Agreed. A big Reese blunder. As far as the cap situation, we were short of money because of Reese's other bad FA signings. The two are related. I still would have resigned Joseph.
Joseph had much, much more guaranteed money and a much longer term. Beason also had about half the cap hit in 2014 and had a contract that was easily re-done and then terminated.
The Giants actually opted more for DRC that off-season - and that's the comparison that should be made.
This is a completely false narrative that people on BBI have spun since the signing. Giants chose to spend the money on Beadon rather than Linval. They were in win-now mode so it made sense if you believed Beasons injuries were behind him.
I think that’s the schism within Giants team management. Reading tea leaves outside in ... the business of football 2010 - 2015 was getting faster, younger, cheaper. NYFG FO was holding onto Vets past prime, placing premium on ‘leadership’ and ‘professionalism’. O-line D-line were getting old, Beason comes in on 1 yr/7th round contract and we were all seduced by his experienced leadership leading the transformation of LB corps because as fans our bar is set so low.
I’ve no skin in the game Coughlin v Reese so no need to read into that, but think Coughlin (and followers) wanted vets, Reese (and followers) wanted youth. Remember Coughlin was undone by R.J. Soward at Jax; kid who represented the first modern prototype young player out of USC; brash, outspoken, pot smoking. TC liked his players to fall ‘in line’. Vets represent discipline, professionalism around playing the game. All too aware of Reese development reaches (A. Robinson).
Going back to 2014, team held onto Vets where it ought likely not to have done so.
That's bullshit. Vikes front loaded his first year but the guaranteed money was like 15 million. Reese was a moron and was Deservedly fired. Sadly 3-4 years too late. The Joseph contract was a
Sad example of how when he actually hit on a pick he let him go for
Quote:
In comment 13752383 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
it wasn’t a right or wrong move but it’s one hey handled very well, IMO. And they usually succeed in taking a DT in the second so why not keep that up and pay next to nothing for a position that’s generally hard and expensive to fill?
Because it’s better to keep LJ at 6 mil per than to spend multiple picks on the position that could’ve been used to improve other areas of the roster.
Hindsight sure is sweet. Read my post, it wasn’t a good or bad move at the time but it’s one they’ve handled well since. Not sure what more there is to say on it.
Posts like this are just bullshit. He was a rising player who signed for a
Reasonable deal. Marvin Austin. Bromley along w Hankins and LinJo Loves Early DTs. The two he hit on he let
Walk. Moronic
Quote:
In comment 13752402 WillVAB said:
Quote:
In comment 13752383 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
it wasn’t a right or wrong move but it’s one hey handled very well, IMO. And they usually succeed in taking a DT in the second so why not keep that up and pay next to nothing for a position that’s generally hard and expensive to fill?
Because it’s better to keep LJ at 6 mil per than to spend multiple picks on the position that could’ve been used to improve other areas of the roster.
Hindsight sure is sweet. Read my post, it wasn’t a good or bad move at the time but it’s one they’ve handled well since. Not sure what more there is to say on it.
Posts like this are just bullshit. He was a rising player who signed for a
Reasonable deal. Marvin Austin. Bromley along w Hankins and LinJo Loves Early DTs. The two he hit on he let
Walk. Moronic
Because you don’t agree it’s bullshit? We have a better player now in Harrison with a rookie DT that has a ton of upside next to him. But yeah, let’s fucking ignore that and play the hindsight game.
What’s bullshit is that I already admitted the decision could have gone either way but that isn’t good enough apparently. You have to be vehemently for or against something I guess...