I think some fans are too young or have forgotten what can happen when a team makes dramatic changes like firing a GM, head coach, and VP of player personnel.
He’s an average player. He is great in the run game and terrible as a pass blocker. I wouldn’t mind him as a backup, but he’s not a true starter and wouldn’t be this huge loss.
reading between the lines of a number of late season/early offseason quotes, some of the Giants free agents were very interested in testing the waters. It suggests the team culture was pretty toxic last year.
reading between the lines of a number of late season/early offseason quotes, some of the Giants free agents were very interested in testing the waters. It suggests the team culture was pretty toxic last year.
Agree. The big question is did the team culture turn toxic because some players can't handle losing, or was it already toxic which lead to its losing record.
totally replaceable. Another Jerry Reese troll through the trash bin hoping to find gold. The other teams in San Diego's division didn't even bother with him when San Diego let him go. No tears shed if he walks. He should be encouraged to do so.
he can't block for shit in the passing game and is often confused about his assignment -- all he can do is bull rush -- he can be stunted on early and often
Is that when Banks and Papa did their 90 second "inside the film room" on Fluker, they showed one good block and one horrific pass protection error on Fluker. They make everyone else look like a HoF player, but Fluker got the poo stick. No way he's coming back.
If not, he may not be a fit here. It's about what the team is planning to do offensively.
Giants were a zone blocking team under Solari. They ran a lot of power inside zone blocking where only the three interior OL move together. But that might have been because they had such horrible results when they tried moving the tackles.
In any event, the big change under Solari was moving more to a zone blocking scheme--and I think we can all agree it was a disaster. Pugh and Richburg would seem to be a good fit for that scheme but just never worked consistently.
If not, he may not be a fit here. It's about what the team is planning to do offensively.
Giants were a zone blocking team under Solari. They ran a lot of power inside zone blocking where only the three interior OL move together. But that might have been because they had such horrible results when they tried moving the tackles.
In any event, the big change under Solari was moving more to a zone blocking scheme--and I think we can all agree it was a disaster. Pugh and Richburg would seem to be a good fit for that scheme but just never worked consistently.
Yeah, the results sucked, but based on what the Vikings offense was, I think we have to expect that they're going to run the same scheme here. They were pretty zone heavy too.
Those are NOT zone plays. This team hasn't run a real zone blocking scheme up front ever, it's been a hybrid mish mash with no focal point that played to no one's strength. It's great to be multiple, but when you suck on ISO runs and zone runs and tosses outside and you keep mixing them up you're going to suck at everything which we did.
The core of a good running game is a play or two that is really difficult for a defense to defend honestly if it's blocked properly. Once you have that down teams can key on it, once they key, you adjust and build from there. You can give the same look with multiple plays once you establish something you do well but we never did that. If a team can sit back, knowing that by formation what you're running you are absolutely screwed and that was our biggest issue and has been since McAdoo came here.
Think back to when we had D. Ward and Gilbride running the ground attack, we a counter play we used as our bread and butter and teams would load up to stop it which opened up the rest of the field and the playbook. Teams KNEW we were running but they couldn't do a damn thing about it because they run the risk of Eli killing them downfield, which he did for many years. You erase the deep threat by constantly using 11 personnel and 3 step drops and you have 8 players in the box at all times. Going to run them out of it? Nope, you're not you don't have the horses up front or in the barn to do it. Now your offense is fked. It's really that simple.
A flawed player like Fluker is still valuable. Nobody can have stars at every position; the salary cap ensures that.
Fluker is a good run blocker, so he has some value. For right now, having him on the roster is better than having to replace him. But if the Giants can upgrade guard and can send him to the bench, or get rid of him altogether, fine. If he leaves of his own volition and the Giants have to replace him, that's also fine.
A flawed player like Fluker is still valuable. Nobody can have stars at every position; the salary cap ensures that.
Fluker is a good run blocker, so he has some value. For right now, having him on the roster is better than having to replace him. But if the Giants can upgrade guard and can send him to the bench, or get rid of him altogether, fine. If he leaves of his own volition and the Giants have to replace him, that's also fine.
A bum is still a bum. You want this team to improve, don't get caught up thinking some ham-and-egger is now a useful player because the team stinks. He's still a bum.
His original team didn't want him, none of the teams in the same division that played against him twice a year wanted him and if you didn't know he had been a first rounder, no one else would want him either. I doubt we make much effort to re-sign him.
RE: RE: Quality O-linemen have become harder to find. Â
A flawed player like Fluker is still valuable. Nobody can have stars at every position; the salary cap ensures that.
Fluker is a good run blocker, so he has some value. For right now, having him on the roster is better than having to replace him. But if the Giants can upgrade guard and can send him to the bench, or get rid of him altogether, fine. If he leaves of his own volition and the Giants have to replace him, that's also fine.
A bum is still a bum. You want this team to improve, don't get caught up thinking some ham-and-egger is now a useful player because the team stinks. He's still a bum.
His original team didn't want him, none of the teams in the same division that played against him twice a year wanted him and if you didn't know he had been a first rounder, no one else would want him either. I doubt we make much effort to re-sign him.
No one is safe.
Perhaps, but I wouldn't be "sure" of anything. We have no idea what the new regime wants to do.
Please don't say hog mollie.
Quote:
so I'm sure the Giants are interested in keeping him; but only at the right price
Please don't say hog mollie.
But while we are at it, please don't refer the football as "The Duke" again.
I'm sure its a money thing. Fluker believes he is worth more than the Giants do, is my guess.
I really want him back but if he wants 8mil/yr, forget about it, see ya.
Fat Asses
Fatsos
Chubbos
Fattys
Chunks
He's a JAG.
This will make room for Flowers at RG.
Giants were a zone blocking team under Solari. They ran a lot of power inside zone blocking where only the three interior OL move together. But that might have been because they had such horrible results when they tried moving the tackles.
In any event, the big change under Solari was moving more to a zone blocking scheme--and I think we can all agree it was a disaster. Pugh and Richburg would seem to be a good fit for that scheme but just never worked consistently.
Quote:
If not, he may not be a fit here. It's about what the team is planning to do offensively.
Giants were a zone blocking team under Solari. They ran a lot of power inside zone blocking where only the three interior OL move together. But that might have been because they had such horrible results when they tried moving the tackles.
In any event, the big change under Solari was moving more to a zone blocking scheme--and I think we can all agree it was a disaster. Pugh and Richburg would seem to be a good fit for that scheme but just never worked consistently.
Yeah, the results sucked, but based on what the Vikings offense was, I think we have to expect that they're going to run the same scheme here. They were pretty zone heavy too.
The core of a good running game is a play or two that is really difficult for a defense to defend honestly if it's blocked properly. Once you have that down teams can key on it, once they key, you adjust and build from there. You can give the same look with multiple plays once you establish something you do well but we never did that. If a team can sit back, knowing that by formation what you're running you are absolutely screwed and that was our biggest issue and has been since McAdoo came here.
Think back to when we had D. Ward and Gilbride running the ground attack, we a counter play we used as our bread and butter and teams would load up to stop it which opened up the rest of the field and the playbook. Teams KNEW we were running but they couldn't do a damn thing about it because they run the risk of Eli killing them downfield, which he did for many years. You erase the deep threat by constantly using 11 personnel and 3 step drops and you have 8 players in the box at all times. Going to run them out of it? Nope, you're not you don't have the horses up front or in the barn to do it. Now your offense is fked. It's really that simple.
Fluker is a good run blocker, so he has some value. For right now, having him on the roster is better than having to replace him. But if the Giants can upgrade guard and can send him to the bench, or get rid of him altogether, fine. If he leaves of his own volition and the Giants have to replace him, that's also fine.
Quote:
I'd rather hear blue goose.
I'm partial to:
Fat Asses
Fatsos
Chubbos
Fattys
Chunks
how about just go back to George Young basics: dancing bears.
Fluker is a good run blocker, so he has some value. For right now, having him on the roster is better than having to replace him. But if the Giants can upgrade guard and can send him to the bench, or get rid of him altogether, fine. If he leaves of his own volition and the Giants have to replace him, that's also fine.
His original team didn't want him, none of the teams in the same division that played against him twice a year wanted him and if you didn't know he had been a first rounder, no one else would want him either. I doubt we make much effort to re-sign him.
Quote:
A flawed player like Fluker is still valuable. Nobody can have stars at every position; the salary cap ensures that.
Fluker is a good run blocker, so he has some value. For right now, having him on the roster is better than having to replace him. But if the Giants can upgrade guard and can send him to the bench, or get rid of him altogether, fine. If he leaves of his own volition and the Giants have to replace him, that's also fine.
A bum is still a bum. You want this team to improve, don't get caught up thinking some ham-and-egger is now a useful player because the team stinks. He's still a bum.
His original team didn't want him, none of the teams in the same division that played against him twice a year wanted him and if you didn't know he had been a first rounder, no one else would want him either. I doubt we make much effort to re-sign him.
This
John Greco is a better RG than Fluker