@RapSheet
16s17 seconds ago
More
The #Giants are expected to sign former #Patriots LT Nate Solder, source said. They get their franchise left tackle. Huge get.
Nor well got paid as the top Guard in the NFL, there’s no waiting around for him to be good either. Signing Norwell doesn’t mean we have more time to build a roster, the return on his investment starts now.
Solder and Norwells age are irrelevant in this scenario. If we signed either it would be to get better instantly, not in 2 years from now.
By definition, signing a younger player means you're getting more of his prime years. So yes, you do have more time. It's not irrelevant and we're not going to agree on this. A contract that gives you more of a players best years is better than a contract that gives you less of a player's best years.
RE: There is a real undercurrent on this site that if you try to win games Â
over the next two years, that you are doing a disservice to the franchise, the NFL, and maybe to the entire planet.
Solder helps us win now and will help the "transition" to the future. His signing simply means that we don't actually *need* to the "Trust the Process" or "let's get Mark Cuban fined" route that some people seem to want to embark upon.
And, since it always seem to come back to Eli, it's odd that the criticism is that he is no longer able to elevate shitty players around him. The solution, logically, would therefore be to not put shitty players around him, but instead put good players around him and remove the elevation burden.
But then, when you attempt to surround him with a stellar #1 WR, a quality #3 WR (Shep is a 3 not a 2), a potentially quality TE, and a quality OL, the plan is met with derision that includes extreme resistance to additionally adding a potentially superlative rushing attack.
It's pretty weird. Only thing I can think of is that the Giants aren't doing things the way they think they should be done, therefore it's doomed to fail.
RE: What’s even funnier is the Rams were 4-12 in 2016 Â
got a new head coach, signed Whitworth (which I was against due to age) and then had one of the best offenses in the NFL going 11-5. Gurley, in a new offense under he new HC had one of he best seasons in history at the RB position.
So was signing an aging tackle a part of that playoff run or did he hinder it? I was wrong about how he’d hold up, I fully admit t. We signed a guy 6 years younger but somehow he will hold up the future of the team?
The nfl doesn’t operate in 5+ year cycles anymore, it’s not 1990. You can change on a dime, I don’t know how many example of this some of you people need.
The league is built for teams to go worst to first, and it happens with more and more frequency every year.
One question. What if they take a qb but your wrong? What if we win games and eli plays well? Are you comfortable with a kid sitting 2 years? If Mara didn't cut eli now would he really cut him off a good year? To me That's something that needs serious discussion. The 2nd pick in the draft can't sit for 2 years imo
Yes, I am comfortable with that. The last thing we need is the Giants rolling the dice with Eli and being stuck as an 8-8 team with no QB in a couple years. Then they have to sacrifice a ton of assets to move up to get one. I would rather they take one now, even if they believe Eli still has something left.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: As much as I wanted Norwell, it's not like they didn't try. Â
Nor well got paid as the top Guard in the NFL, there’s no waiting around for him to be good either. Signing Norwell doesn’t mean we have more time to build a roster, the return on his investment starts now.
Solder and Norwells age are irrelevant in this scenario. If we signed either it would be to get better instantly, not in 2 years from now.
By definition, signing a younger player means you're getting more of his prime years. So yes, you do have more time. It's not irrelevant and we're not going to agree on this. A contract that gives you more of a players best years is better than a contract that gives you less of a player's best years.
We actually do agree on that, you just weren’t doing a good job of explaining that or I simply wasn’t understanding you. But Solder isn’t 35 so I guess I’m just not worried about it.
got a new head coach, signed Whitworth (which I was against due to age) and then had one of the best offenses in the NFL going 11-5. Gurley, in a new offense under he new HC had one of he best seasons in history at the RB position.
So was signing an aging tackle a part of that playoff run or did he hinder it? I was wrong about how he’d hold up, I fully admit t. We signed a guy 6 years younger but somehow he will hold up the future of the team?
The nfl doesn’t operate in 5+ year cycles anymore, it’s not 1990. You can change on a dime, I don’t know how many example of this some of you people need.
Sure, Whitworth absolutely helped them. The criticism of the idea of signing him was not about his ability to help a team in the first year. That was expected. It was about giving a big guarantee and multiple years given his age.And also about having completely legitimate and fair concerns about a guy that age staying healthy even for that first year.
And I'm not sure if I'm being difficult to understand or not, but I thought my opinion was fairly clear. I don't have a problem with Solder. However, if signing Nate Solder to that contract at 30 means the Giants think they're some kind of serious playoffs contender they want to build around Eli Manning expecting him to play well into his age 39 season, and they pass on the chance to draft a QB in favor of trading down or whatever, then I think it's another mistake by management just like sinking all your hopes on the health on a 36 year old lineman would have been for us. That's all.
and also be a solid LT when Eli is done? And Solder being added would help Darnold or Rosen in 2019 (neither is playing this year if we draft them) and he would also help Barkley if we go that route.
and also be a solid LT when Eli is done? And Solder being added would help Darnold or Rosen in 2019 (neither is playing this year if we draft them) and he would also help Barkley if we go that route.
being good the next 2 years and Darnold sitting behind Eli is easily the best case scenario.
Exactly!
Here’s the thing there’s nothing wrong with believing Eli has a little something left and being open to drafting the qb here in April. Matter of fact that’s probably the only way to think. It seems that some need to align themselves with thinking Eli is completely and having to draft a qb at all costs or thinking Eli has 4 years of awesomeness and avoiding the young qb like the plague.
It’s possible that the Giants feel eli is nearing the end or at the end BUT they don’t love the qbs in this draft. Then what? You can’t force the issue and take a qb just because.
You have to allow for variances or grey area in this thing.
like Solder are being signed to upgrade a position of need. It isn't to protect or lengthen Eli's or anyone else's careers.
It is part of improving a team that has been deficient for several years at specific positions.
But fats, the Giants should be tearing this thing down. Never mind that tearing this down is impossible and stupid... You know that. Why are we signing good players? We were 3-13 last year!!!!!!
It’s possible that the Giants feel eli is nearing the end or at the end BUT they don’t love the qbs in this draft. Then what? You can’t force the issue and take a qb just because.
You have to allow for variances or grey area in this thing.
I agree. If they truly believe none of these top 4 QBs in the draft will be franchise QBs then I will have to accept them passing on one. But if they pass on a QB they think will be a franchise QB just for the sake of trying to go all in on Eli the next year or two, then yes, I have a huge problem with it.
Also agree with Ryan. Winning the next couple of years and having a future franchise QB in the pipeline is the best case scenario.
many of the reasons why we were 3-13 are already out the door - Reese, McAdoo, bad starting OLineman, Beckham not being injured, and a brand new scheme on both sides of the ball.
I agree. If they truly believe none of these top 4 QBs in the draft will be franchise QBs then I will have to accept them passing on one. But if they pass on a QB they think will be a franchise QB just for the sake of trying to go all in on Eli the next year or two, then yes, I have a huge problem with it.
Also agree with Ryan. Winning the next couple of years and having a future franchise QB in the pipeline is the best case scenario.
I think you have summed up how most of the supporters of Rosen, Darnold, Mayfield, and Allen feel. I have a hard time believing that the Giants will put all their faith in Eli after allowing the benching etc. I hope I am right because if they pass on a QB solely to try to win once more with Eli then most of the fan base will be livid. Could you imagine the fan reaction and PR nightmare if they pass on a QB like Rosen and he ends up going to the Jets and turns into a franchise QB while Eli continues to regress and they become a struggling 6-10 to 7-9 team?
I don't get it. I keep hearing people clamor for a "complete overhaul", yet a fair portion of the roster will turn over, we have a new coach, GM and assistants, and we have guys we know we'll be replacing next year to free up cap space and all I keep hear after every signing is that these new players are getting in the way of the "2-3 year rebuild".
I honestly don't know what the fuck most of BBI is talking about anymore.
Maybe people want us to draft a QB, then simply keep tanking for a few years. Then keep drafting blue chippers to put us in position to win big in about four years.
You know, something like the Sixers did in the NBA...........
I agree. If they truly believe none of these top 4 QBs in the draft will be franchise QBs then I will have to accept them passing on one. But if they pass on a QB they think will be a franchise QB just for the sake of trying to go all in on Eli the next year or two, then yes, I have a huge problem with it.
Also agree with Ryan. Winning the next couple of years and having a future franchise QB in the pipeline is the best case scenario.
I think you have summed up how most of the supporters of Rosen, Darnold, Mayfield, and Allen feel. I have a hard time believing that the Giants will put all their faith in Eli after allowing the benching etc. I hope I am right because if they pass on a QB solely to try to win once more with Eli then most of the fan base will be livid. Could you imagine the fan reaction and PR nightmare if they pass on a QB like Rosen and he ends up going to the Jets and turns into a franchise QB while Eli continues to regress and they become a struggling 6-10 to 7-9 team?
If Josh Rosen turns out to be a bust, Saquon Barkley (or whomever else we could have had at #2) leads a team to a Super Bowl, and Eli doesn't bottom out then the fan base will be livid. The presence of Manning and/or Webb on the roster should not rule out drafting a QB 2nd overall, but if the scouting staff is not confident that any option at #2 is a real upgrade over Manning and/or Webb you don't take one for the sake of taking one
The presence of Manning and/or Webb on the roster should not rule out drafting a QB 2nd overall, but if the scouting staff is not confident that any option at #2 is a real upgrade over Manning and/or Webb you don't take one for the sake of taking one
The presence of Manning and/or Webb on the roster should not rule out drafting a QB 2nd overall, but if the scouting staff is not confident that any option at #2 is a real upgrade over Manning and/or Webb you don't take one for the sake of taking one
This is exactly what I was saying.
Maybe I misconstrued your post, but I thought you were advocating taking a QB at all cost just because one may be the real deal and we don't want him going to the Jets
It’s possible that the Giants feel eli is nearing the end or at the end BUT they don’t love the qbs in this draft. Then what? You can’t force the issue and take a qb just because.
You have to allow for variances or grey area in this thing.
I agree. If they truly believe none of these top 4 QBs in the draft will be franchise QBs then I will have to accept them passing on one. But if they pass on a QB they think will be a franchise QB just for the sake of trying to go all in on Eli the next year or two, then yes, I have a huge problem with it.
Also agree with Ryan. Winning the next couple of years and having a future franchise QB in the pipeline is the best case scenario.
By your own words on this thread you should be happy with this signing. You thought Solder was 32 and would have 2 years. He just turned 30. Logically then you should think he has 4 years left of good play. Which is the length of his contract.
I am ... I am happier. I never thought he was done. I just am not sure how much longer he will play. I might be wrong but, the pounding guys take in the NFL season after season - the body has to break down at a faster than normal rate? I am not a Dr. but, it seems like 30 is that "magical" threshold where players start(?) the drop-off?
I am glad he is 2 years younger than I originally thought. Who knows - maybe we just signed this generation's Jackie Slater? Fingers crossed.
Maybe I misconstrued your post, but I thought you were advocating taking a QB at all cost just because one may be the real deal and we don't want him going to the Jets
Sorry I should have been clear. None of the pro-QB supporters just want the Giants to take a QB just for the sake of taking one. If they conclude that none of these QB's are potential franchise QB's then I fully support a trade down or Barkley. I am a big fan of Rosen, Darnold, and Mayfield and I one of them to be the pick because I believe in them not because they play QB.
RE: There is a real undercurrent on this site that if you try to win games Â
over the next two years, that you are doing a disservice to the franchise, the NFL, and maybe to the entire planet.
Solder helps us win now and will help the "transition" to the future. His signing simply means that we don't actually *need* to the "Trust the Process" or "let's get Mark Cuban fined" route that some people seem to want to embark upon.
And, since it always seem to come back to Eli, it's odd that the criticism is that he is no longer able to elevate shitty players around him. The solution, logically, would therefore be to not put shitty players around him, but instead put good players around him and remove the elevation burden.
But then, when you attempt to surround him with a stellar #1 WR, a quality #3 WR (Shep is a 3 not a 2), a potentially quality TE, and a quality OL, the plan is met with derision that includes extreme resistance to additionally adding a potentially superlative rushing attack.
Admittingly ... I do worry to much so, take it with a grain of salt - disservice to "The entire planet" has crossed my mind. But, what can you do? We have to win now .... and GM Gettleman seems to be signing guys like he believes that also.
Let future generations (Giant fans) figure out how to save the planet. They can do it - they will be a good bunch.
I'd be careful about assuming a player in his 30s has 4 good years left. You want to bank on that? Check the ages of McKenzie, O'Hara, Diehl, and Seubert when they were done.
anyone have the contract details (i.e. the hit against the salary cap Â
for this year)?
I was going to post this long diatribe here since my friend Eric seems to have that black cloud hovering over his head. The reality about whats going on with this team is that we are ALL guessing. Every poster, every beat writer, etc.
Eric could be right, this could be more "business as usual" for Mara, load up behind Eli don't worry about the future. It could be the opposite, DG is going peace by peace and trying to clean up the mess. The could pick Barkley, they could pick a QB, they could trade down. And you can view ALL these moves for now or for the future. It depends on the lens you use.
There's an old saying: "The past is a good indicator for the future". I look at Gettleman's past and see what contributions he made here. What he did in Carolina. What he has said here since taking over: "run the ball, stop the run, get after the QB".
What it seems like he is doing, is, after assessing his roster, his locker room, he is trying to 1. change the culture by clearing out what he can, and 2. fix the LB and OL units, both of which were unacceptable BEFORE injuries last year.
I heard bitching about Herzlich getting guaranteed money. He was resigned for the locker room, he's a high character guy, who can help on ST.
He signed Stewart who 's can help at RB but he will contribute just as much in the locker room and meeting room.
It seems like he will try to clear out under performers, over paid and too old players if he can. There are three notable exceptions: the 2 Eli's and JPP.
As Eric and others have pointed out, their contracts make trading them or cutting them virtually impossible.
Next year will be a different story. So in the short run, DG has said "clean slate" which may help Apple, and said they are moving forward with Manning (if for no other reason they have no choice.) From an HR perspective, considering the contracts, this was the right way to handle both. JPP is Bettcher's problem.
In conclusion, I don't think we will really know what's going on maybe not until next off season.
I'd be careful about assuming a player in his 30s has 4 good years left. You want to bank on that? Check the ages of McKenzie, O'Hara, Diehl, and Seubert when they were done.
I don't think it's so much the age, it's the # of seasons played, wear and tear.
Solder has only played 7, mostly injury free seasons aside from the torn biceps in 2015. He should be fine.
plain and simple. Gettleman let's Pugh out the door, whiffs on Norwell, and is left with making Nate Solder the highest paid tackle in the league to get him to come on board.
Of course we're all in favor of the Giants improving the line, with the understanding that it costs money - but this was not a savvy move. Solder may not even be a top 10 tackle in the NFL, yet they're giving him $34 mil guaranteed. Huge gamble that can really set the franchise back if it doesn't work out.
It’s possible that the Giants feel eli is nearing the end or at the end BUT they don’t love the qbs in this draft. Then what? You can’t force the issue and take a qb just because.
You have to allow for variances or grey area in this thing.
I think you're exactly right. You can't force it and take a QB just because.
I could see them really loving one of the QBs much more than any other and what if Cleveland feels the same way and takes that guy with the 1st pick? No way do I want them settling on another QB just because.
I'd want them to move onto the next highest guy they love. It could be Barkley or even Nelson. Doesn't matter to me as long as they're convinced he's their guy and will be a can't miss type player.
plain and simple. Gettleman let's Pugh out the door, whiffs on Norwell, and is left with making Nate Solder the highest paid tackle in the league to get him to come on board.
Of course we're all in favor of the Giants improving the line, with the understanding that it costs money - but this was not a savvy move. Solder may not even be a top 10 tackle in the NFL, yet they're giving him $34 mil guaranteed. Huge gamble that can really set the franchise back if it doesn't work out.
A.G.R.E.E.D.
Color. me. shocked. And why add a period between every letter?
How is this a huge gamble?? Fucks sake dude you have bitched about the ol for years... I give up.
If solder was a top 3 LT do you really think he’d be available on the open market ???? Riddle me that...
If he was a top 3 LT he’d cost double.
One. More. Time... you have to overpay in fa. Want to improve the team ? Wanna eliminate the urge or need to start an ol sucks thread every other day on BBI? You overpay a solid LT in FA. It’s how this shit works. Want to avoid fa like the plague? You can’t. Period. It’s the nature of the beast.
plain and simple. Gettleman let's Pugh out the door, whiffs on Norwell, and is left with making Nate Solder the highest paid tackle in the league to get him to come on board.
Of course we're all in favor of the Giants improving the line, with the understanding that it costs money - but this was not a savvy move. Solder may not even be a top 10 tackle in the NFL, yet they're giving him $34 mil guaranteed. Huge gamble that can really set the franchise back if it doesn't work out.
A.G.R.E.E.D.
This is not a "huge gamble"
How about offering up an alternative? How would YOU go about fixing this line if you're against signing the best LT on the market?
Draft picks are finite. We have several holes and can't spend all of them on the offensive line.
We can get out of this deal in 2 years without terrible cap implications (8M dead cap and would save us 9M), so the idea that this can "set the franchise back" is a pretty ridiculous exaggeration.
think people are stuck in the 90's when it comes to setting franchises back and their take on the cap. Been saying it for awhile now.
An Albert Haynesworth deal can set a franchise back, because they get one year out of a guy and eat a ton of money at a time when the cap was really tight.
Drafting a bust at QB can set a franchise back because it wastes time on the bust and then causes a cycle where you are relying on middling vets to get by.
Having a successful coach leave can set a franchise back, especially if the decision to replace him is poor and you stick with the new guy awhile. See Jeff Fisher
Having volatile ownership can set a franchise back. Hello Raiders and Redskins.
A lot of things impact teams for several years. Very few of them have to do with paying market value for a player, especially in today's cap era.
think people are stuck in the 90's when it comes to setting franchises back and their take on the cap. Been saying it for awhile now.
An Albert Haynesworth deal can set a franchise back, because they get one year out of a guy and eat a ton of money at a time when the cap was really tight.
Drafting a bust at QB can set a franchise back because it wastes time on the bust and then causes a cycle where you are relying on middling vets to get by.
Having a successful coach leave can set a franchise back, especially if the decision to replace him is poor and you stick with the new guy awhile. See Jeff Fisher
Having volatile ownership can set a franchise back. Hello Raiders and Redskins.
A lot of things impact teams for several years. Very few of them have to do with paying market value for a player, especially in today's cap era.
that's some substantial hyperbole, but to act like it won't impact the team's ability to possibly maneuver the way they want is also hyperbole.
Look at it this way, if the Giants had more cap space they'd probably have signed Norwell, still have DRC, and possibly Mathieu by now.
but they don't.
So under the circumstances Gettleman has proceeded admirably, but it's not bitching, being negative or complaining to acknowledge the impact of a contract like Solder's.
It's only a major setback if Solder can't make it through the first 2 seasons of the deal. We can get out of this relatively easily in 2020 if we have to.
If current trends continue, the cap is going to be close to 200M in 2020. The 8M in dead money that would result in cutting ties w/ Solder at that point in time isn't going to set the Giants back at all.
Look at it this way, if the Giants had more cap space they'd probably have signed Norwell, still have DRC, and possibly Mathieu by now
The reports that have come out said we offered the same as Jax for Norwell. We signed Solder. We signed a LB. We traded for Ogletree. We signed a RB. We signed a guard.
We basically haven't been constricted by the cap. We were constricted in Norwell choosing another team.
And FMiC is right - Norwell not coming here wasn't for a lack of cap space. We made a comparable/competitive offer and he chose the better team in the state without income tax.
offer was "similar", but I doubt we ever know exactly what it was and this quote by Stapleton tells me the Giants had a limit to how high they'd go "went as high as they could". I'd guess JAX was higher or identical, so if the Giants had more space they could have increased their offer. Not sure why that's unreasonable or unrealistic to believe.
Quote:
Solder news first- Gmen had sights on Norwell and went as high as they could and it didn't workout. They had valued Norwell more than the price for LT Solder but once they lost out the went hard after Solder. Overpaid but a need and a good pick with some good years left.
I mean, at a certain point we probably had a limit of what we were going to offer regardless of cap space.
It's not like we would have offered him 20M per year if we had the space to do it.
hitdog basically said that Norwell simply preferred JAX and that the offers were close enough where it was a matter of him choosing. Maybe if we had outbid them by a lot, he would have come here instead - but I don't think we wanted to pay a guard much more than 15M per.
it happens, but it's rare. Maybe it happened here or maybe the offers were identical.
if offers were exactly the same then it is what it is, no animosity, the Jags are a playoff team, with some good skill players, and a good defense.
but I'd think if you're going to overpay someone, I'd overpay the 26 years old top rated at his position player vs the 30 year old middle of the pack player. Both are improvements, and I'm not complaining about signing Solder though some feeble minded people will call it that. Just giving my view.
and don't get hung up on "overpay" some people say it's the market rate, and if that is the term that makes you happy then use that, but then realize the word overpay ceases to exist in your vocabulary because everything then becomes market rate since that's what it costs you to get something.
one backup QB wins the SB, after of course Wentz who was on his way to league MVP got them there, and everyone acts as if that is the norm. We don't need to draft a QB Foles won the SB so that means Webb is a lock to win one as he was a 3rd round pick too!!
32 QBs have won 52 Super Bowls.
26 Super Bowls were won by QBs drafted early in round one.
4 were won by QBs drafted late in round one
22 were won by QBs drafted after the first round, or who were undrafted.
Now do it again with the QBs, not the number of SBs. Because it's a bit of a statistical issue when you put the number of QBs who have won a SB in your header, and then use the number of SBs as your proof. It's what someone would do if they were trying to use selective data to prove a point that the raw data doesn't really support.
After you're done with that, then add in the context of how many QBs were drafted in each of those blocks of the draft during that time frame. There are so many more QBs drafted outside the top 10 of the draft than within the top 10 (by an order of magnitude), that you're not even close to comparing similar sample sizes, and therefore, not remotely proving the likelihood of finding a SB-winning QB outside the top 10 of the draft.
I remember compiling this last time you kept repeating the same tired post on multiple threads, but I remember it being something like 10% of all QBs drafted in the top 10 of the draft went on to win a SB, whereas less than half of 1% of all QBs who were drafted outside the top 10 went on to win one, and that was even giving you Roethlisberger, who was drafted 11th.
You love trotting this out like you've discovered some sort of proof for optimal QB acquisition, when the truth is, you're either really bad at statistics, or just good enough to manipulate them, which makes you full of crap.
Nor well got paid as the top Guard in the NFL, there’s no waiting around for him to be good either. Signing Norwell doesn’t mean we have more time to build a roster, the return on his investment starts now.
Solder and Norwells age are irrelevant in this scenario. If we signed either it would be to get better instantly, not in 2 years from now.
By definition, signing a younger player means you're getting more of his prime years. So yes, you do have more time. It's not irrelevant and we're not going to agree on this. A contract that gives you more of a players best years is better than a contract that gives you less of a player's best years.
Solder helps us win now and will help the "transition" to the future. His signing simply means that we don't actually *need* to the "Trust the Process" or "let's get Mark Cuban fined" route that some people seem to want to embark upon.
And, since it always seem to come back to Eli, it's odd that the criticism is that he is no longer able to elevate shitty players around him. The solution, logically, would therefore be to not put shitty players around him, but instead put good players around him and remove the elevation burden.
But then, when you attempt to surround him with a stellar #1 WR, a quality #3 WR (Shep is a 3 not a 2), a potentially quality TE, and a quality OL, the plan is met with derision that includes extreme resistance to additionally adding a potentially superlative rushing attack.
It's pretty weird. Only thing I can think of is that the Giants aren't doing things the way they think they should be done, therefore it's doomed to fail.
So was signing an aging tackle a part of that playoff run or did he hinder it? I was wrong about how he’d hold up, I fully admit t. We signed a guy 6 years younger but somehow he will hold up the future of the team?
The nfl doesn’t operate in 5+ year cycles anymore, it’s not 1990. You can change on a dime, I don’t know how many example of this some of you people need.
The league is built for teams to go worst to first, and it happens with more and more frequency every year.
Yes, I am comfortable with that. The last thing we need is the Giants rolling the dice with Eli and being stuck as an 8-8 team with no QB in a couple years. Then they have to sacrifice a ton of assets to move up to get one. I would rather they take one now, even if they believe Eli still has something left.
Quote:
Nor well got paid as the top Guard in the NFL, there’s no waiting around for him to be good either. Signing Norwell doesn’t mean we have more time to build a roster, the return on his investment starts now.
Solder and Norwells age are irrelevant in this scenario. If we signed either it would be to get better instantly, not in 2 years from now.
By definition, signing a younger player means you're getting more of his prime years. So yes, you do have more time. It's not irrelevant and we're not going to agree on this. A contract that gives you more of a players best years is better than a contract that gives you less of a player's best years.
We actually do agree on that, you just weren’t doing a good job of explaining that or I simply wasn’t understanding you. But Solder isn’t 35 so I guess I’m just not worried about it.
A. Costanzo - Colts in 2015 signed a 4-43M w/14M SB & 35M guaranteed
T. Armstead - NO in 2016 signed 5-65 11M SB and 38m guaranteed - he has also missed 30 of 80 total games
R. Reiff - Min 2017 5-58M 11SB 28M guaranteed
M. Kalil - Car 2017 5-55M 12M SB and 31M guaranteed
It is a brutal position to find players
So was signing an aging tackle a part of that playoff run or did he hinder it? I was wrong about how he’d hold up, I fully admit t. We signed a guy 6 years younger but somehow he will hold up the future of the team?
The nfl doesn’t operate in 5+ year cycles anymore, it’s not 1990. You can change on a dime, I don’t know how many example of this some of you people need.
Sure, Whitworth absolutely helped them. The criticism of the idea of signing him was not about his ability to help a team in the first year. That was expected. It was about giving a big guarantee and multiple years given his age.And also about having completely legitimate and fair concerns about a guy that age staying healthy even for that first year.
And I'm not sure if I'm being difficult to understand or not, but I thought my opinion was fairly clear. I don't have a problem with Solder. However, if signing Nate Solder to that contract at 30 means the Giants think they're some kind of serious playoffs contender they want to build around Eli Manning expecting him to play well into his age 39 season, and they pass on the chance to draft a QB in favor of trading down or whatever, then I think it's another mistake by management just like sinking all your hopes on the health on a 36 year old lineman would have been for us. That's all.
This. It’s both.
It is part of improving a team that has been deficient for several years at specific positions.
Exactly!
Here’s the thing there’s nothing wrong with believing Eli has a little something left and being open to drafting the qb here in April. Matter of fact that’s probably the only way to think. It seems that some need to align themselves with thinking Eli is completely and having to draft a qb at all costs or thinking Eli has 4 years of awesomeness and avoiding the young qb like the plague.
You have to allow for variances or grey area in this thing.
It is part of improving a team that has been deficient for several years at specific positions.
But fats, the Giants should be tearing this thing down. Never mind that tearing this down is impossible and stupid... You know that. Why are we signing good players? We were 3-13 last year!!!!!!
You have to allow for variances or grey area in this thing.
I agree. If they truly believe none of these top 4 QBs in the draft will be franchise QBs then I will have to accept them passing on one. But if they pass on a QB they think will be a franchise QB just for the sake of trying to go all in on Eli the next year or two, then yes, I have a huge problem with it.
Also agree with Ryan. Winning the next couple of years and having a future franchise QB in the pipeline is the best case scenario.
Grasping to 3-13 is just a brutal argument.
I agree. If they truly believe none of these top 4 QBs in the draft will be franchise QBs then I will have to accept them passing on one. But if they pass on a QB they think will be a franchise QB just for the sake of trying to go all in on Eli the next year or two, then yes, I have a huge problem with it.
Also agree with Ryan. Winning the next couple of years and having a future franchise QB in the pipeline is the best case scenario.
I think you have summed up how most of the supporters of Rosen, Darnold, Mayfield, and Allen feel. I have a hard time believing that the Giants will put all their faith in Eli after allowing the benching etc. I hope I am right because if they pass on a QB solely to try to win once more with Eli then most of the fan base will be livid. Could you imagine the fan reaction and PR nightmare if they pass on a QB like Rosen and he ends up going to the Jets and turns into a franchise QB while Eli continues to regress and they become a struggling 6-10 to 7-9 team?
I honestly don't know what the fuck most of BBI is talking about anymore.
Maybe people want us to draft a QB, then simply keep tanking for a few years. Then keep drafting blue chippers to put us in position to win big in about four years.
You know, something like the Sixers did in the NBA...........
Quote:
I agree. If they truly believe none of these top 4 QBs in the draft will be franchise QBs then I will have to accept them passing on one. But if they pass on a QB they think will be a franchise QB just for the sake of trying to go all in on Eli the next year or two, then yes, I have a huge problem with it.
Also agree with Ryan. Winning the next couple of years and having a future franchise QB in the pipeline is the best case scenario.
I think you have summed up how most of the supporters of Rosen, Darnold, Mayfield, and Allen feel. I have a hard time believing that the Giants will put all their faith in Eli after allowing the benching etc. I hope I am right because if they pass on a QB solely to try to win once more with Eli then most of the fan base will be livid. Could you imagine the fan reaction and PR nightmare if they pass on a QB like Rosen and he ends up going to the Jets and turns into a franchise QB while Eli continues to regress and they become a struggling 6-10 to 7-9 team?
If Josh Rosen turns out to be a bust, Saquon Barkley (or whomever else we could have had at #2) leads a team to a Super Bowl, and Eli doesn't bottom out then the fan base will be livid. The presence of Manning and/or Webb on the roster should not rule out drafting a QB 2nd overall, but if the scouting staff is not confident that any option at #2 is a real upgrade over Manning and/or Webb you don't take one for the sake of taking one
This is exactly what I was saying.
Quote:
The presence of Manning and/or Webb on the roster should not rule out drafting a QB 2nd overall, but if the scouting staff is not confident that any option at #2 is a real upgrade over Manning and/or Webb you don't take one for the sake of taking one
This is exactly what I was saying.
Maybe I misconstrued your post, but I thought you were advocating taking a QB at all cost just because one may be the real deal and we don't want him going to the Jets
Quote:
It’s possible that the Giants feel eli is nearing the end or at the end BUT they don’t love the qbs in this draft. Then what? You can’t force the issue and take a qb just because.
You have to allow for variances or grey area in this thing.
I agree. If they truly believe none of these top 4 QBs in the draft will be franchise QBs then I will have to accept them passing on one. But if they pass on a QB they think will be a franchise QB just for the sake of trying to go all in on Eli the next year or two, then yes, I have a huge problem with it.
Also agree with Ryan. Winning the next couple of years and having a future franchise QB in the pipeline is the best case scenario.
Agreed 100%
I am ... I am happier. I never thought he was done. I just am not sure how much longer he will play. I might be wrong but, the pounding guys take in the NFL season after season - the body has to break down at a faster than normal rate? I am not a Dr. but, it seems like 30 is that "magical" threshold where players start(?) the drop-off?
I am glad he is 2 years younger than I originally thought. Who knows - maybe we just signed this generation's Jackie Slater? Fingers crossed.
Maybe I misconstrued your post, but I thought you were advocating taking a QB at all cost just because one may be the real deal and we don't want him going to the Jets
Sorry I should have been clear. None of the pro-QB supporters just want the Giants to take a QB just for the sake of taking one. If they conclude that none of these QB's are potential franchise QB's then I fully support a trade down or Barkley. I am a big fan of Rosen, Darnold, and Mayfield and I one of them to be the pick because I believe in them not because they play QB.
Solder helps us win now and will help the "transition" to the future. His signing simply means that we don't actually *need* to the "Trust the Process" or "let's get Mark Cuban fined" route that some people seem to want to embark upon.
And, since it always seem to come back to Eli, it's odd that the criticism is that he is no longer able to elevate shitty players around him. The solution, logically, would therefore be to not put shitty players around him, but instead put good players around him and remove the elevation burden.
But then, when you attempt to surround him with a stellar #1 WR, a quality #3 WR (Shep is a 3 not a 2), a potentially quality TE, and a quality OL, the plan is met with derision that includes extreme resistance to additionally adding a potentially superlative rushing attack.
Admittingly ... I do worry to much so, take it with a grain of salt - disservice to "The entire planet" has crossed my mind. But, what can you do? We have to win now .... and GM Gettleman seems to be signing guys like he believes that also.
Let future generations (Giant fans) figure out how to save the planet. They can do it - they will be a good bunch.
I still don't think I've seen anything although the contract numbers did get out there.
I was going to post this long diatribe here since my friend Eric seems to have that black cloud hovering over his head. The reality about whats going on with this team is that we are ALL guessing. Every poster, every beat writer, etc.
Eric could be right, this could be more "business as usual" for Mara, load up behind Eli don't worry about the future. It could be the opposite, DG is going peace by peace and trying to clean up the mess. The could pick Barkley, they could pick a QB, they could trade down. And you can view ALL these moves for now or for the future. It depends on the lens you use.
There's an old saying: "The past is a good indicator for the future". I look at Gettleman's past and see what contributions he made here. What he did in Carolina. What he has said here since taking over: "run the ball, stop the run, get after the QB".
What it seems like he is doing, is, after assessing his roster, his locker room, he is trying to 1. change the culture by clearing out what he can, and 2. fix the LB and OL units, both of which were unacceptable BEFORE injuries last year.
I heard bitching about Herzlich getting guaranteed money. He was resigned for the locker room, he's a high character guy, who can help on ST.
He signed Stewart who 's can help at RB but he will contribute just as much in the locker room and meeting room.
It seems like he will try to clear out under performers, over paid and too old players if he can. There are three notable exceptions: the 2 Eli's and JPP.
As Eric and others have pointed out, their contracts make trading them or cutting them virtually impossible.
Next year will be a different story. So in the short run, DG has said "clean slate" which may help Apple, and said they are moving forward with Manning (if for no other reason they have no choice.) From an HR perspective, considering the contracts, this was the right way to handle both. JPP is Bettcher's problem.
In conclusion, I don't think we will really know what's going on maybe not until next off season.
I don't think it's so much the age, it's the # of seasons played, wear and tear.
Solder has only played 7, mostly injury free seasons aside from the torn biceps in 2015. He should be fine.
Of course we're all in favor of the Giants improving the line, with the understanding that it costs money - but this was not a savvy move. Solder may not even be a top 10 tackle in the NFL, yet they're giving him $34 mil guaranteed. Huge gamble that can really set the franchise back if it doesn't work out.
A.G.R.E.E.D.
You have to allow for variances or grey area in this thing.
I think you're exactly right. You can't force it and take a QB just because.
I could see them really loving one of the QBs much more than any other and what if Cleveland feels the same way and takes that guy with the 1st pick? No way do I want them settling on another QB just because.
I'd want them to move onto the next highest guy they love. It could be Barkley or even Nelson. Doesn't matter to me as long as they're convinced he's their guy and will be a can't miss type player.
Quote:
plain and simple. Gettleman let's Pugh out the door, whiffs on Norwell, and is left with making Nate Solder the highest paid tackle in the league to get him to come on board.
Of course we're all in favor of the Giants improving the line, with the understanding that it costs money - but this was not a savvy move. Solder may not even be a top 10 tackle in the NFL, yet they're giving him $34 mil guaranteed. Huge gamble that can really set the franchise back if it doesn't work out.
A.G.R.E.E.D.
Color. me. shocked. And why add a period between every letter?
How is this a huge gamble?? Fucks sake dude you have bitched about the ol for years... I give up.
Building great OL is the #1 thing to do in advance of changing to a younger new QB.
This is exactly the right time to go crazy on OL and my guess we ain't done yet.
Anyone see dak Prescott's rookie season?
If he was a top 3 LT he’d cost double.
One. More. Time... you have to overpay in fa. Want to improve the team ? Wanna eliminate the urge or need to start an ol sucks thread every other day on BBI? You overpay a solid LT in FA. It’s how this shit works. Want to avoid fa like the plague? You can’t. Period. It’s the nature of the beast.
Quote:
plain and simple. Gettleman let's Pugh out the door, whiffs on Norwell, and is left with making Nate Solder the highest paid tackle in the league to get him to come on board.
Of course we're all in favor of the Giants improving the line, with the understanding that it costs money - but this was not a savvy move. Solder may not even be a top 10 tackle in the NFL, yet they're giving him $34 mil guaranteed. Huge gamble that can really set the franchise back if it doesn't work out.
A.G.R.E.E.D.
This is not a "huge gamble"
How about offering up an alternative? How would YOU go about fixing this line if you're against signing the best LT on the market?
Draft picks are finite. We have several holes and can't spend all of them on the offensive line.
We can get out of this deal in 2 years without terrible cap implications (8M dead cap and would save us 9M), so the idea that this can "set the franchise back" is a pretty ridiculous exaggeration.
An Albert Haynesworth deal can set a franchise back, because they get one year out of a guy and eat a ton of money at a time when the cap was really tight.
Drafting a bust at QB can set a franchise back because it wastes time on the bust and then causes a cycle where you are relying on middling vets to get by.
Having a successful coach leave can set a franchise back, especially if the decision to replace him is poor and you stick with the new guy awhile. See Jeff Fisher
Having volatile ownership can set a franchise back. Hello Raiders and Redskins.
A lot of things impact teams for several years. Very few of them have to do with paying market value for a player, especially in today's cap era.
An Albert Haynesworth deal can set a franchise back, because they get one year out of a guy and eat a ton of money at a time when the cap was really tight.
Drafting a bust at QB can set a franchise back because it wastes time on the bust and then causes a cycle where you are relying on middling vets to get by.
Having a successful coach leave can set a franchise back, especially if the decision to replace him is poor and you stick with the new guy awhile. See Jeff Fisher
Having volatile ownership can set a franchise back. Hello Raiders and Redskins.
A lot of things impact teams for several years. Very few of them have to do with paying market value for a player, especially in today's cap era.
+1
Look at it this way, if the Giants had more cap space they'd probably have signed Norwell, still have DRC, and possibly Mathieu by now.
but they don't.
So under the circumstances Gettleman has proceeded admirably, but it's not bitching, being negative or complaining to acknowledge the impact of a contract like Solder's.
If current trends continue, the cap is going to be close to 200M in 2020. The 8M in dead money that would result in cutting ties w/ Solder at that point in time isn't going to set the Giants back at all.
The reports that have come out said we offered the same as Jax for Norwell. We signed Solder. We signed a LB. We traded for Ogletree. We signed a RB. We signed a guard.
We basically haven't been constricted by the cap. We were constricted in Norwell choosing another team.
Nothing we can do there.
It's not like we would have offered him 20M per year if we had the space to do it.
hitdog basically said that Norwell simply preferred JAX and that the offers were close enough where it was a matter of him choosing. Maybe if we had outbid them by a lot, he would have come here instead - but I don't think we wanted to pay a guard much more than 15M per.
it happens, but it's rare. Maybe it happened here or maybe the offers were identical.
if offers were exactly the same then it is what it is, no animosity, the Jags are a playoff team, with some good skill players, and a good defense.
but I'd think if you're going to overpay someone, I'd overpay the 26 years old top rated at his position player vs the 30 year old middle of the pack player. Both are improvements, and I'm not complaining about signing Solder though some feeble minded people will call it that. Just giving my view.
and don't get hung up on "overpay" some people say it's the market rate, and if that is the term that makes you happy then use that, but then realize the word overpay ceases to exist in your vocabulary because everything then becomes market rate since that's what it costs you to get something.
Quote:
one backup QB wins the SB, after of course Wentz who was on his way to league MVP got them there, and everyone acts as if that is the norm. We don't need to draft a QB Foles won the SB so that means Webb is a lock to win one as he was a 3rd round pick too!!
32 QBs have won 52 Super Bowls.
26 Super Bowls were won by QBs drafted early in round one.
4 were won by QBs drafted late in round one
22 were won by QBs drafted after the first round, or who were undrafted.
Now do it again with the QBs, not the number of SBs. Because it's a bit of a statistical issue when you put the number of QBs who have won a SB in your header, and then use the number of SBs as your proof. It's what someone would do if they were trying to use selective data to prove a point that the raw data doesn't really support.
After you're done with that, then add in the context of how many QBs were drafted in each of those blocks of the draft during that time frame. There are so many more QBs drafted outside the top 10 of the draft than within the top 10 (by an order of magnitude), that you're not even close to comparing similar sample sizes, and therefore, not remotely proving the likelihood of finding a SB-winning QB outside the top 10 of the draft.
I remember compiling this last time you kept repeating the same tired post on multiple threads, but I remember it being something like 10% of all QBs drafted in the top 10 of the draft went on to win a SB, whereas less than half of 1% of all QBs who were drafted outside the top 10 went on to win one, and that was even giving you Roethlisberger, who was drafted 11th.
You love trotting this out like you've discovered some sort of proof for optimal QB acquisition, when the truth is, you're either really bad at statistics, or just good enough to manipulate them, which makes you full of crap.