@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.
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.
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.