Anybody else think we made another bad move signing Solder to that huge contract. He's not bad but certainly not "All Pro".
I believe his best years are behind him. Belichick knows when to let a player go. Please don't tell me were going back to the Dark 70's. I'm too old this time to wait...... Just Venting.
The next big game that clown wins will be the first.
Quote:
Couldn't leave Flowers there so who else should we have gotten?
The Patriots traded a 3rd round pick for Trent Brown of the 49ers, who replaced Solder, got a 5th round pick back on top of it, and are paying him less than $2 million in salary.
While they may not have pulled this specific trade off, it could have at least been investigated: Bengals got Cordy Glenn from Buffalo by switching from #12 to #21 in the first round and swapping fifth and sixth round picks with each other.
Cincinnati had an incredibly poor o-line last year and it has drastically improved this season, leading to their 4-2 record and a possible return to the playoffs.
The idea out that there were NO ALTERNATIVES available and were forced into a bad deal is simply not true.
Besides, if they are "rebuilding" as some are saying, what would be the purpose of giving that kind of deal out in the first place? One can't be "desperate" and "rebuilding" at the same time. The logic doesn't compute.
They also missed out on Duane Brown the year prior.
Then they could have used that money on, say, a Rick Wagner.
I can’t imagine how bad this line would have been with Wheeler at LT.
If you want to say they should have traded for Glenn or Brown I get that. Although Brown on the Pats with Dante S looks a lot different than on this train wreck.
...and ignoring 'best used by:' dates.
Agreed. But that's what happens when you draft badly, more specifically on the OL. We overpaid for Solder because of the erroneous belief that Eli and three or four more good years. That's two mistakes, along with Barwin, Martin, Stewart, and maybe Latimer.
Quote:
but I'm tired of shopping for groceries while starving and spending accordingly.
Agreed. But that's what happens when you draft badly, more specifically on the OL. We overpaid for Solder because of the erroneous belief that Eli and three or four more good years. That's two mistakes, along with Barwin, Martin, Stewart, and maybe Latimer.
Omameh as well.
The right QB can make a weak O-Line look good and with all our complaining about the O-Line for the last few years I blame it mostly on the scheme and the inability of a QB to stretch the play. Really does not need to be a scrambler, but does need to feel the pressure sooner.
Quote:
but I'm tired of shopping for groceries while starving and spending accordingly.
Agreed. But that's what happens when you draft badly, more specifically on the OL. We overpaid for Solder because of the erroneous belief that Eli and three or four more good years. That's two mistakes, along with Barwin, Martin, Stewart, and maybe Latimer.
And to top it off, we are TRADING away our draft capital for other players on rosters. This is crazy stuff.
The only real way to make this rebuild happen is to acquire enough draft capital that way we can infuse the team with young, cost-controlled talent across the board. Having 5 picks is not going to do it. We need to put ourselves in a situation where we have 9, 10, 11 picks that way we have some leeway if a particular pick doesn't work out.
Having minimal picks means these guys either have to hit, or we are screwed. I forgot who wrote it, but it was mentioned that the Giants have been among a group of teams that have had the fewest draft picks over the last 10 years.
We need to restock our shelves. So when we are overpaying for players and then trading draft picks for players, that is doubly bad business.
Folks are fixated on rebuilding quickly. Sometimes it doesn't work that way. If we have to do this the right way and it takes 3 years of suffering to get where we need to go in a healthy direction, I can sign up for it (hell, these last 6 years have been terrible as is) as long as there is a means to an end.
It took a while to get us into this position and it will take a while to dig out. Some folks though want the digging out to be quick, and often times, that is not possible unless you get really lucky.
WTF is draft capital. It's just draft picks, right? So why not say draft picks?
And it's one of the bigger fallacies in football. More picks is not better. More premium picks might be, but once you get outside of the 3rd round (which is no guarantee) the NFL draft is a crapshoot and you're almost better with UDFA's.
Once again, I'll share the draft success chart and success in this definition pays zero attention to quality, to make it truly measurable it only means a player who has started 50% of their games (short or long career - and I think that's fair for a stake in the ground)
Criteria
This post has a simple criteria: How many players were drafted by position and round over the last decade and how many went on to become a starter.
I did not distinguish superstars from regular starters. The determination of a starter comes from whether the player started at least half of their career. Obviously, this will run the gambit from below average to high performing starters. The reality is that if you can start in this league for at least half of your playing career, you are better than most. If you would like to debate the merits of players at a particular position be my guest. However, I found that it would require a lot more work than I was willing to do to put together subjective criteria to determine various levels of starters. This also does not take into consideration undrafted free agent starters in the league.
Historic Success Chart
The numbers show us the following outline for finding consistent starters:
1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)
2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)
3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)
4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)
5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)
6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)
7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)
So, sorry, but no I'm not a fan of "draft capital" vs proven commodities. Costs are obviously a factor, but I would support almost universally trading a pick for a player.
more late round picks so you have 10 or 11 of them is stupid. It's not how you build a team.
Look at what Chris Hubbard or Andre Smith got, and they are actually good. That's where I would have preferred the Giants put the money.
The cap dollars rollover, it's not use it or lose it. Solder was a bad investment in every way.
WTF is draft capital. It's just draft picks, right? So why not say draft picks?
And it's one of the bigger fallacies in football. More picks is not better. More premium picks might be, but once you get outside of the 3rd round (which is no guarantee) the NFL draft is a crapshoot and you're almost better with UDFA's.
Once again, I'll share the draft success chart and success in this definition pays zero attention to quality, to make it truly measurable it only means a player who has started 50% of their games (short or long career - and I think that's fair for a stake in the ground)
Quote:
Criteria
This post has a simple criteria: How many players were drafted by position and round over the last decade and how many went on to become a starter.
I did not distinguish superstars from regular starters. The determination of a starter comes from whether the player started at least half of their career. Obviously, this will run the gambit from below average to high performing starters. The reality is that if you can start in this league for at least half of your playing career, you are better than most. If you would like to debate the merits of players at a particular position be my guest. However, I found that it would require a lot more work than I was willing to do to put together subjective criteria to determine various levels of starters. This also does not take into consideration undrafted free agent starters in the league.
Historic Success Chart
The numbers show us the following outline for finding consistent starters:
1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)
2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)
3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)
4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)
5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)
6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)
7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)
So, sorry, but no I'm not a fan of "draft capital" vs proven commodities. Costs are obviously a factor, but I would support almost universally trading a pick for a player.
more late round picks so you have 10 or 11 of them is stupid. It's not how you build a team.
The point of "draft capital" goes to the value of each pick. The 1st pick in the draft represents more capital than any other pick. Nothing wrong with using draft capital in a trade for a player. Having lots of draft capital allows you to do that more...
Draft capital doesn't mean having a whole bunch of picks in the lower rounds. They do not represent much value.
This team is not going to be a competitive title team and so by the time they are-- DG picked up an older LT and paid an extreme price.
For the price of SOlder, Omamah and Stewart- the GMen could have got two young good OL. The fact that DG can't think that far ahead or so badly projected how good the team was right now should be a major red flag for us all.
The signing of Solder highlights this mistake.
Quote:
they sound like they are parroting talking heads like Mel Kiper.
WTF is draft capital. It's just draft picks, right? So why not say draft picks?
And it's one of the bigger fallacies in football. More picks is not better. More premium picks might be, but once you get outside of the 3rd round (which is no guarantee) the NFL draft is a crapshoot and you're almost better with UDFA's.
Once again, I'll share the draft success chart and success in this definition pays zero attention to quality, to make it truly measurable it only means a player who has started 50% of their games (short or long career - and I think that's fair for a stake in the ground)
Quote:
Criteria
This post has a simple criteria: How many players were drafted by position and round over the last decade and how many went on to become a starter.
I did not distinguish superstars from regular starters. The determination of a starter comes from whether the player started at least half of their career. Obviously, this will run the gambit from below average to high performing starters. The reality is that if you can start in this league for at least half of your playing career, you are better than most. If you would like to debate the merits of players at a particular position be my guest. However, I found that it would require a lot more work than I was willing to do to put together subjective criteria to determine various levels of starters. This also does not take into consideration undrafted free agent starters in the league.
Historic Success Chart
The numbers show us the following outline for finding consistent starters:
1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)
2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)
3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)
4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)
5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)
6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)
7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)
So, sorry, but no I'm not a fan of "draft capital" vs proven commodities. Costs are obviously a factor, but I would support almost universally trading a pick for a player.
more late round picks so you have 10 or 11 of them is stupid. It's not how you build a team.
The point of "draft capital" goes to the value of each pick. The 1st pick in the draft represents more capital than any other pick. Nothing wrong with using draft capital in a trade for a player. Having lots of draft capital allows you to do that more...
Draft capital doesn't mean having a whole bunch of picks in the lower rounds. They do not represent much value.
Still sounds like capital is a completely unnecessary word since the concept that higher picks have higher value is pretty much implied and understood by everyone old enough to care.
The point here though is you can't simply accumulate early round picks. You need to give up something of value to get them.
and my comment was in direct response to this:
Having minimal picks means these guys either have to hit, or we are screwed. I forgot who wrote it, but it was mentioned that the Giants have been among a group of teams that have had the fewest draft picks over the last 10 years. ....
no one has it ever been proven more draft picks = a better team nor has it been prove more "draft capital" = a better team.
And having picks after the third round is almost dart board like predictability.
This team is not going to be a competitive title team and so by the time they are-- DG picked up an older LT and paid an extreme price.
For the price of SOlder, Omamah and Stewart- the GMen could have got two young good OL. The fact that DG can't think that far ahead or so badly projected how good the team was right now should be a major red flag for us all.
The signing of Solder highlights this mistake.
To a large extent I agree with, especially about going with young good OL. The problem is that young good OL are generally not available in FA, and usually not through trade wither even though it turns out there were a couple this past year. But I think that is rare. Teams hold on to young good OL. Really the only certain place to get young good OL is in the draft. That is why I say focus the draft on OL. Move around if the value isn't there when you are picking. Picking up 1 per draft right now is *NOT* good enough.
It's a combination of the draft and free agency (UFA, UDFA, etc.)
I put together a list of the 12 playoff teams from last year and none made more investment in the OL than the 2017 NY Giants. Giants had two 1st round picks (Flowers and Pugh) a 2nd round pick (Richburg) a 7th round pick (Hart) and UFA (Jerry).
Even the Titans with 2 1sts, didn't have the same investment as the Giants.
The SB champ Eagles had a 6th round pick (Kelce) a 1st round pick (Johnson) and 3 FA's.
The SB runner up Patriots had a 1st round pick (Solder), a 3rd round pick, a 5th round pick, and 4th round pick, Still less investment than the Giants.
IMO it's not about how much "draft capital" you use on the line, it's about identify and coaching up the right players.
1 UDFA in Seubert
1 marquee free agent in McKenzie
1 under the radar free agent in O'Hara
Quote:
The decision to sign him was so idiotic - it was just an example of possibly how the game may have passed DG by.
This team is not going to be a competitive title team and so by the time they are-- DG picked up an older LT and paid an extreme price.
For the price of SOlder, Omamah and Stewart- the GMen could have got two young good OL. The fact that DG can't think that far ahead or so badly projected how good the team was right now should be a major red flag for us all.
The signing of Solder highlights this mistake.
To a large extent I agree with, especially about going with young good OL. The problem is that young good OL are generally not available in FA, and usually not through trade wither even though it turns out there were a couple this past year. But I think that is rare. Teams hold on to young good OL. Really the only certain place to get young good OL is in the draft. That is why I say focus the draft on OL. Move around if the value isn't there when you are picking. Picking up 1 per draft right now is *NOT* good enough.
Gettign draft picks when you have 3 subpar OLinemen and by teh time Solder keeps playign he'll be a subpar player. Tus draftign 4 Olinemen or 3 while hoping you hit on all 3 I think either takes too long or not reasonable assuming you draft that many they won't all hit.
Two good Olinemen this year were Hubbard and Fulton. And they are young. This year and next are the Gmen's "experimental years." So you would have tried Hubbard at LT. Heck the Patriots recently took a RT and converted him. If Hubbard failed at LT - no big deal you can move him to RT and he's good there and he's young.
The team would have stunk anyways. Then in 2019 you get after it again realizing that 2020 is your year.
1 UDFA in Seubert
1 marquee free agent in McKenzie
1 under the radar free agent in O'Hara
Even the Giants two recent SB's vs the Patriots the combined teams had one 1st round OL. Mankins.
I think there might have been more UDFA's in those two SB OL's than there was 1st round picks.
It's a combination of the draft and free agency (UFA, UDFA, etc.)
I put together a list of the 12 playoff teams from last year and none made more investment in the OL than the 2017 NY Giants. Giants had two 1st round picks (Flowers and Pugh) a 2nd round pick (Richburg) a 7th round pick (Hart) and UFA (Jerry).
Even the Titans with 2 1sts, didn't have the same investment as the Giants.
The SB champ Eagles had a 6th round pick (Kelce) a 1st round pick (Johnson) and 3 FA's.
The SB runner up Patriots had a 1st round pick (Solder), a 3rd round pick, a 5th round pick, and 4th round pick, Still less investment than the Giants.
IMO it's not about how much "draft capital" you use on the line, it's about identify and coaching up the right players.
If we're going to cherry pick stats then we have to look at what the G-Mne have done. They've drafted a RB with the 2nd overall pick. How many overall 2nd picks at RB lead their team to a SB victory? How many RB's recently have been teh superstar leading their teams to SB victory?
The answer is none over a recent time. Therefore you have to build your team differently. For example Philly has a mobile QB and superstar QB in Wentz. WHy are you comparing what they have done when the G-Men don't have that personnel?
There is no telling when a RB's career will end especially a RB. ANd his shelf life isn't that of a very good QB. As a result the G-Men MUST speed up their timetable.
The G_men NEED that OL and they NEED that QB. Their shelf life isn't as long as a star QB. B and B need the OL to be built thru FA and maybe a draft pick.
My point is the Giants OL is not bad due to lack of investment. So those people who say, oh it's draft time, I'd go OL, OL, OL, OL are possibly being facetious, but otherwise ignorant.
The fact the Giants invested two 1st and a 2nd round pick in three years puts them near the top of the league in "draft capital" OL investment. None of those three players are even on the team any more.
How can you insist the Giants need to spend more high picks on OL?
The point by referencing other teams and their draft investment on OL as well as highlighting the Giants from Eli's prior days is to point out that no, you DO NOT and SHOULD NOT feel like the only or best way to build an OL is with "draft capital" or as many other people know it, draft picks.
It's a combination of the draft and free agency (UFA, UDFA, etc.)
I put together a list of the 12 playoff teams from last year and none made more investment in the OL than the 2017 NY Giants. Giants had two 1st round picks (Flowers and Pugh) a 2nd round pick (Richburg) a 7th round pick (Hart) and UFA (Jerry).
Even the Titans with 2 1sts, didn't have the same investment as the Giants.
The SB champ Eagles had a 6th round pick (Kelce) a 1st round pick (Johnson) and 3 FA's.
The SB runner up Patriots had a 1st round pick (Solder), a 3rd round pick, a 5th round pick, and 4th round pick, Still less investment than the Giants.
IMO it's not about how much "draft capital" you use on the line, it's about identify and coaching up the right players.
I never said, don't ever get an OL in FA. With the lack of OL talent around the league, teams are trying harder to hold on to good ones. It's becoming less and and less common to find good OL available. Whitworth was available because of his age. Solder because he comes with his warts. Players of the caliber of a Norwell are rare in FA. And when they are there they cost a bundle. The price for OL is going up fast. If you have most of the line complete and need to fill 1 spot to be a contender, and there is a the right player available, by all means do it.
Consider this, our garbage from last year, Pugh signed 5 yrs for 45 mil, Richburg 5 yrs 47 mil. And we all know that these guys are not top tier players.
I am also not against UDFAs. Bring 'em in. Bring in a ton of them. As long as you get solid guys up there and don't blow your salary cap.
Quote:
In comment 14132605 JonC said:
Quote:
but I'm tired of shopping for groceries while starving and spending accordingly.
Agreed. But that's what happens when you draft badly, more specifically on the OL. We overpaid for Solder because of the erroneous belief that Eli and three or four more good years. That's two mistakes, along with Barwin, Martin, Stewart, and maybe Latimer.
And to top it off, we are TRADING away our draft capital for other players on rosters. This is crazy stuff.
The only real way to make this rebuild happen is to acquire enough draft capital that way we can infuse the team with young, cost-controlled talent across the board. Having 5 picks is not going to do it. We need to put ourselves in a situation where we have 9, 10, 11 picks that way we have some leeway if a particular pick doesn't work out.
Having minimal picks means these guys either have to hit, or we are screwed. I forgot who wrote it, but it was mentioned that the Giants have been among a group of teams that have had the fewest draft picks over the last 10 years.
We need to restock our shelves. So when we are overpaying for players and then trading draft picks for players, that is doubly bad business.
Folks are fixated on rebuilding quickly. Sometimes it doesn't work that way. If we have to do this the right way and it takes 3 years of suffering to get where we need to go in a healthy direction, I can sign up for it (hell, these last 6 years have been terrible as is) as long as there is a means to an end.
It took a while to get us into this position and it will take a while to dig out. Some folks though want the digging out to be quick, and often times, that is not possible unless you get really lucky.
Using your philosophy - how many years before you feel the G-Men will be very good? Not arguing with you.
My point is the Giants OL is not bad due to lack of investment. So those people who say, oh it's draft time, I'd go OL, OL, OL, OL are possibly being facetious, but otherwise ignorant.
The fact the Giants invested two 1st and a 2nd round pick in three years puts them near the top of the league in "draft capital" OL investment. None of those three players are even on the team any more.
How can you insist the Giants need to spend more high picks on OL?
The point by referencing other teams and their draft investment on OL as well as highlighting the Giants from Eli's prior days is to point out that no, you DO NOT and SHOULD NOT feel like the only or best way to build an OL is with "draft capital" or as many other people know it, draft picks.
The best way to build a team is largely through the draft. Fill in a spot here or there with FA. We all know too many FAs leaves a team without the cap space to fill out the rest of the team including depth. So the best way to fill any unit is through the draft. We are rebuilding and the worst unit on the team is the OL, so doesn't it make sense to try to get some young cheap players to fill in the worst unit, which also happens to be the most important unit for sustained success.
Sure the Giants invested draft picks in the OL, we drafted poorly. This is what happens when you draft poorly. So yes, the Giants need to draft better. Much better. I would love to see 2 premium picks used on OL this year, and maybe 2 more lower down. And yes, there are other units that need attention too, none are in as bad shape as the OL though.
My point is the Giants OL is not bad due to lack of investment. So those people who say, oh it's draft time, I'd go OL, OL, OL, OL are possibly being facetious, but otherwise ignorant.
The fact the Giants invested two 1st and a 2nd round pick in three years puts them near the top of the league in "draft capital" OL investment. None of those three players are even on the team any more.
How can you insist the Giants need to spend more high picks on OL?
The point by referencing other teams and their draft investment on OL as well as highlighting the Giants from Eli's prior days is to point out that no, you DO NOT and SHOULD NOT feel like the only or best way to build an OL is with "draft capital" or as many other people know it, draft picks.
Don't know who you're speaking to but I'd be more interested in FA OL and not as much on the draft. Maybe one more high pick in 2nd round. Maybe.
But the NFL has shown us that they continue to want offense. The Giants have by next year and for the future a superstar in SB. And frankly OBJ is a superstar too. The G-Men should be setting up their future by trying to win offensively and push the pace of the game.
They have long-term talent in B&B. You should be trying to maximize it because as stated on another email- Sb's shelf life might not eb too long and the GMen aren't winning next year either.
Quote:
In comment 14133026 AcidTest said:
Quote:
In comment 14132605 JonC said:
Quote:
but I'm tired of shopping for groceries while starving and spending accordingly.
Agreed. But that's what happens when you draft badly, more specifically on the OL. We overpaid for Solder because of the erroneous belief that Eli and three or four more good years. That's two mistakes, along with Barwin, Martin, Stewart, and maybe Latimer.
And to top it off, we are TRADING away our draft capital for other players on rosters. This is crazy stuff.
The only real way to make this rebuild happen is to acquire enough draft capital that way we can infuse the team with young, cost-controlled talent across the board. Having 5 picks is not going to do it. We need to put ourselves in a situation where we have 9, 10, 11 picks that way we have some leeway if a particular pick doesn't work out.
Having minimal picks means these guys either have to hit, or we are screwed. I forgot who wrote it, but it was mentioned that the Giants have been among a group of teams that have had the fewest draft picks over the last 10 years.
We need to restock our shelves. So when we are overpaying for players and then trading draft picks for players, that is doubly bad business.
Folks are fixated on rebuilding quickly. Sometimes it doesn't work that way. If we have to do this the right way and it takes 3 years of suffering to get where we need to go in a healthy direction, I can sign up for it (hell, these last 6 years have been terrible as is) as long as there is a means to an end.
It took a while to get us into this position and it will take a while to dig out. Some folks though want the digging out to be quick, and often times, that is not possible unless you get really lucky.
Using your philosophy - how many years before you feel the G-Men will be very good? Not arguing with you.
I would like to see at least 2 new starters on the OL, preferably from the draft in 2019. We can still suck in 2019 as the line learns and comes together. But at least we are sucking for Tua. Hopefully we can get a QB in 2020, and see the team stop sucking. Start filling in with FAs in 2020 as well... We may not be a top contender yet. Maybe have to wait until 2021 or 2 for that.
This is not going to be fixed in 1 off-season, probably not even 2. In all likely hood we need to be considering Solder's replacement before we are truly contenders. That is, I would rather not be putting a rookie at LT once he is done, so we need to have a young replacement getting experience (probably at RT) sooner rather than later. Then get another guy to plug in at RT.
Quote:
OL's.
My point is the Giants OL is not bad due to lack of investment. So those people who say, oh it's draft time, I'd go OL, OL, OL, OL are possibly being facetious, but otherwise ignorant.
The fact the Giants invested two 1st and a 2nd round pick in three years puts them near the top of the league in "draft capital" OL investment. None of those three players are even on the team any more.
How can you insist the Giants need to spend more high picks on OL?
The point by referencing other teams and their draft investment on OL as well as highlighting the Giants from Eli's prior days is to point out that no, you DO NOT and SHOULD NOT feel like the only or best way to build an OL is with "draft capital" or as many other people know it, draft picks.
Don't know who you're speaking to but I'd be more interested in FA OL and not as much on the draft. Maybe one more high pick in 2nd round. Maybe.
But the NFL has shown us that they continue to want offense. The Giants have by next year and for the future a superstar in SB. And frankly OBJ is a superstar too. The G-Men should be setting up their future by trying to win offensively and push the pace of the game.
They have long-term talent in B&B. You should be trying to maximize it because as stated on another email- Sb's shelf life might not eb too long and the GMen aren't winning next year either.
With cost of OL going up so fast, I doubt that its economically feasible to build the OL through FAs. By the time we dig ourselves out of this mess, I fear that will have wasted most if not all of Barkley's rookie contract. (Not that his rookie contract is a bargain for RBs mind you)
Quote:
In comment 14134411 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
OL's.
My point is the Giants OL is not bad due to lack of investment. So those people who say, oh it's draft time, I'd go OL, OL, OL, OL are possibly being facetious, but otherwise ignorant.
The fact the Giants invested two 1st and a 2nd round pick in three years puts them near the top of the league in "draft capital" OL investment. None of those three players are even on the team any more.
How can you insist the Giants need to spend more high picks on OL?
The point by referencing other teams and their draft investment on OL as well as highlighting the Giants from Eli's prior days is to point out that no, you DO NOT and SHOULD NOT feel like the only or best way to build an OL is with "draft capital" or as many other people know it, draft picks.
Don't know who you're speaking to but I'd be more interested in FA OL and not as much on the draft. Maybe one more high pick in 2nd round. Maybe.
But the NFL has shown us that they continue to want offense. The Giants have by next year and for the future a superstar in SB. And frankly OBJ is a superstar too. The G-Men should be setting up their future by trying to win offensively and push the pace of the game.
They have long-term talent in B&B. You should be trying to maximize it because as stated on another email- Sb's shelf life might not eb too long and the GMen aren't winning next year either.
With cost of OL going up so fast, I doubt that its economically feasible to build the OL through FAs. By the time we dig ourselves out of this mess, I fear that will have wasted most if not all of Barkley's rookie contract. (Not that his rookie contract is a bargain for RBs mind you)
But it is economically feasible. As stated numerous times Solder and Omameh and STwart -- you could have gotten Hubbard and Fulton. Right now we'd have 3/5 filled with quality Olinmen. If you dump Eli and Oliver you DO have money. If need be you also dump Jenkins. There is money.
ANd it will be the same next year. The problem with DG is that he is looking to massively overpay ONE OL and get a cheap one instead of getting two pretty good linemen.
Quote:
In comment 14134445 giantstock said:
Quote:
In comment 14134411 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
OL's.
My point is the Giants OL is not bad due to lack of investment. So those people who say, oh it's draft time, I'd go OL, OL, OL, OL are possibly being facetious, but otherwise ignorant.
The fact the Giants invested two 1st and a 2nd round pick in three years puts them near the top of the league in "draft capital" OL investment. None of those three players are even on the team any more.
How can you insist the Giants need to spend more high picks on OL?
The point by referencing other teams and their draft investment on OL as well as highlighting the Giants from Eli's prior days is to point out that no, you DO NOT and SHOULD NOT feel like the only or best way to build an OL is with "draft capital" or as many other people know it, draft picks.
Don't know who you're speaking to but I'd be more interested in FA OL and not as much on the draft. Maybe one more high pick in 2nd round. Maybe.
But the NFL has shown us that they continue to want offense. The Giants have by next year and for the future a superstar in SB. And frankly OBJ is a superstar too. The G-Men should be setting up their future by trying to win offensively and push the pace of the game.
They have long-term talent in B&B. You should be trying to maximize it because as stated on another email- Sb's shelf life might not eb too long and the GMen aren't winning next year either.
With cost of OL going up so fast, I doubt that its economically feasible to build the OL through FAs. By the time we dig ourselves out of this mess, I fear that will have wasted most if not all of Barkley's rookie contract. (Not that his rookie contract is a bargain for RBs mind you)
But it is economically feasible. As stated numerous times Solder and Omameh and STwart -- you could have gotten Hubbard and Fulton. Right now we'd have 3/5 filled with quality Olinmen. If you dump Eli and Oliver you DO have money. If need be you also dump Jenkins. There is money.
ANd it will be the same next year. The problem with DG is that he is looking to massively overpay ONE OL and get a cheap one instead of getting two pretty good linemen.
Its not just swap out Solder, Omameh and Stewart and swap in Fulton and Hubbard. Its just not that simple. I don't think it was clear that Fulton and Hubbard would work out as well as they have. Also, there are 31 teams (other than the trading team) that are all competing for that deal. So its not clear that you can make those deals either. Why does it always seem to be BB making them, well credit where credit is due. No doubt we need to be scouting better, and trying to be creative. In hindsight its easy to say we should have gotten Hubbard and Fulton, in reality its just no that easy. But yeah it would have been great. Also don't forget, its not just the money in that case, you also have to spend draft picks (I said picks just for you pjcas ;) ). But that said, if you tell me now I only have to spend a 3rd to pick up a solid starting Tackle, let alone a left tackle, yeah, I am all in for that. Find me that deal with foresight instead of hindsight though!
Quote:
In comment 14134464 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 14134445 giantstock said:
Quote:
In comment 14134411 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
OL's.
My point is the Giants OL is not bad due to lack of investment. So those people who say, oh it's draft time, I'd go OL, OL, OL, OL are possibly being facetious, but otherwise ignorant.
The fact the Giants invested two 1st and a 2nd round pick in three years puts them near the top of the league in "draft capital" OL investment. None of those three players are even on the team any more.
How can you insist the Giants need to spend more high picks on OL?
The point by referencing other teams and their draft investment on OL as well as highlighting the Giants from Eli's prior days is to point out that no, you DO NOT and SHOULD NOT feel like the only or best way to build an OL is with "draft capital" or as many other people know it, draft picks.
Don't know who you're speaking to but I'd be more interested in FA OL and not as much on the draft. Maybe one more high pick in 2nd round. Maybe.
But the NFL has shown us that they continue to want offense. The Giants have by next year and for the future a superstar in SB. And frankly OBJ is a superstar too. The G-Men should be setting up their future by trying to win offensively and push the pace of the game.
They have long-term talent in B&B. You should be trying to maximize it because as stated on another email- Sb's shelf life might not eb too long and the GMen aren't winning next year either.
With cost of OL going up so fast, I doubt that its economically feasible to build the OL through FAs. By the time we dig ourselves out of this mess, I fear that will have wasted most if not all of Barkley's rookie contract. (Not that his rookie contract is a bargain for RBs mind you)
But it is economically feasible. As stated numerous times Solder and Omameh and STwart -- you could have gotten Hubbard and Fulton. Right now we'd have 3/5 filled with quality Olinmen. If you dump Eli and Oliver you DO have money. If need be you also dump Jenkins. There is money.
ANd it will be the same next year. The problem with DG is that he is looking to massively overpay ONE OL and get a cheap one instead of getting two pretty good linemen.
Its not just swap out Solder, Omameh and Stewart and swap in Fulton and Hubbard. Its just not that simple. I don't think it was clear that Fulton and Hubbard would work out as well as they have. Also, there are 31 teams (other than the trading team) that are all competing for that deal. So its not clear that you can make those deals either. Why does it always seem to be BB making them, well credit where credit is due. No doubt we need to be scouting better, and trying to be creative. In hindsight its easy to say we should have gotten Hubbard and Fulton, in reality its just no that easy. But yeah it would have been great. Also don't forget, its not just the money in that case, you also have to spend draft picks (I said picks just for you pjcas ;) ). But that said, if you tell me now I only have to spend a 3rd to pick up a solid starting Tackle, let alone a left tackle, yeah, I am all in for that. Find me that deal with foresight instead of hindsight though!
But it was clear. And the OL would have been better. Two pretty good players is better for THIS team than trying to hit the solo home run with Solder and stink with Omammeh.
Further, just as this past year it was clear next year there probably will be one pretty good tackle and inside lineman.
IMo this is the better approach rather than gambling on multiple draft pick Ol kids.
We may not agree 100% about the path to get there, but OL has got to be the priority.
It is my opinion that OL should be prioritized over a QB. 3 guys come quickly to mind, David Carr, Tim Couch, and Sam Bradford. I think all 3 of these guys had some talent, but were ruined by being on teams with terrible OLs.
I don't like drafting for need in the first place, but I can't see OL being the "best" pick for multiple premium picks the Giants have next year.
I think one more high-ish pick and another FA and the Giants have to "coach up" someone like Wheeler, Pulley, get Halapio back, etc. Some of the OL improvement HAS to come from coaching.
My guess is that it's Solder, Hernandez, ?, 2019 draft, 2019 FA is probably the way the Giants need to go. And that ? could be Halapio, Greco, etc. or other on the roster and that ? can move to RG or RT.
We may not agree 100% about the path to get there, but OL has got to be the priority.
It is my opinion that OL should be prioritized over a QB. 3 guys come quickly to mind, David Carr, Tim Couch, and Sam Bradford. I think all 3 of these guys had some talent, but were ruined by being on teams with terrible OLs.
I agree OL is a priority as is a QB. While you are concerned over Carr, Couch and Bradford, I'm concerned not getting Goff or Wentz or being so limited becuase we always find some reason to not choose "THAT" QB.
But yeah-- we got to get the Oline too.
I'm also a bit impatient when it comes worried when SB and OBJ. A QB last longer. Each year we don't have both the QB and OL ready we lose a valued year from both SB and OBJ. Barkley is incredible. I'm all in trying to get him the help he needs and try to win games through the offense.
We may not agree 100% about the path to get there, but OL has got to be the priority.
It is my opinion that OL should be prioritized over a QB. 3 guys come quickly to mind, David Carr, Tim Couch, and Sam Bradford. I think all 3 of these guys had some talent, but were ruined by being on teams with terrible OLs.
That's very short sighted.
People forget Eli Manning was drafted by the team with "the worst OL in the NFL".
I don't think you force a QB, I think drafting for need is what loser teams do, but by the same logic I don't force OL.
And in my weightings I have QB far above OL so if it's close between two prospects QB wins.
I don't like drafting for need in the first place, but I can't see OL being the "best" pick for multiple premium picks the Giants have next year.
I think one more high-ish pick and another FA and the Giants have to "coach up" someone like Wheeler, Pulley, get Halapio back, etc. Some of the OL improvement HAS to come from coaching.
My guess is that it's Solder, Hernandez, ?, 2019 draft, 2019 FA is probably the way the Giants need to go. And that ? could be Halapio, Greco, etc. or other on the roster and that ? can move to RG or RT.
I don't necessarily like drafting for need either, but these are hard times...
It would be nice if somebody on the roster stepped up. I don't see it at the moment. I don't even think our starting right tackle belongs on an active NFL roster, let alone starting. That's pretty damning regarding the quality of OL on this team. Not holding my breath. But two new players next year and another in 2020 will suffice.
Quote:
Is that we both agree that the line is the priority that needs fixing, and we need 3 new starters ASAP. We will need a 4th soon.
We may not agree 100% about the path to get there, but OL has got to be the priority.
It is my opinion that OL should be prioritized over a QB. 3 guys come quickly to mind, David Carr, Tim Couch, and Sam Bradford. I think all 3 of these guys had some talent, but were ruined by being on teams with terrible OLs.
That's very short sighted.
People forget Eli Manning was drafted by the team with "the worst OL in the NFL".
I don't think you force a QB, I think drafting for need is what loser teams do, but by the same logic I don't force OL.
And in my weightings I have QB far above OL so if it's close between two prospects QB wins.
Lets put it this way. THe OL doesn't have to be a finished product before getting a QB. But unless you want to waste you massive investment in a QB, I think the OL needs to be significantly better than this. I am not advocating prioritizing drafting OL for years to come, just 1 year. I don't think the OL is finished in just 1 year. Pick up 2 guys for it next year, another in 2020, and another in 2021. Of those 4 guys, I think you can afford 1 to be a UFA, the rest have to come via trade or draft or UDFA. Besides, I don't think the 2019 class of QBs is worth it... I'd rather take the bite at the apple in 2020 when there seems to be some serious talent building up.
If it's lower in the top 10 and the top rated QB's are not available then should be BPA with need considered. If that's and OL great, if not I would not force it.
If it's lower in the top 10 and the top rated QB's are not available then should be BPA with need considered. If that's and OL great, if not I would not force it.
Or do some trades so that you can be in a better position to draft the right guys... Trade up or down, just get the right guys in the right spots.
Quote:
Is that we both agree that the line is the priority that needs fixing, and we need 3 new starters ASAP. We will need a 4th soon.
We may not agree 100% about the path to get there, but OL has got to be the priority.
It is my opinion that OL should be prioritized over a QB. 3 guys come quickly to mind, David Carr, Tim Couch, and Sam Bradford. I think all 3 of these guys had some talent, but were ruined by being on teams with terrible OLs.
That's very short sighted.
People forget Eli Manning was drafted by the team with "the worst OL in the NFL".
I don't think you force a QB, I think drafting for need is what loser teams do, but by the same logic I don't force OL.
And in my weightings I have QB far above OL so if it's close between two prospects QB wins.
How can you saying one breath you don't draft to need then in the next say you'd take the QB over the OL even though the OL would be rated higher? In this case you'd be drafting based on need by the very fact you're taking the lower player. SO you are drafting to need.
This is probably how every single NFL team drafts. No one draft pure BPS in a vacuum and very few teams draft purely for need.
This is probably how every single NFL team drafts. No one draft pure BPS in a vacuum and very few teams draft purely for need.
*BPS* should be *BPA*
Quote:
was rated higher. I said the two players were rated similarly, but I have the QB position weighted higher.
This is probably how every single NFL team drafts. No one draft pure BPS in a vacuum and very few teams draft purely for need.
*BPS* should be *BPA*
I get what you are saying that positional value matters and QB si the most important position.
I won't disagree with that.
Given how hard it is to get decent OL these days, and just how important the OL is to overall team success, and the fact you need 5 of them not just 1, positional value of OL should be 2nd only to a QB.
I am of the opinion that the 2019 QBs don't rate highly enough, so go get OL... And if you need to trade don't be afraid to do so. The Giants seem to be highly allergic to trading.
Quote:
In comment 14134746 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
was rated higher. I said the two players were rated similarly, but I have the QB position weighted higher.
This is probably how every single NFL team drafts. No one draft pure BPS in a vacuum and very few teams draft purely for need.
*BPS* should be *BPA*
I get what you are saying that positional value matters and QB si the most important position.
I won't disagree with that.
Given how hard it is to get decent OL these days, and just how important the OL is to overall team success, and the fact you need 5 of them not just 1, positional value of OL should be 2nd only to a QB.
I am of the opinion that the 2019 QBs don't rate highly enough, so go get OL... And if you need to trade don't be afraid to do so. The Giants seem to be highly allergic to trading.
Yeah, if there was a prospect like Elway or P. Manning sitting there for us, then ok grab him. Every year people convince themselves that there is such a QB prospect, but its usually delusional. Just about every year there are good QB prospects, and I think many would thrive if the surrounding cast is decent.
He is here only as a stop gap until this team can be fixed. He won't be a part of the team by the time it starts winning again. I doubt he is hear for his fourth year, if he is, then the Giants failed to rebuild the line.
Ignore the fact that he is here at a high price. A necessary evil, even during a rebuild.