Nate Solder

but it's still a vast improvement over what we had at that position. Plus, the run blocking had been much improved. IMV, he's not an issue.

Couldn't leave Flowers there so who else should we have gotten?

but I'm tired of shopping for groceries while starving and spending accordingly.

where was the starting left tackle? Thats the biggest problem with the NFL game right now.. Top quality ALL PRO starting left tackles are not let go by teams.. they just arent.. aging ones are...

Nor are they being found in the college ranks anymore because colleges by and large dont develop them nor are they running pro style systems as much. Look how many of these left tackle prospects in college are being switch to right tackle or guard when they come into the NFL..

When was the last time a Staley or Joe Thomas was drafted??

so in some respect the Giants didnt have a choice. He was the best available. AND they needed a guy who has some veteran experience..

Also I always say this.. an offensive line isnt as much about the individual players as it is about the cohesion OF those individual players..

Solder will be affected by playing next to a rookie LG... Thats just the reality of the situation.

In comment 14132605 JonC said:

Quote:

but I'm tired of shopping for groceries while starving and spending accordingly.

I like that analogy

but he's a good player and a high-quality individual. Part of the solution, not the problem IMO.

someone of that ilk you're going to get beat from time to time. Solder was never regarded in that class. We needed a sufficient LT and market dictated what we had to pay. Sucks, but thems the breaks when you draft like shit for 10+ years.

Unfortunately, that may not always be good enough.

.

it was a bad signing. Solder was never very good in New England with better coaching and a better scheme.

If I remember correctly didn’t the Pats want to resign him but the giants just paid more( which is what you have to do in FA). I’m sick of hearing that the Pats had no interest in bringing him back- it’s simply not true.

In comment 14132602 montanagiant said:

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.

In comment 14132653 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

it was a bad signing. Solder was never very good in New England with better coaching and a better scheme.

This, many times over. He's been marginally better than Flowers at a much higher cost.

has Solder given up? From what I have seen it seems to be at least one a game. I tried to find this out but was unsuccessful. IMO a horrible signing which will hamper the giants cap wise for years. This is how you end up with a bad team yet still no cap space!

In comment 14132657 TyreeHelmet said:

Quote:

If I remember correctly didn’t the Pats want to resign him but the giants just paid more( which is what you have to do in FA). I’m sick of hearing that the Pats had no interest in bringing him back- it’s simply not true.

I remember hearing him said he'd prefer to come to giants for mainly would be closer to ny area because that's where his child is going through cancer treatments

He is a #1 Character/Leader, he is above average but not great, and he answers the bell every Sunday. I think the GM thought they were solving two problems by moving Flowers to right tackle. The Giants have had no constancy over the years shuffling people in and out so this is one position we do not have to worry about. Center, RG and RT are the main issues.

yes we overpaid. No he isn't flawless. He is a solid player. Far from our biggest problem.

He is certainly a slight improvement at LT. I think he might be good enough and can hold the fort until his contract is up. I just wish he could run block better then he has. He was supposedly better at that with NE.

Who else should we have gotten?
montanagiant : 10:59 am : link : reply
Couldn't leave Flowers there so who else should we have gotten?


I doubt what has transpired thus far, would hardly be different and we wouldn't be out 22M?

It was a desperate move, where we overpaid, and by the time this line is fixed, he won't even be a part of it...

Fact is, DG made moves where he thought this team could compete, and he was dead wrong....

they always pay at least full retail.

cut Flowers ... cut Eli ... opened the vault for Cousins ... and picked up a RT.

Sure he gets beat once and awhile and everyone goes nuts, but all LT's get beat once and a while. Forget about him and Hernandez, its the rest that are a worry (although I do have hope for Wheeler).

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

The next big game that clown wins will be the first.

We snapped him up quickly. For an OL, he isn’t old and can easily play out his contract. We needed an OLT desperately and we paid the usual, albeit overpriced, amount to attempt to fix that while trying to rebuild with youth through the draft

So, yeah, he fits the Giants like a glove.

Hutchinson, Deion and Reggie White off the top of my head. They’re almost all massively overpaid, that’s today’s market, so what’s the point?

I've seen thus far.

In comment 14132658 BigBlueinChicago said:

Quote:

In comment 14132602 montanagiant said: 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.

In comment 14132835 Csonka said:

Quote:

cut Flowers ... cut Eli ... opened the vault for Cousins ... and picked up a RT.

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.

In comment 14132605 JonC said:

Quote:

but I'm tired of shopping for groceries while starving and spending accordingly.

...and ignoring 'best used by:' dates.

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.

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.

Omameh as well.

besides the player not living up to expectations, you just spent like 1/8th of your salary cap. And it really was no surprise, he did not have that great a year last year and I believe he was exposed in the playoffs.

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.

and has drafted so poorly, they usually find themselves overpaying for marginal talent to plug holes.

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.

Andrew Whitworth. That was the guy to go after. But that was before the current regime.

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.

I would have much rather Wheeler replaced Flowers at LT than RT. At least it's a position he's played. Would have been a Dave Diehl over Luke Petigout type risk, but maybe Wheeler is better on the left.

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.

In comment 14133243 pjcas18 said:

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.

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.

In comment 14133607 .McL. said:

Quote:

In comment 14133243 pjcas18 said: 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:

Quote:

....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. ....

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.

In comment 14134269 giantstock said:

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.

the draft is not how *most* good OL's are built. It's just a fact.

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.

2 draft picks in Diehl(5th) and Snee (2nd)
1 UDFA in Seubert
1 marquee free agent in McKenzie
1 under the radar free agent in O'Hara

In comment 14134341 .McL. said:

Quote:

In comment 14134269 giantstock said: 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.

In comment 14134369 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

2 draft picks in Diehl(5th) and Snee (2nd) 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.

In comment 14134367 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

the draft is not how *most* good OL's are built. It's just a fact. 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.

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.

In comment 14134367 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

the draft is not how *most* good OL's are built. It's just a fact. 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.

In comment 14133111 BigBlueinChicago said:

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.