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.
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.