Heard him the FAN this morning: He thinks Eli will retire. Said to Boomer you know how it is when things just don’t work right anymore. Listed the following
* Eli has trouble getting off his back foot
* ball just doesn’t come out the same
* accuracy is compromised
I Don t agree Eli will retire, the other stuff, beyond my pay grade to evaluate, but Eli s been a big topic, so I shared.
Quote:
The overall draft strategy was in competing now??
Quote:
The miscalculation on the state of the organization to compete in the near term, the mental and physical state of Eli, and the overall 2018 draft strategy centered on the idea that the team could compete in the near term all need to be questioned.
I'm assuming this is just another dig at picking Barkley over a QB and nothing more.
We drafted a RB, a starting G, a couple defensive linemen and a backup QB.
That's a strategy for the near-term?
Wow.
Not even worth a substantive response to you.
Because he is right
When you spend most of the pre-draft time talking about positional value against drafting a RB and when the team doesn't draft a QB and you are disappointed, this is the fallout.
It isn't that we picked the best player in the draft, it was that we snubbed replacing Eli. Calling it a mandate from ownership, a yes-man nod from Gettleman, a slap at the entire field of analytics, or the idea that providing Eli a 3rd ring over actual improvement of the team was the motivation all sound really foolish at face value, but it didn't stop those things from being posted here. A lot. Same with "win-now". The mantra that won't die.
Except it was dead the day we took the practice field. Seems like not accepting that is still alive though.
Facts!!!!!
When you spend most of the pre-draft time talking about positional value against drafting a RB and when the team doesn't draft a QB and you are disappointed, this is the fallout.
It isn't that we picked the best player in the draft, it was that we snubbed replacing Eli. Calling it a mandate from ownership, a yes-man nod from Gettleman, a slap at the entire field of analytics, or the idea that providing Eli a 3rd ring over actual improvement of the team was the motivation all sound really foolish at face value, but it didn't stop those things from being posted here. A lot. Same with "win-now". The mantra that won't die.
Except it was dead the day we took the practice field. Seems like not accepting that is still alive though.
Fatman, I think I've moved well past the qb, position, but I think it's valid to discuss again coming off a 5-11 season, staring into a black hole at the most important position in the sport. I get it, your a mouthpiece for the organization. It was a win now team, that's not debatable. The only people who think it was not win now are those like you, pretty much every pundit outside of the organization and other fanbases thought the Giants were win now. You are in a small minority.
If you would like me to elaborate on how drafting a top young qb could set yet up for years of success and potential championship runs, than you are not worth a response. All four of the Giants superbowl championships were literally built on the franchise qb model, and yet you need you need help connecting the dots on the position?
In fact, I do not want the Giants to draft a qb in 2019 as I do not feel there is one worth a top 10 pick. So tell me again how I am stuck on it?
Of course it is debatable. If it was universally recognized as a win-now strategy why did nearly every pundit outside of the organization (your ridiculous words) have the Giants as .500 or worse this year?
Let's put it a more basic way - had the Giants drafted a QB and gotten rid of Eli - all other things staying the same, most people would label it as a "rebuild". Why? Because the discussion centers completely on not drafting a QB.
Again - a "win now" team doesn't jettison their best pass rusher and overturn the starting lineup by half. A team trying to get out from under the mass of failed drafts does.
By the way, the Browns drafted a QB, signed a FA WR for big $$$, brought in a vet RB, drafted a RB. Traded for a vet QB. Were those "win now" moves or just trying to undo a decade of a poor roster?
I'll eagerly await a pithy, fucking "Cool story, bro".
1. Group of people are pissed off that we check down too often to short high percentage passes.
2. Group of people (some of which are also in group 1) claiming the completion percentage is important.
"Literally"?? We won the first two SB 's following the defense first formula. It would be like saying the Bears went the route of the franchise QB.
Christ, Hoss was the QB for our 2nd SB!!
With dots like that, you bet your ass I need help connecting them!
Quote:
Can you please define a "win now" off-season strategy if you do not believe that the 2018 Giants off-season strategy constituted one?
What I saw was a team sticking with an old quarterback in steady decline hoping for one more run, signing replacement level offensive lineman to large contracts, trading a valuable mid-round draft pick for a veteran linebacker, giving a massive contract to a veteran wide receiver coming off a season where he played 5 games, and last but certainly not least, using the second pick in the draft on a "transcendent talent" at the most replaceable position on the field and making him the one of the top payed players at that position in the league before he took a single snap.
Seems like a "win now" off-season strategy to me.
It has already been posted ad nauseum, but a "win-now" strategy doesn't revolve around turning over the roster by 70% and the starters by 50%. It doesn't revolve around trading your best pass rusher. It doesn't revolve around having exit plans for the young players who were identified as either immature or malcontents.
Why don't people just call it what it was - disappointment that eli wasn't replaced and they needed to spin it into a "win-now" strategy for some reason.
Almost all of the moves made in the off-season were for two main reasons:
1) improve the roster in weak areas
2) Change the culture/professionalism of the locker room
Omameah and Solder were brought here to add a vet presence to the OL. Ogletree to upgrade a LB unit that has been deficient for years. Stewart to give a vet RB to a roster that was Gallman and other unproven guys.
But Eli stayed and some posters freaked out. A lot of posters.
I think a lot of that is fair. They did certainly turn over a substantial portion of the roster. However, on the biggest off-season questions, the team stayed the course. Eli and Beckham were both brought back and built around. Solder got the most guaranteed money for a left tackle in NFL history. That is quite a price to pay for a "veteran presence" on a team that's retooling. When I think about rebuilding, or even retooling, I think about draft pick accumulation. Where was the draft pick accumulation last off-season? Sure, they traded JPP for a pick, but they also traded a pick for Ogletree.
For those of us who disagreed with the Barkley pick, it wasn't even so much that we thought they had to take a quarterback, at least I did not think that. If they truly did not believe in any of the quarterbacks, I think they should have traded down. For a team that is rebuilding and is years away, I would think that the choice to take Bradley Chubb or Quentin Nelson and another draft pick over Saquon Barkley would be very clear.
Taking a running back in that spot, given what the rest of the roster looked like at that time, is just not consistent with a team that was realistic about its prospects of success. If you are counting on Barkley to have more than a five year career at his current level of play, you are simply hoping against all odds and flying in the face of all football history. I'm not saying its not possible, but it is certainly not probable. Now, we are looking at the prospect of Eli retiring after a 5-11 failure of a season and of not having a chance to draft a top rated young quarterback until 2020 (at which time, we may need to give up valuable assets to get into a position to take one). With all that said, it makes last off-season seem more and more like a failure.
If Eli were of a mind to retire based on his assessment of his own abilities, what would he be arguing with Gettleman about the day after the season ends?
One thing no one has mentioned I think is that Eli - who requested the meeting - might have been asking DG for an extension!?
No one seems to be considering this, but IMO it makes as much sense as anything else, if DG turned him down flat out or said only at a large pay cut...
Quote:
In comment 14246862 bw in dc said:
Quote:
certainly has more than enough credibility on throwing. My God he could throw a football, especially under duress. Has a very good understanding of throwing mechanics. Same with his QB guru brother Jordan.
And had a very sneaky good career.
Could have been even better if it wasn’t for that dirty play against Pittsburgh. He was never the same type of player.
That was Roethlisberger’s first SB run.
Low cheap shot by Oelhoffen. That’s back when the Steelers prided themselves on their cheap shots. They had some real scum on the D for a while...
What a ridiculous statement about Kimo. Kimo was not going for a cheap shot there. When Kimo got up he was visibly very upset about the way he hit Palmer and how he went down.
I have no agenda other than to relay the info, from another NFL quarterback.
Having trouble getting off his back foot is referring to the weight transfer. We always hear about foot work with quarterbacks, this is related to that
Quote:
also why lax counsel has gone the "cool story, bro" route.
When you spend most of the pre-draft time talking about positional value against drafting a RB and when the team doesn't draft a QB and you are disappointed, this is the fallout.
It isn't that we picked the best player in the draft, it was that we snubbed replacing Eli. Calling it a mandate from ownership, a yes-man nod from Gettleman, a slap at the entire field of analytics, or the idea that providing Eli a 3rd ring over actual improvement of the team was the motivation all sound really foolish at face value, but it didn't stop those things from being posted here. A lot. Same with "win-now". The mantra that won't die.
Except it was dead the day we took the practice field. Seems like not accepting that is still alive though.
Fatman, I think I've moved well past the qb, position, but I think it's valid to discuss again coming off a 5-11 season, staring into a black hole at the most important position in the sport. I get it, your a mouthpiece for the organization. It was a win now team, that's not debatable. The only people who think it was not win now are those like you, pretty much every pundit outside of the organization and other fanbases thought the Giants were win now. You are in a small minority.
If you would like me to elaborate on how drafting a top young qb could set yet up for years of success and potential championship runs, than you are not worth a response. All four of the Giants superbowl championships were literally built on the franchise qb model, and yet you need you need help connecting the dots on the position?
In fact, I do not want the Giants to draft a qb in 2019 as I do not feel there is one worth a top 10 pick. So tell me again how I am stuck on it?
And yet, according to experts in the field like Shurmur, there were no franchise QBs in his view to even come close to the talent of Barkley. If there was, QB guru would have run to the podium to grab him. He knows much more than fans do. Yet that same fucking narrative continues to be opined here, that is, we PASSED ON A FRANCHISE QB..Time will tell, but the only person qualified to make that assessment is the guy who made that assessment
Quote:
It was a win now team, that's not debatable. The only people who think it was not win now are those like you, pretty much every pundit outside of the organization and other fanbases thought the Giants were win now. You are in a small minority.
Of course it is debatable. If it was universally recognized as a win-now strategy why did nearly every pundit outside of the organization (your ridiculous words) have the Giants as .500 or worse this year?
Let's put it a more basic way - had the Giants drafted a QB and gotten rid of Eli - all other things staying the same, most people would label it as a "rebuild". Why? Because the discussion centers completely on not drafting a QB.
Again - a "win now" team doesn't jettison their best pass rusher and overturn the starting lineup by half. A team trying to get out from under the mass of failed drafts does.
By the way, the Browns drafted a QB, signed a FA WR for big $$$, brought in a vet RB, drafted a RB. Traded for a vet QB. Were those "win now" moves or just trying to undo a decade of a poor roster?
I'll eagerly await a pithy, fucking "Cool story, bro".
You are hopeless and clueless. When you curse on an internet message board, you lose all credibility. Why waste time arguing substance with someone like you? There are plenty of other informed posters with which one might have a spirited and lively debate. Nothing more to be said to you.
"Cool story, bro" worked better to admit arguing "substance" wasn't in the cards.
Quote:
By the way, the Browns drafted a QB, signed a FA WR for big $$$, brought in a vet RB, drafted a RB. Traded for a vet QB. Were those "win now" moves or just trying to undo a decade of a poor roster?
The Browns spent years accumulating draft picks and jettisoning non-useful players and bad contracts to put themselves in the position to have the type of off-season that they had last year. The past off-season was in many ways the year that the Browns decided to cash their chips and "go for it." The Giants never did that. It looks to me that they just tried to reload on the fly and it didn't work.
That said, we need a new QB. I believe, deep in my heart, Eli has lost the quality that made him great. You see something else when you watch, fine. We disagree, is what it is. I believe he would need a dominant team to win a playoff game.
I would prefer to see us play ANYONE but Eli next year. I think a draft pick with some mobility could give as much production as Eli. I would like someone with deep ball accuracy and some mobility. I feel that would make us harder to defend and game plan against our running attack.
You cannot cover our skill players for any length of time. A QB with mobility will give us more big plays when they escape containment. I understand a dominant OL and a pocket passer can achieve this, but we are pretty far away from a dominant OL and our cap space and dead money is not looking great for 2019.
Wanting a new QB for the Giants does NOT make you stupid. Wanting the Giants to play Eli does not make anyone stupid either. I CAN see the reasoning behind starting him another year. We just disagree, can we leave it at that? Instead of trying to prove we are a geniuses and everyone that does not believe as we do are morons?
Quote:
are you fucking kidding me?
Quote:
By the way, the Browns drafted a QB, signed a FA WR for big $$$, brought in a vet RB, drafted a RB. Traded for a vet QB. Were those "win now" moves or just trying to undo a decade of a poor roster?
The Browns spent years accumulating draft picks and jettisoning non-useful players and bad contracts to put themselves in the position to have the type of off-season that they had last year. The past off-season was in many ways the year that the Browns decided to cash their chips and "go for it." The Giants never did that. It looks to me that they just tried to reload on the fly and it didn't work.
Let's not act like Cleveland had some long-game in the works here for years and are now enjoying the fruits of doing so.
They were a horribly run franchise for a very, very long time.
John Dorsey came in with a much more aggressive mindset than his predecessors and it didn't hurt to have the number 1 pick in his back pocket so that he could finally get a QB worth a shit there.
It certainly helped to have accumulated the assets they did in the interim; but they were a directionless team without a QB right up until 2018 and had won just 1 of their previous 32 games.
"Cool story, bro" worked better to admit arguing "substance" wasn't in the cards.
One more question, are you on direct deposit from the Giants (I assume Paul Dottino signs your paychecks) or do you still receive a hard copy check? Sorry couldn't resist.
Quote:
In comment 14247397 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
are you fucking kidding me?
Quote:
By the way, the Browns drafted a QB, signed a FA WR for big $$$, brought in a vet RB, drafted a RB. Traded for a vet QB. Were those "win now" moves or just trying to undo a decade of a poor roster?
The Browns spent years accumulating draft picks and jettisoning non-useful players and bad contracts to put themselves in the position to have the type of off-season that they had last year. The past off-season was in many ways the year that the Browns decided to cash their chips and "go for it." The Giants never did that. It looks to me that they just tried to reload on the fly and it didn't work.
Let's not act like Cleveland had some long-game in the works here for years and are now enjoying the fruits of doing so.
They were a horribly run franchise for a very, very long time.
John Dorsey came in with a much more aggressive mindset than his predecessors and it didn't hurt to have the number 1 pick in his back pocket so that he could finally get a QB worth a shit there.
It certainly helped to have accumulated the assets they did in the interim; but they were a directionless team without a QB right up until 2018 and had won just 1 of their previous 32 games.
I don't disagree with any of that. I am not saying the Browns are any sort of a model franchise here. The other poster was using the Browns as an example of a team that had a similar type of off-season to the Giants. I think his point was that the Browns are always rebuilding or retooling and, therefore, the Giants last off-season must also have been a rebuild or a retool. But I think the Browns did actually go for it last off-season and comparing the Browns off-season to the Giants off-season actually hurt his larger point.
My opinion is that the Giants did the same thing. They took steps to improve the team after years of poor drafts. When the Giants do it, but draft a RB instead of a QB, people scream that they are all-in on Eli and are charging towards the Super Bowl.
When the Browns do it, but select a QB, it is correctly seen as overcoming years of mistakes.
Quote:
I think his point was that the Browns are always rebuilding or retooling and, therefore, the Giants last off-season must also have been a rebuild or a retool. But I think the Browns did actually go for it last off-season and comparing the Browns off-season to the Giants off-season actually hurt his larger point.
My opinion is that the Giants did the same thing. They took steps to improve the team after years of poor drafts. When the Giants do it, but draft a RB instead of a QB, people scream that they are all-in on Eli and are charging towards the Super Bowl.
When the Browns do it, but select a QB, it is correctly seen as overcoming years of mistakes.
We may be getting bogged down in semantics at this point: I think "taking steps to improve" and "overcoming years of mistakes" can describe either a "win now" approach or a "building for the future" approach. The best off-seasons are like the ones the Browns had where you end up doing both. The worst off-seasons are like the ones that the Giants had where you end up doing neither.
Whatever you would like to call their respective strategies, we are losing each other because it seems to me that you are essentially viewing Saquon Barkley and Baker Mayfield as the same type of building block for an organization trying to dig out of a hole. I concede that it is possible that Saquon Barkley will be a first ballot hall of famer and its possible that Baker Mayfield will be out of the league in three years. However, even if all of that is true, I think you are very badly underrating the value of a young quarterback as compared to a young running back. Consider what most would consider the long term prognosis for the Browns to be at this moment if they had Tyrod Taylor and Saquon Barkley rather than Baker Mayfield and Nick Chubb (who the Giants could have had in the second round if they were so convinced they needed a running back upgrade). Are the Browns equally well-situated in those two scenarios? In my opinion, the biggest piece to the puzzle has yet to be added in the first scenario and all the pieces are already in place in the second scenario.
Quote:
There is too much focus put on Eli. At this point, it's pretty clear he can still win if he has decent blocking. It's also pretty clear there is some decline in his play. At the end of the day there are no vets I see out there that are a better option (that will be available for a reasonable price). I think he is back as the starter for 2019 either way but I would love to see him negotiate a better rate for the Giants for cap purposes.
Excellent and succinct summary of the situation. Agree 100%.
Shocking.
Yes let’s put less focus on the QB and the player at the top of the cap...
Quote:
I think his point was that the Browns are always rebuilding or retooling and, therefore, the Giants last off-season must also have been a rebuild or a retool. But I think the Browns did actually go for it last off-season and comparing the Browns off-season to the Giants off-season actually hurt his larger point.
My opinion is that the Giants did the same thing. They took steps to improve the team after years of poor drafts. When the Giants do it, but draft a RB instead of a QB, people scream that they are all-in on Eli and are charging towards the Super Bowl.
When the Browns do it, but select a QB, it is correctly seen as overcoming years of mistakes.
It's not just picking the player they did. I feel like plenty of people look at the Solder signing as a way to reach for wins now. It's hard to present that signing as a 'lay the ground work for the future move'.
Solder wasn't even their first choice as far as upgrading the OL. If they had gotten Andrew Norwell, the Giants would have gone into the 2018 season with Ereck Flowers battling for LT1 against who knows what.
Debating it wasn’t and hiding behind the rational that we were just improving is disengenuous.
Solder wasn't even their first choice as far as upgrading the OL. If they had gotten Andrew Norwell, the Giants would have gone into the 2018 season with Ereck Flowers battling for LT1 against who knows what.
They wouldn't have gone with Flowers had Norwell been signed. They would have likely drafted someone like Braden Smith in round 2 instead of Hernandez.
Debating it wasn’t and hiding behind the rational that we were just improving is disengenuous.
Gettleman just said recently that the Stewart and Omameh signings were to help change the culture in the lockerroom. Kareem Martin and Nate Solder are also high character well respected men. It seems that many had forgotten about last year's mutiny in the locker room. That couldn't happen again and it appears these signings had more to do with character than trying to win now.
Quote:
several of the moves the GM made. Hell, he even said it was in plain spoken words.
Debating it wasn’t and hiding behind the rational that we were just improving is disengenuous.
Gettleman just said recently that the Stewart and Omameh signings were to help change the culture in the lockerroom. Kareem Martin and Nate Solder are also high character well respected men. It seems that many had forgotten about last year's mutiny in the locker room. That couldn't happen again and it appears these signings had more to do with character than trying to win now.
Of course DG would say that now, the signings of Stewart and Omameh were utter disasters. If Omameh wasn't here to play and was a culture guy, why was he cut? They were more to do with character?
Quote:
several of the moves the GM made. Hell, he even said it was in plain spoken words.
Debating it wasn’t and hiding behind the rational that we were just improving is disengenuous.
Gettleman just said recently that the Stewart and Omameh signings were to help change the culture in the lockerroom. Kareem Martin and Nate Solder are also high character well respected men. It seems that many had forgotten about last year's mutiny in the locker room. That couldn't happen again and it appears these signings had more to do with character than trying to win now.
Separate topic but the value of character can be debated all day. Is character worth so much that in a sport where the goal is to build the best roster possible within a very limited amount of money that you can afford a $20m mistake like Omameh?
Quote:
There is too much focus put on Eli. At this point, it's pretty clear he can still win if he has decent blocking. It's also pretty clear there is some decline in his play. At the end of the day there are no vets I see out there that are a better option (that will be available for a reasonable price). I think he is back as the starter for 2019 either way but I would love to see him negotiate a better rate for the Giants for cap purposes.
Excellent and succinct summary of the situation. Agree 100%.
I second this.
Quote:
There is too much focus put on Eli. At this point, it's pretty clear he can still win if he has decent blocking. It's also pretty clear there is some decline in his play. At the end of the day there are no vets I see out there that are a better option (that will be available for a reasonable price). I think he is back as the starter for 2019 either way but I would love to see him negotiate a better rate for the Giants for cap purposes.
Excellent and succinct summary of the situation. Agree 100%.
Thanks...
Hi Britt!
Year 1's roster rebuild, retool, revamp, shakeup, whatever you choose to call it resulted in:
2/5 of the OL being solidified for the next 3+ years. The all important LT piece that has the ability to completely derail an entire season. Hell, some (McAdoo) may say the ability to derail a career. There is some interesting depth/competition pieces in Brown, Pio, and the C they kept on the 53 all year.
4 rookie/soph defensive front players all received significant playing time and flashed the ability to be scheme fits and assets moving forward.
A good start to the rebuild of the trenches.
What do most if not all defensive coordinators need? An extension of themselves on the field. Traditionally in the form of a mike linebacker. Piece added. Also, after reading Sy's recent review, Ogletree is likely helping Goodsen grow into that role to replace him eventually.
Other pieces? They found a punter and rightfully stuck with a young kicker finally. They locked up a game/scheme altering homegrown WR that helps any aged QB. They added a playmaker who just accomplished something only 2 men have ever done in the history of the game. And showed himself to be a future league MVP caliber asset and the kind of young man you want to be the face of your franchise.
Lastly, the effort never waivered. No suspensions, limited drama. An OBJ story and a rookie QB traffic incident. Pretty tame.
How do YOU judge a successful start to a franchise rebirth? Must it start with a QB? This fan thinks the GM was successful in putting a more entertaining product on the field. A more competitive product. A less tabloid active product. A roster mixed with draft picks, FA acquisitions, UDFA, endless waiver wire adds. Still a lot of holes but even the best teams have holes. Looking forward to player acquisition season #2. Regardless of what the QB depth chart looks like come summer, the QBs will be operating in an environment far more conducive to success because of the pieces added this year. Win now or rebuild? Who cares. It's gray.
Quote:
expect you to formulate one.
If you attribute not taking a QB at #2 as being a "draft strategy" to compete immediately, then that's what you are hung up on.
Again - we took a Guard, two DL guys, a LB and a backup QB.
Elaborating how that translates into a strategy that indicates making a Super Bowl run would be damn difficult, and impossible for you since you never looked past passing on a fucking QB.
Can you please define a "win now" off-season strategy if you do not believe that the 2018 Giants off-season strategy constituted one?
What I saw was a team sticking with an old quarterback in steady decline hoping for one more run, signing replacement level offensive lineman to large contracts, trading a valuable mid-round draft pick for a veteran linebacker, giving a massive contract to a veteran wide receiver coming off a season where he played 5 games, and last but certainly not least, using the second pick in the draft on a "transcendent talent" at the most replaceable position on the field and making him the one of the top payed players at that position in the league before he took a single snap.
Seems like a "win now" off-season strategy to me.
The Ogletree trade and the Omameh signing we're both clearly about changing the culture of the locker room. Omameh because DG said exactly that.
Seems like a "win now" off-season strategy to me.
The Ogletree trade and the Omameh signing we're both clearly about changing the culture of the locker room. Omameh because DG said exactly that.
Gotcha, because we were so solid at LB and RG before they came over...
Hopefully we have more churn next year but less players in that pool. The Giants pre DG never let go of bad players fast enough. That's not an issue now.
I suspect we'll see some churn in the QB room this year.
Hopefully we have more churn next year but less players in that pool. The Giants pre DG never let go of bad players fast enough. That's not an issue now.
I suspect we'll see some churn in the QB room this year.
Your post appears to be a more succinct way of saying what my long winded post above was attempting to convey. What is your opinion on the state of the roster today opposed to this day last year? In other words, was year 1 a success in your eyes?
Quote:
NFL teams don't rebuild, they don't have time. Good teams are constantly churning players on the back end. A good sign from DG is the churn. Unfortunately the back end of our roster that is supposed to be churned was big enough to have starters in it. That should signal tha our roster is/was shit.
Hopefully we have more churn next year but less players in that pool. The Giants pre DG never let go of bad players fast enough. That's not an issue now.
I suspect we'll see some churn in the QB room this year.
Your post appears to be a more succinct way of saying what my long winded post above was attempting to convey. What is your opinion on the state of the roster today opposed to this day last year? In other words, was year 1 a success in your eyes?
Depends on how you're looking at it. Was it a success on the field? Yes and no. No in that we were a 5 win team, yes in that the team didn't fall apart during the stretch. Teams need to learn to play together and win before they can become champions. There is more failure than success though, you really have to look for the silver lining.
Year 2 will be a huge tell on how well the coach is doing on the field.
In the front office? Yes I say success. We got rid of a lot of bad players, bad contracts (with more to come), and we got rid of a lot of losers. I love getting rid of Flowers. I love getting rid of Omameh. I love how there aren't any scholerships. It shows that talent wins out. That's how Pete Carroll built up a great program. It's about competition every single day. There is always someone coming in to take your job.
People point to Solder, Omameh and Stewart as failures of Gettleman. They're just looking at things in hindsight. Look at the state of our online prior to the signings. It was bad. Very Bad. We needed a big free agent splash just to get some good talent on the line. That was Solder and the market demanded his cost. So be it. He actually played well down the stretch and a lot of his sacks were the fault of the QB.
Omameh wasn't very expensive, so I don't really care about that contract, but people will whine about it. 3M in dead cap next year? There is a $190M cap coming up. I think we'll be ok.
Stewart? Bad signing, but I think it was more than just play, he was brought in to settle the locker room. I'm ok with that I think. He wasn't very expensive either, so who cares?
I think we'll see some interesting things this year. It's DGs first off season where his scouts worked the whole year, the front office is pointed in the right direction under what he wants to do. Ross is gone.
Anyone whining about how DG trashed analytics is a moron too.
So long post I think. Was last year a success? No, because we sucked. Were we successful in laying a new foundation and cutting out the dead weight? Yes. We'll see next year if it bears fruit.
Sounds like we may differ on the staff. I acknowledge Shurmur's need for game management improvement. There's only 32 of these jobs and I can live with growth needed there. Especially considering the way he handled motivating and preparing a deficient roster week in and out.
I like the schemes. I'm anxious like you to see what pieces they add with a full season under their belts to self scout and begin to marry talent with scheme.
Weighing in on the argument taking place in this thread..
I look at the Browns as the prime example. They had their choice, right? Barkley or QB. In need of both positions they selected the player most didn't even feel was a top 10 player in the draft maybe not even the best QB, but even still they selected Mayfield over Barkley, the more valuable position over the best player available. That decision completely changed the culture and outlook of a stained and hopeless franchise.
The arrow is up for the Browns because they have a QB.. The same can't be as easily argued for NYG for the simple fact they have no future at arguably the most important position in all sports.
Weighing in on the argument taking place in this thread..
I look at the Browns as the prime example. They had their choice, right? Barkley or QB. In need of both positions they selected the player most didn't even feel was a top 10 player in the draft maybe not even the best QB, but even still they selected Mayfield over Barkley, the more valuable position over the best player available. That decision completely changed the culture and outlook of a stained and hopeless franchise.
The arrow is up for the Browns because they have a QB.. The same can't be as easily argued for NYG for the simple fact they have no future at arguably the most important position in all sports.
You do realize that the Browns have been drafting their next Franchise quarterback every other year for like 20 years, right?
Their arrow is up because they improved their team, and even then, they were a whole 2 games better than us, a franchise supposedly floundering and aimless...
Quote:
Carson would know.. All fair points regarding Eli.
Weighing in on the argument taking place in this thread..
I look at the Browns as the prime example. They had their choice, right? Barkley or QB. In need of both positions they selected the player most didn't even feel was a top 10 player in the draft maybe not even the best QB, but even still they selected Mayfield over Barkley, the more valuable position over the best player available. That decision completely changed the culture and outlook of a stained and hopeless franchise.
The arrow is up for the Browns because they have a QB.. The same can't be as easily argued for NYG for the simple fact they have no future at arguably the most important position in all sports.
You do realize that the Browns have been drafting their next Franchise quarterback every other year for like 20 years, right?
The Browns haven't taken a QB in the top fifteen since Tim Couch 20 years ago. Since then they've had 13 top fifteen picks. None were QBs..
Let's not act as if they haven't sunk significant resources into the position
Their arrow is up because they improved their team, and even then, they were a whole 2 games better than us, a franchise supposedly floundering and aimless...
Even though there were two other RBs selected before Chubb, I agree, Chubb was the 2nd best RB but that's really not relevant nor does it help your point because they got him in the 2nd round which was the argument for a lot of the people in favor of drafting a QB first.
2 wins better or 3 less losses again doesn't help your case because Cleveland is still 7 wins better than they were the year before. NYG is just 2 games better.
Improving the roster is obviously apart of it, and I don't think anyone is saying NYG hasn't improved theirs. The point being made is that the Browns arrow is pointing up for the simple fact that their future is settled at the most important position on the field while NYGs is not.. Everyone here should know it's very hard to sustain success in this league with uncertainty at the QB position.. And like it or not that's where the Giants are. Even for someone who likes to argue, it's very hard to argue that.
They were 7-8-1 and are in a division with three teams who routinely contend for the playoffs. Going 8-8 next year is as likely as seeing marked improvement.
That's what people have to realize. Arrows pointing up don't mean a whole lot. Look at Jax this year. Look at Minny.
The race to improve the most from a shitty team doesn't mean a whole lot if simply makes you one of the dozen plus teams that will miss or make the playoffs based on health and a few bounces of the ball.