As I watched the first four games of the playoffs, one thing really popped out at me - outside of the very top teams, the rest of the league is a crapshoot and wide open. The two top defenses (as well as Houston) were bounced, and there really wasn't a theme that ran constant through the winners.
QB play was below average to putrid. One could make a case that outside of Andrew Luck, every other QB was pedestrian at best. Both Chicago and Baltimore, looking back on their season, may draw a conclusion that being in the Top 10 of health played as much of a part in their success as their defenses did, much like the Giants in 2016.
But what this highlights for me as we have the debate on team-building is that I would advocate putting the resources to build the lines and solidify the defense. At this point, the QB seems to be fungible. We could get one last year out of Eli, or replace him at a lower cost and expect similar results. I'd opt for the latter if we could do it.
But, what also becomes glaring in this is that there's only so many places to rebuild from. I know many went apeshit about the Omemeah contract (which, while expensive this year, has little impact forward) and the Solder contract, but the assets simply weren't available. We could have given contracts to the top 5 OL in FA and not have seen much better results. That's key for people who scream that we don't have a plan to understand. How much of a planned roster turnover can be done in one offseason where areas of need didn't have valuable assets available to sign?
There will be a couple decent OL and pass rushers available in FA. If we cut Vernon and use that salary on replacements on the defensive line or at safety/LB, we could get a decent return, then use draft picks to solidify the OL. The cap is not going to be a huge issue this year as we have flexibility to work around it and it rose $14M.
With Barkley in place, building a solid OL and getting a QB to replace Eli will be the key pieces for improvement. It is what the Rams did. They took Gurley, then got their QB, then put together a really solid OL. Based on what we've seen from the mediocrity that was in the playoffs, I do see light at the end of the tunnel.
i also see that the QB conversation isn't likely to be the lynchpin to the success as a lot made it out to be last year.
They drafted Goff, completely revamped the OL (and managed to hit on the signings), and then spent heavily on D.
It worked out for them, but it only worked out because they hit on the Goff pick. If Goff was a bust they wouldn't be any good.
Hope the same happens for the Giants.
When Gurley was banged up down the stretch, he didn't look all that great.
The Rams actually started winning when they shored up the OL. Goff's rookie season was a shitshow, especially when Gurley had no room to run.
Quote:
One thing that has not changed is he does not have the body type to absorb the pounding he's taking at the rate he's taking it.
Totally agree. This Kamikaze running will catch up to Jax. He's got the Gumby ability to take big hits, so he seems to have some built in durability. But the quantity of blows will add up - it's just science.
You know who else had a gumby body? RGIII after this hit...
They also had Aaron Donald in the fold at the time.
The Giants don't have anything close to Aaron Donald on the team, unfortunately. Hopefully they can get a dominant pass rusher in April.
There is nothing new in the OP's post. It has always been the case that a team strong everywhere else can get by with a middling qb. What a good qb does is always give you a chance to come back if you are down, an alternative if the running game isn't working and they can put a game out of reach pretty quickly.
What these games did show is that safeties are now the kings of the defense. Safeties that know when to come off their responsibilities and make plays, safeties that can defend the run and the pass, safeties flexible enough to shore up the defense where needed. We had Curtis Riley who couldn't do either. It's no coincidence that we had the best defense in the last few years when Collins played at an all-world level.
I also think that in all 4 games, the teams played it pretty close to the vest and no one except the Colts opened it up until they absolutely had to even though outside of Dallas and Indy, no one really did shit running the ball. These games were played differently than in the regular season.
When Gurley was banged up down the stretch, he didn't look all that great.
The Rams actually started winning when they shored up the OL. Goff's rookie season was a shitshow, especially when Gurley had no room to run.
Quote:
In comment 14252232 MookGiants said:
Quote:
Eli's insane play in 2011 hid the fact that the Giants were the worst rushing team in the entire sport during the regular season.
A great running game doesn't cover up many weaknesses. It's a lot easier to build a team with a top QB than it is a top RB. I would never even consider drafting a running back number 2 and maybe there will be the one exception every blue moon, but you'd be better off in the long run if you simply stuck to that rule of thumb.
I'd feel better about the Giants future if they had Bradley Chubb instead of Barkley right now. I would be a lot more confident that I could find a good running back late in the draft than I would a really good pass rusher late in the draft.
What's your opinion on what Dallas has built around Elliott?
3 seasons Elliott has been there, been the best player on the Dallas offense, and all 3 years they've had a winning record.
And they're doing it with Prescott - who, is absolutely better than a journeyman, but not as good as the top tier passers in this league like Luck, Brees, Mahomes, Brady, Rodgers, etc.
You can win in this league when your offense goes through your RB and the RB is your best offensive player. But you still need to be able to throw... which is why Dallas improved so much when they acquired Cooper and why they were struggling so much before that.
Dallas has prioritized RB/WR just like we have - the difference is their line and defense are much better and that's where we need to catch up.
1. Shurmur actually called "throw the damn ball downfield" out as a false narrative (see link)
2. The team could not throw downfield when they couldn't block the A-Gaps, or stunts, or twists...and when the RB was hit 2 yard behind the line of scrimmage
Link - ( New Window )
I think there are 20-25 QBs that could replicate what Dak is doing in Dallas. They've been drafting very well the past few years. I don't think he's anything special.
I think there are 20-25 QBs that could replicate what Dak is doing in Dallas. They've been drafting very well the past few years. I don't think he's anything special.
Having an elite QB is "easy"? There's like 3-4 truly elite QBs in the NFL (Brady, Rodgers, Luck, Brees).
I dont think they can win a title because of Prescott. And their roster is also miles better than the Giants, particularly on defense and the offensive line. It will take the Giants a really long time to build the type of talent around Saquon that the Cowboys have around Elliott. The Cowboys probably have 5 players on defense better than any one player the Giants have on defense.
The Giants took the running back without having really anything besides OBJ at the most important positions on the field. That's a poor strategy in my opinion. Hopefully the Giants get lucky and get a stud DE this year and stud QB next year
The Giants took the unanimous best prospect in the entire draft, who happened to play running back. People can't get so hung up on "positional value" bullshit that they start ignoring individual prospects. That's how Luke Keuchly ends up as the ninth pick in a draft when he was clearly the best prospect outside of the 2 QBs.
None of these guys were "stud" QB prospects. They were guys who could turn out to be good, perhaps even great NFL QBs. That doesn't mean the Giants have to wait for Andrew Luck, but none of these 5 guys were RG3-level prospects let alone Elway/Peyton/Luck or 2004 class prospects. Darnold, who I would've drafted, might have a long, successful career. Here's the thing... he'd be the first guy who ever left school as a redshirt sophomore to do so. Mayfield had the resume of a great NFL QB. He also had issues with being an on the field jackass and an off the field jackass. Rosen had great technique and a great arm, but that never channeled itself into high level individual or team performance. Plus, his health was an issue. Josh Allen had off the charts physical ability. He also had a cavalcade of people making excuses for why someone with that much ability couldn't put up numbers befitting of an elite or even above average prospect.
It's not about this "building the team the right way" crap. It's about hitting on talented players draft after draft as the Cowboys have. Since 2010, the Cowboys have hit on someone good to Hall of Fame caliber with 7 of their 9 first round draft picks. (That's not even considering non-first rounders who've panned out.) The Giants tried to build their team "the right way". The problem was they were drafting the wrong guys. Keep drafting good to great players and when you eventually get the QB, he'll be surrounded by a great roster.
Well done.
Quote:
Is the easiest way to succeed.
I think there are 20-25 QBs that could replicate what Dak is doing in Dallas. They've been drafting very well the past few years. I don't think he's anything special.
Having an elite QB is "easy"? There's like 3-4 truly elite QBs in the NFL (Brady, Rodgers, Luck, Brees).
Having one makes competing easier. Getting them is very hard.
That had to burn for the Mooks of the world. All of this slamming their heads against a brick wall all because the organization made a different choice than they would have.
That had to burn for the Mooks of the world. All of this slamming their heads against a brick wall all because the organization made a different choice than they would have.
The only thing that burns is going 5-11.
I’ve been watching the NFL a long time and there’s always a QB that comes in and runs around a lot and makes some throws and plays and ohs and ahs. But the pocket passer that can read a defense reigns supreme in the NFL. I love how everyone blows Brady and then rinses out their mouth with talk about how we need a mobile QB.
Also, running backs and defenses may not win Supes by themselves (I guess only mobile QBs can do that) but they sure do help. Ask John Elway or Eli’s brother. It’s a team sport.
I know, I know, but the arrow would be pointing upward.
The invisible, fabricated arrow only points to one thing - disappointment in not picking a QB.
Quote:
In comment 14251786 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
you've got to have a good offensive and defensive line.
Throughout all of the changes to the game, that has stayed consistent.
If you have that, you have a shot every year.
I feel the same way of this & it’s very apparent when watching the Chargers play.
1. Protect the QB
2. Run the ball
3. Rush the other QB
That is what wins.
Didn't Gettleman say this in his first press conference as the Giants GM and he got vilified for it?
I think Gettleman actually said: run the ball, stop the run, and rush the passer.
The Giants took the unanimous best prospect in the entire draft, who happened to play running back. People can't get so hung up on "positional value" bullshit that they start ignoring individual prospects. That's how Luke Keuchly ends up as the ninth pick in a draft when he was clearly the best prospect outside of the 2 QBs.
Yes, the unanimous best RB. That doesn't equal best player for the team. It's laughable that you ignore positional value. You seem to have Gettleman tendencies where you ignore trends and a positions contribution to winning.
Cam Newton was the reason the Panthers made a SB. Not Kuechly. Kuechly continues to play well, but Newton has continued to be up and down. So which player's performance has been more crucial to the success of the Panthers?
Oh man... I'm usually in agreement with most of what you say, but I am very skeptical of Jim Schwartz ever becoming a credible, influential head coach without a massive attitude adjustment. Unless reports of him requesting that his players carry him upon their shoulders in celebration are heavily exaggerated.
Quote:
The Giants took the unanimous best prospect in the entire draft, who happened to play running back. People can't get so hung up on "positional value" bullshit that they start ignoring individual prospects. That's how Luke Keuchly ends up as the ninth pick in a draft when he was clearly the best prospect outside of the 2 QBs.
Yes, the unanimous best RB. That doesn't equal best player for the team. It's laughable that you ignore positional value. You seem to have Gettleman tendencies where you ignore trends and a positions contribution to winning.
Cam Newton was the reason the Panthers made a SB. Not Kuechly. Kuechly continues to play well, but Newton has continued to be up and down. So which player's performance has been more crucial to the success of the Panthers?
He was the unanimous best prospect. The sure thing. The guy Gettleman, and likely a lot of other GM's, graded out on Peyton Manning's level.
Secondly, Jonothan Stewart was a Pro-Bowler, and Mike Tolbert was an All Pro as well as Pro Bowler that year.
The 2015 Carolina Panthers had 10 Pro Bowlers and 8 AP All Pros on the roster, including Kuechly (both). Cam Newton was not the sole reason they made it.
Quote:
I dont think they can win a title because of Prescott. And their roster is also miles better than the Giants, particularly on defense and the offensive line. It will take the Giants a really long time to build the type of talent around Saquon that the Cowboys have around Elliott. The Cowboys probably have 5 players on defense better than any one player the Giants have on defense.
The Giants took the running back without having really anything besides OBJ at the most important positions on the field. That's a poor strategy in my opinion. Hopefully the Giants get lucky and get a stud DE this year and stud QB next year
The Giants took the unanimous best prospect in the entire draft, who happened to play running back. People can't get so hung up on "positional value" bullshit that they start ignoring individual prospects. That's how Luke Keuchly ends up as the ninth pick in a draft when he was clearly the best prospect outside of the 2 QBs.
None of these guys were "stud" QB prospects. They were guys who could turn out to be good, perhaps even great NFL QBs. That doesn't mean the Giants have to wait for Andrew Luck, but none of these 5 guys were RG3-level prospects let alone Elway/Peyton/Luck or 2004 class prospects. Darnold, who I would've drafted, might have a long, successful career. Here's the thing... he'd be the first guy who ever left school as a redshirt sophomore to do so. Mayfield had the resume of a great NFL QB. He also had issues with being an on the field jackass and an off the field jackass. Rosen had great technique and a great arm, but that never channeled itself into high level individual or team performance. Plus, his health was an issue. Josh Allen had off the charts physical ability. He also had a cavalcade of people making excuses for why someone with that much ability couldn't put up numbers befitting of an elite or even above average prospect.
It's not about this "building the team the right way" crap. It's about hitting on talented players draft after draft as the Cowboys have. Since 2010, the Cowboys have hit on someone good to Hall of Fame caliber with 7 of their 9 first round draft picks. (That's not even considering non-first rounders who've panned out.) The Giants tried to build their team "the right way". The problem was they were drafting the wrong guys. Keep drafting good to great players and when you eventually get the QB, he'll be surrounded by a great roster.
Well said and spot on
La'el Collins wasn't drafted. Top 5 talent.
They got Jaylon Smith in the 2nd. Top 5 talent.
They took Randy Gregory in the 2nd. Top 10 talent.
All three have panned out for them. Easy to talk about a roster being more talented when you didn't even have to draft your starting RT.
The draft tendencies of NFL teams has annoyed me for many, many years.
He was the unanimous best prospect. The sure thing. The guy Gettleman, and likely a lot of other GM's, graded out on Peyton Manning's level.
Secondly, Jonothan Stewart was a Pro-Bowler, and Mike Tolbert was an All Pro as well as Pro Bowler that year.
The 2015 Carolina Panthers had 10 Pro Bowlers and 8 AP All Pros on the roster, including Kuechly (both). Cam Newton was not the sole reason they made it.
Again, when Newton plays below his potential, how does Carolina play? There is a direct correlation with his play and the Panthers record.
I sometimes(MUCH LESS) run across things that say the opposite. I do not share those things. Would you? Do you?
Many of rely on the eye test. Some people see Eli make a good play and think, he still has it. I think maybe I am wrong about Eli when I see it. Let's see if he can build on this. Being an NFL QB is about consistency.
ELi can still do "it" whatever you want to define "it" as. He just cannot do it consistently enough anymore...in my opinion. Some of you think he can if surrounded with a better OL.
We just disagree, it doesn't make any of us stupid or better or worse fans. It just means we see different things when we watch and have different opinion about the priority of how/when to move on from Eli.
That said, in full disclosure, I thought the Barkley pick was a mistake. I was wrong. We should build the offense around him. We need a QB that can burn opponents for stacking the box. Then, this offense can fly.
Yes, the unanimous best RB. That doesn't equal best player for the team. It's laughable that you ignore positional value. You seem to have Gettleman tendencies where you ignore trends and a positions contribution to winning.
Cam Newton was the reason the Panthers made a SB. Not Kuechly. Kuechly continues to play well, but Newton has continued to be up and down. So which player's performance has been more crucial to the success of the Panthers?
Where did I say ignore positional value? I just said you can't be a slave to it. I also don't understand the inclusion of Cam Newton into the discussion. Cam would likely be the first pick in any draft he's in unless there's a "generational" QB prospect like Peyton, Luck, or Elway. He sure as fuck would've been picked ahead of Mayfield, Darnold, etc. Many people feel the same way about drafting MLBs that they do about drafting RBs. That's why I brought up Keuchly and why Patrick Willis fell out of the top 10.
Everyone knows QB is the most important position, but that doesn't mean ignore trends, weaknesses, etc. in trying to draft one at the expense of a great prospect like Barkley. As I said in my original post, all 5 of the QBs taken in the first round in 2018 had issues. Guys who leave as redshirt sophomores don't have long, successful careers. Guys who act like fools on and off the field usually don't win championships. Guys who fail to complete 60% of their passes in college (among other statistics) and don't win games usually don't change that in the pros. Guys who can't stay healthy in college don't change that when hit by larger men in the NFL.
As for Barkley, he was the unanimous top overall prospect (not just RBs) of the most well-known and respected football writers I've read. I obviously don't have access to team's boards.
Quote:
People
MookGiants : 12:46 pm : link : reply
want to point to Jackson running against some of the worst defenses in the league but also want to ignore that of the 5 wins the Giants had this season, 2 were against backup QBs and 2 against 3rd stringers.
It selective reasoning by some..no other ways
It is selective reasoning by some...you two.
Mook basically says "Giants fans love to ignore how we beat a bunch of teams with backup quarterbacks"
What you two, and others ignore, is that the defenses we faced had virtually everyone healthy and we still performed well offensively. When discussing improvements, this is brought up -
The offense improved while the defense did not.
Scoring defenses ( points given up per game)
49ers: 5 (27.2 ppg) - we scored 27 points
Tampa Bay: 2 (29 ppg) - we scored 38 points
Philly: 21 (21.8 pg) - we scored 22 points
Chicago: 32 (17.7 ppg) - we scored 30 points
Washington: 18 (22.4 ppg) - we scored 40 points (no Odell)
Tennessee: 30 (18.9 ppg) - shut out (no Odell)
Indy: 23 (21.5 ppg) - we scored 27 points (no Odell)
Dallas: 27 (20.2 ppg) - we scored 35 points (no Odell)
In the 2nd half of the year, 6 of our 8 opponents had defenses in the top half of defensive ppg. Aside from being shut out by the 3rd best ppg defense (Titans), the Giants did pretty well.
** if you take away the Giants 3 defensive scores (Tampa, Chicago and Washington) the Giants still would have exceeded that teams final defensive ppg average.
So i think its fair to say our offense improved in the second half.
Quote:
took Gurley with huge questions at QB, a really bad OL and a young, unproven D.
They drafted Goff, completely revamped the OL (and managed to hit on the signings), and then spent heavily on D.
It worked out for them, but it only worked out because they hit on the Goff pick. If Goff was a bust they wouldn't be any good.
Hope the same happens for the Giants.
That, and it appears as though they've got a gifted head coach who will struggle, but seems to be able to adjust and improve.
I'm not sure we can say the same but let's hope so.
Quote:
When, as I expect, we move on from Shurmur after this year or next we should interview Jim Schwartz as a possible successor. I still think that guy is cut out to be a head coach and a culture builder.
Oh man... I'm usually in agreement with most of what you say, but I am very skeptical of Jim Schwartz ever becoming a credible, influential head coach without a massive attitude adjustment. Unless reports of him requesting that his players carry him upon their shoulders in celebration are heavily exaggerated.
I may be completely wrong on Schwartz, but I've been really impressed with the way the Philly coaching staff has handled this year. I'd want to get in on that and at the same time take someone from Philly.
Newton had a much better statistical year this year than last year. His completion % was 6 points higher than ANY of his seasons. He had 24 TD's vs 22 last year and 13 INT's, 3 fewer than last year. Team was 5 games worse in the W column.
In fact, this year was nearly identical in yards, TD's and INT's to their 2013 12-4 season.
I'd think that Kuechly combined with his peers who had a top D in the SB year was a main driver in getting them to the SB.
Quote:
The Giants took the unanimous best prospect in the entire draft, who happened to play running back. People can't get so hung up on "positional value" bullshit that they start ignoring individual prospects. That's how Luke Keuchly ends up as the ninth pick in a draft when he was clearly the best prospect outside of the 2 QBs.
Yes, the unanimous best RB. That doesn't equal best player for the team. It's laughable that you ignore positional value. You seem to have Gettleman tendencies where you ignore trends and a positions contribution to winning.
Cam Newton was the reason the Panthers made a SB. Not Kuechly. Kuechly continues to play well, but Newton has continued to be up and down. So which player's performance has been more crucial to the success of the Panthers?
It's not the Panthers who support his argument about Kuechly being a positional-value victim -- it's the teams before them who could have drafted him but didn't.
Let's say Chubb was 80% a lock to be a difference maker but Barkley was a 90%. Both turn out to be studs. People then argue we should have taken the DE. It doesn't necessarily hold. You take the sure thing. We should do the same again.
I do think you need a QB. No way Daniel leads the bears back to that FG. Trubisky did well. The Giants need to solve the QB position.
I do think the above can be done by fixing the OL. It's a temporary fix but Eli can play still. I saw a lot of QBs get better protection than Eli can dream of. We need a RT more than a QB.
We need to upgrade the safety and LB positions. Especially safety. The safety play was light years ahead of what we saw.
Newton had a much better statistical year this year than last year. His completion % was 6 points higher than ANY of his seasons. He had 24 TD's vs 22 last year and 13 INT's, 3 fewer than last year. Team was 5 games worse in the W column.
In fact, this year was nearly identical in yards, TD's and INT's to their 2013 12-4 season.
I'd think that Kuechly combined with his peers who had a top D in the SB year was a main driver in getting them to the SB.
I thought you lived in Charlotte. Newton has played the back half of the year injured with the shoulder. Carolina has averaged barely 18ppg since the shoulder worsened. And then they lost six in a row.
In the first eight games, they averaged 25+, when he was healthier. So his stats are skewed favorably because of the first half. Oh, and Carolina was 7-2.
Kuechly is a great player. Another All Pro season. So how well did his defense do with Newton unable to drive the team to more productivity while he was hurt?
Which begs the question - I wonder if you thought this one out?
How about Giants using 10 men in the box to stop Gore?
Link - ( New Window )
Kuechly is a great player. Another All Pro season. So how well did his defense do with Newton unable to drive the team to more productivity while he was hurt?
Which begs the question - I wonder if you thought this one out?
Why is Kuechly vs Newton at the center of your argument, instead of Kuechly vs everyone taken after him in 2012?
Maybe he could run better?
Interesting discussion. I recently posted an article over at the GBN (which Defenderdawg graciously referred to in his list of Monday reading today) that addressed the issues raised in this article. In the article I was responding to the most oft-asked questions I get about where the Giants are at these days. And right at the top of the list has been the question (or some variation of): "After three and five win seasons are the Giants ‘close’ as some people suggest or are they in reality in the midst of a major rebuild?
The answer is Yes and Yes!
The margin between winning and losing in the NFL is often very small and in the Giants case it doesn’t get much smaller than two 1-point losses in the final minute, a two-point loss on a 63-yard FG at the end, a three-point loss, a 5-point loss (in which the winning points were scored on a pick-6 of a deflected pass) and a couple of 7 point losses. That’s 4 losses by a total of 7 points and 7 losses by a total of 26 points. What was frustrating is that it isn’t hard to go back and see where with a play here or there, especially a stop on defense in the latter part of any number of games, that the Giants could just as easily have won several more games and been in the thick of the hunt for a playoff spot. Indeed, tweak the OL a little bit further and add a body or two on defense, especially to the pass rush, and it is not all that inconceivable that the Giants could easily win some of the close games they lost this year and finish with 9-10 wins and make the playoffs next fall.
However, that’s not really the goal here. As G.M. Dave Gettleman noted in his year-end presser, the ultimate objective is to “build sustained success’ where one posts double-digit wins, gets home-field advantage, and goes deep into the playoffs on a yearly basis. And in that regard the Giants appear to still have some heavy-lifting to do. Indeed, at least in a general sense, teams that fit that characterization have at least one of two things (if not both): either a very good, if not elite QB; and/or a very good defense that can at least hold a lead at the end of games. Truth be told the Giants have neither. Eli appears to still have some tread left on the tires, but he is simply no longer anywhere near the category of guys like Brady, Brees and Mahomes and obviously the heir apparent just isn’t very apparent! Meanwhile, right now the Giants defense bares no resemblance at all to the great championship defenses of Huff, Robustelli, Grier, Katcavage, and Patten; LT, Banks, Carson, Marshall and Collins; and Strahan, Tuck, and Unmenyiora et al. Not even close."
People that haven't seen can read the full article here.
Botom line is that people may be talking past each other a little bit as I suspect there are some major differences in what is needed between getting better and making the playoffs versus becoming a legit elite championship team.
I agree with what you are saying in general. However, I do not think we should come to the conclusion that defense is not as important as we thought since Balt and Chi lost. Baltimore's offense lost the game for them in the first half. Chicago's defense still played well even though the team lost. If the kick was straight, we would not be talking about it.
I agree with your Eli comment about leaning towards replacing him. What would really help this offense is if we were able to find someone who is not necessarily an upgrade but has the ability to run. Not a "running" QB but someone that gives defenses that hesitation or concern for contain. It would do wonders for our OL and would make their jobs easier to block for whoever that QB is.
putting the resources to build the lines and solidify the defense. At this point, the QB seems to be fungible. We could get one last year out of Eli...
But, what also becomes glaring in this is that there's only so many places to rebuild from. I know many went apeshit about the Omemeah contract (which, while expensive this year, has little impact forward) and the Solder contract, but the assets simply weren't available. We could have given contracts to the top 5 OL in FA and not have seen much better results. That's key for people who scream that we don't have a plan to understand. How much of a planned roster turnover can be done in one offseason where areas of need didn't have valuable assets available to sign?
Good points. Points I've agreed with for a while now.
There will be a couple decent OL and pass rushers available in FA.
Not sure I agree with this just yet. I think we need to wait and see who resigns with their current teams. Looking at recent trends, good young OL are not hitting FA often. Its either replacement level players, or guys over 30 hanging on for a last contract. I suspect that when the dust settles, there won't be much more to pick over than there was last year. Same goes for pass rushers.
, or replace him at a lower cost and expect similar results. I'd opt for the latter if we could do it.
You can replace him at a lower cost, but I think I have gone through the candidate on other posts, there is nobody that will perform as well at a lower cost for short term contract. You can grab a a lower level starter and guarantee a really bad season, if that is what you mean by "similar results". That has some merit in helping to get a real QB in 2020. But there is no lower cost replacement player for Eli that will perform comparably.
I have am one of the people who suggest that our 5 wins this year is bloated due to good health for the Giants, and facing a string of banged up teams with backup QBs. To me this team is still a 3 - 13 franchise. Sad to say but, 5 or 6 wins without the gifts wins of this season will represent real improvement. 5 or 6 wins is just as lost a season as 3. So who cares who plays QB and if you get 3 wins or 6 wins. Problem is that its a bad optic going into the season, and its bad for business. So I think the business decision is to let Eli finish his last year.
If we cut Vernon and use that salary on replacements on the defensive line or at safety/LB, we could get a decent return, then use draft picks to solidify the OL. The cap is not going to be a huge issue this year as we have flexibility to work around it and it rose $14M.
Because the cap is not a huge issue, I'm not sure its a good idea to cut OV for nothing in return. He should be tradeable fir something.
Also looking at recent FA costs, defense seems a better place to get value in the FA market, so I'm on board there.
At week 6, we were 16th in overall health and finished 21st.
Average overall seems pretty reasonable.
This thread had nice promise as the day started...what the hell happened?
Quote:
I have am one of the people who suggest that our 5 wins this year is bloated due to good health for the Giants
At week 6, we were 16th in overall health and finished 21st.
Interesting health numbers, I was looking for them but was having difficulty finding.
Here is the thing. The team was certainly healther for weeks 9 - 13 where they had the 4 - 1 stretch, and they played some banged up teams. Yeah it went downhill after that losing OBJ, Collins, and a few others along the way. But during that period of winning football the point I am making is that it was largely due to superior health. THat includes facing 3 backup QBs.
Had the Giants lost OBJ, Collins, or god forbid Solder, Hernandez or Brown, during that stretch, I doubt they win any of those games.
But Giants opponents can generate plenty of pressure and stop the run without stacking the box...that has been the problem...the OL has been very bad for a long time...its not a coincidence that SB was the Giants first 1000 yard rusher since 2012...
In the 2nd half of the season when they got average OL play both the passing and running game greatly improved...
Yet you say it's the QB...
Here is the thing. The team was certainly healthier for weeks 9 - 13 where they had the 4 - 1 stretch, and they played some banged up teams.
In some past years, we not only had a lot of men go down, but we had them clustered at one or two positions, nearly wiping all the depth out.
That's probably what has given the appearance we had decent health.