The KC Chiefs defense allowed more points this year than the Giants. The KC Chiefs defense allowed more points this year than the Giants.The KC Chiefs defense allowed more points this year than the Giants.
As Aikman said during the game about the Rams "They make it look like a run."
If you have a mediocre OLine or QB (you don't want a mediocre QB which some suggest getting later round 2nd or 3rd or 4th rd picks etc) then the defense will dictate what you do and the mediocre QB won't be able to take advantage.
**THE Gmen need to address the Offensive Line and not the nonsense like last year getting a below average OL while getting an old man at tackle. If they don't like the QB's to draft - fine -- but don't pretend the Gmen are going to go anywhere the next few years (beyond 2019) until they get a QB.
And building the defense without having the QB and the GOOD Offensive Line is just fools gold.
1-- The best defense- The Bears are out of the playoffs.
2--- The 2nd best in NFL Ravens are out.
3--- The 5th best Texans are out.
4--- The 6th best Cowboys are out.
5--- The 10th best Colts are out.
6-- The 11th best Seahhawks are out.
And ohh by the way-- the 20th and 24th best defenses won today and are in the AFC and NFC Championships.
**THe Gmen can build like the Chiefs. THAT'S what they should do.
***Priority going forward is to get at TWO GOOD OFfensive linemen. ANd hopefully thye love a QB either Haskins or Jones. ****If they don't -- then this year punt on getting two Good FA Olinemen in FA (okay to draft them) and look at getting young and rebuilding. *****In a rebuild "consider" saying goodbye to Eli and signing Siemian for sights on the 2020 QB class.
They can go somewhere with a bad defense.
defense is vital to win in todays game.
The Rams defense, held Zeke to 2.3 ypc - on 20 carries for 47 yards. Make no mistake defense wins.
Secondly, in a previous post I had made about a week ago, Shurmur is figuring out the formula on how to consistently score more points, that's why the Giants averaged 27.4 ppg on offense the 2nd half of the year.
You'll get a lot of push back from posters living in the past and reveling in an outmoded strategy that brought this franchise success in the past. They're wrong. We should continue to focus on the offense, specifically OL and QB.
Same shit here. So, we are only allowed to improve 1/3 of our team every offseason? Starting now, Gettleman amd company are having a conversation as to whether they should fix the offense, defense, or special teams because we can only pick one.
News flash, we have enough money to sign multiple players whether they be offensive or defensive players and a lot of draft picks that can be used on both.
Lets make this simple; bring in the most talented players we can at all positions since we almost suck at every position as long as they fit our standard for what qualities we want to keep the culture strong.
defense is vital to win in todays game.
That's my point!!!!
Even the crummy defense like the CHiefs made HUGE stops. If the CHiefs defense can look good when it was so pathetic why can't the Gmen try to build just like them considering they already have TWO super offensive players. They can get to the top quicker.
ANd make no mistake-- the teams with the crummy defenses made the more crucial stops vs the teams with the superior defenses, right? It's because the opposing team's offenses weren't as good.
The Chiefs and Rams have the 1 and offenses in football. Build an offense that is harder to stop vs very good defenses. All the top defenses are out -- aren't they? It's the offenses that dictated the play.
The Rams defense, held Zeke to 2.3 ypc - on 20 carries for 47 yards. Make no mistake defense wins.
Secondly, in a previous post I had made about a week ago, Shurmur is figuring out the formula on how to consistently score more points, that's why the Giants averaged 27.4 ppg on offense the 2nd half of the year.
Sxdca-- you realize that the Rams had a sub-par rated defense, right? And they stopped a terrific running game of the Cowboys. Part of the issue I'm sure is that they dared a mediocre/ slightly above average QB to beat them. But a further point is-- if a subpar defense like the Rams can shutdown the Cowboys, why can't the Giants follow the same formula and build a team that plays juts like the Rams and just outscores the Cowboys?
Let me ask you-- going into the game who had the better defense, Rams or COwboys? Cowboys right? Did you see the other teams I mentioned above - ALL had superior defense and they are out. The crummier defenses are WINNING.
A final point. You are taking stock in the last several games. You believe in that offensive line without getting TWO OL, then I have stock to sell you. Just send me cash. You can trust me about as much as you can trust the OLine.
Yes but you didn't think I said to ignore the defense, did you? Read both my posts. I said I'm oaky with taking draft picks this year on defense. It's just that the Gmen are going no where without an OL and qb. But as the Chiefs showed you and the Rams -- when you have the 20th and 24ht ranked defenses you can still "go somewhere."
With one good QB and TWO Good OL-- the Giants offense is on par with Chiefs/Rams.
Same shit here. So, we are only allowed to improve 1/3 of our team every offseason? Starting now, Gettleman amd company are having a conversation as to whether they should fix the offense, defense, or special teams because we can only pick one.
News flash, we have enough money to sign multiple players whether they be offensive or defensive players and a lot of draft picks that can be used on both.
Lets make this simple; bring in the most talented players we can at all positions since we almost suck at every position as long as they fit our standard for what qualities we want to keep the culture strong.
Typical nonsense form posts like yours and posters like you. You are one of the more weasel-like posters on here. SO when I say I'm okay with drafting the defense in early round -- you twist this into "I'm ignoring the defense."
I've run into arguments with you before. You are deceitful and twist what others say just as you're doing here. But carry-on. Yeah I said "ignore the defense."
Sure pal.
Let me dumb it down for you just like I had to last time-- we are closer to being the CHiefs as a great OTeam so I want us to draft to build the offense as more of a priority BUT BUT BUT for example if Gmen have 6th pick and take a pass rusher and I said I was fine with it (ofc you ignored that didn't you?) they can take another early rd defense for example if they don't like the QB in rd 1-- I see you have no problem implying that I'm "ignoring the defense"
though.
Grow up!! Weasel.
To have a respectable offensive line, you don't need three All Pros. It's nice to have a Jumbo Elliott anchoring the line, but the other guys can be lunch pail types.
You have to settle on a line and then give them time playing together. They improve, they gain confidence, they know what to expect from the linemen on their sides and how to help each other out.
I've read that the offensive line improved in the second half of the season, and it was a shame that they had to use much of the first half getting to know each other and playing as a unit.
They should have played the starters through almost all of the pre-season games. Balance the chance that one O-Line starter might be injured against throwing an inexperienced line into the regular season where they learn to play as a unit at the expense of the quarterback getting trampled, the big star rookie running back running up a dozen negative yardage plays, and the team being out of playoff contention before the season is halfway over.
To have a respectable offensive line, you don't need three All Pros. It's nice to have a Jumbo Elliott anchoring the line, but the other guys can be lunch pail types.
You have to settle on a line and then give them time playing together. They improve, they gain confidence, they know what to expect from the linemen on their sides and how to help each other out.
I've read that the offensive line improved in the second half of the season, and it was a shame that they had to use much of the first half getting to know each other and playing as a unit.
They should have played the starters through almost all of the pre-season games. Balance the chance that one O-Line starter might be injured against throwing an inexperienced line into the regular season where they learn to play as a unit at the expense of the quarterback getting trampled, the big star rookie running back running up a dozen negative yardage plays, and the team being out of playoff contention before the season is halfway over.
It has?
Who did they draft in 2016 and 2017 please? Okay I understand somewhat-- but for guys they've drafted before WIllie- how many drafted in top 4 rounds are still on the team? How often has the OLine been rated top 10?
Wouldn't that tell you they are devoid of talent and poor at drafting?
In the last game; except the Giants didn't have the DEFENSE to pull out the game.
The Rams took notes; they saw what Barkley did (behind an inferior line), then they ran all over the Boys.
I hear you, Stock, but in OUR case, we've got the skill players on offense we just need to tweek the O-line and work hard on our defense.
In the last game; except the Giants didn't have the DEFENSE to pull out the game.
The Rams took notes; they saw what Barkley did (behind an inferior line), then they ran all over the Boys.
I hear you, Stock, but in OUR case, we've got the skill players on offense we just need to tweek the O-line and work hard on our defense.
Wrong. Dallas' defense is levels above ours and got exposed. We're 4-5 starters from even being at their level and they got exposed. You beat the Rams on the other side of the ball.
Wouldn't take their starters out in a meaningless game)
They shredded our rag-tag defense with a no-body tight end and Dak's running. The point I'm trying to make remains valid - an inferior team (us) showed how a superior team (the Rams ) can beat the Dallas Cowboys, and they did.
I don't think (except for their offensive line) that the Rams are better on offense. On DEFENSE they certainly are - they stifled Dak (as we couldn't) and they suffocated Elliot; that was it, better team won.
On another note, I wasn’t blown away with any qb play in the playoffs but I saw a lot of great running teams. Gettleman May have missed on a free agent player or two but his focus on the lines and the running games are taking us in the right direction to be a playoff team.
In the last game; except the Giants didn't have the DEFENSE to pull out the game.
The Rams took notes; they saw what Barkley did (behind an inferior line), then they ran all over the Boys.
I hear you, Stock, but in OUR case, we've got the skill players on offense we just need to tweek the O-line and work hard on our defense.
The end of the year games were meaningless. Manny - do you recall the years when Gmen were great with Taylor and Banks and Carson etc?
A team that was 1-7 and at the end of season last 4 games or so if we were to play them, what would be your thought? I'll tell you imo -- imo it's "Let's not have a letdown game and play down to the competition." And after won - we would have said "we played down to the competition and we had better not play like that vs San Francisco etc."
SO this end of season run we've had - it's no different than the end of our 2014 season - no different than how we used to view scrub teams. What you saw is nothing at the end of the season. The other teams viewed us as scraps. So what we scored. We're a lousy team in which other teams view us s scrap knowing we'll find ways to lose. The other teams don't get up for us just like when we were great back in the LT days - we thought of scrubs like this Giant team as "Let's not play down . . ."
And while you mention JUST "Dallas" look at all the other teams. It's not "Just" DALLAS.
1-- what about the Bears? The Ravens? Houston? COlts? Seahwaks?
The teams with the crummy defenses won such as the Chiefs. And The Rams crummy defense won too. Their defense was better than Seattle. It can;t all be a coincidence.
On another note, I wasn’t blown away with any qb play in the playoffs but I saw a lot of great running teams. Gettleman May have missed on a free agent player or two but his focus on the lines and the running games are taking us in the right direction to be a playoff team.
Your post is all wrong. You mean the Chargers had pass rushers but the Raven's didn't (Ravens had more sacks)? You mean the Rams have the pass rushers but the Cowboys didn't (Cowboys had more sacks)? You mean the Seahawks had pass rushers but the Cowboys didn't? (Seahawks had more). You mean The Colts had more sacks and Houston didn/t (The Texans had more)? You mean the Eagles had more sacks and tHe bears didn't?
***Try another dart. This one doesn't stick.
ANd you want to look back at the Giants back in 2011 - that a 7 year old formula still works while burying your head in the sand with current data? This is the point we're saying about some of you and I say with respect -- you are thinking in terms of old time football. Yes even 7 years ago is old time.
Huh? Are you serious? Never mind the point of trying to win as son as possible and that a RB can get hit at any time and he;s done moreso than any other-- but then you aren't in favor of giving him the ball near 20-25 times int he run and hit him a bit withthe pass - because you want to preserve him? Huh????!!!!!!!!!!!! You don't want to use a lot the greatest RB (will be) in gmen's history along with the wR? How much is OBJ Beckham making and you dont want him being focal points of 34-28 games? AMong the highest paid WR;s in the NFL? Huh???!!!! We passed on taking a QB to get a RB and now we're going to try to preserve him? Huh? Is that what you are saying> I;m asking.
If the defense is very good then it means the giants get the ball back a lot-- so SB and OBJ will still be taking a lot of hits.
Quote:
Stop looking at defenses and judging by regular season stats. In the playoffs you need a defense that has multiple pass rushers that can make a few major timely plays throughout the game. Look and the Chiefs Deline pass rushers and the Rams Dline pass rushers. In the playoffs that is all you really need and the rest of the defense behind can be average. Look at the giants last 2 Superbowls. Same formula. You still need other guys on d to step up but it is about getting to the qb in the playoffs.
On another note, I wasn’t blown away with any qb play in the playoffs but I saw a lot of great running teams. Gettleman May have missed on a free agent player or two but his focus on the lines and the running games are taking us in the right direction to be a playoff team.
Your post is all wrong. You mean the Chargers had pass rushers but the Raven's didn't (Ravens had more sacks)? You mean the Rams have the pass rushers but the Cowboys didn't (Cowboys had more sacks)? You mean the Seahawks had pass rushers but the Cowboys didn't? (Seahawks had more). You mean The Colts had more sacks and Houston didn/t (The Texans had more)? You mean the Eagles had more sacks and tHe bears didn't?
***Try another dart. This one doesn't stick.
ANd you want to look back at the Giants back in 2011 - that a 7 year old formula still works while burying your head in the sand with current data? This is the point we're saying about some of you and I say with respect -- you are thinking in terms of old time football. Yes even 7 years ago is old time.
You are really hung up on stats to make your point. I am not talking sacks numbers. I am talking about what makes a playoff defense. All teams that were in the playoffs had players who could make game changing plays on defense. Also, you are judging the Rams and KC defense by stats without considering how teams had to play them to keep up with them or when playing from behind. The Giants need to continue fixing the oline but are not going anywhere without defensive players who can make a difference at the end of games.
The games yesterday were won by running the ball, stopping the run, dline pressure and making a few big plays on defense. Sounds really new age football to me.
It's clear we need upgrades at C, RG and possibly RT. Having the skill players we do and the OL is like having a 200k sports car that runs on high test and we keep feeding it regular gas.
In some ways the issue may be re the importance of line play. No one will dispute that. It occurs to me that rarely will there be an observation that the OL is gassed. Time of possession is a critical factor where a superior OL may win out over a superior DL.
ALL.
Pick up one of several decent FA RT, and draft RG.
(Minus a longterm answer at QB)
But if the Giants do not go after an ER and FS at the minimum, they will be wasting another year.
These playoffs have shown lots of D
Sure, OL is important, (the big free agent splash) and at some point a QB is important (2020 draft).
But right now the 2019 draft seems stocked to the hilt with exactly what we need, DL, OLB,ILB etc.
I don't know how anyone can watch the Dallas D, the Rams D, and nit see that we lack the players.
If anything these playoffs prove that D wins. It's not 'outdated'.
And they played better down the stretch. I’m 100% confident they will a new C, RT and maybe RG next year. And possibly a QB.
So with that being said, what else needs fixing on offense? The defense had MUCH bigger issues.
It's clear we need upgrades at C, RG and possibly RT. Having the skill players we do and the OL is like having a 200k sports car that runs on high test and we keep feeding it regular gas.
In some ways the issue may be re the importance of line play. No one will dispute that. It occurs to me that rarely will there be an observation that the OL is gassed. Time of possession is a critical factor where a superior OL may win out over a superior DL.
Good luck with wishing the name-calling would stop, too many on here think that is the way to make a point or to put up some meme,, it’s all about anonymity.
Quote:
Barkley, OBJ and Engram...I can live with winning games 34-28. We have no core on defense and I feel the need to maximize the careers of those aforementioned 3.
Huh? Are you serious? Never mind the point of trying to win as son as possible and that a RB can get hit at any time and he;s done moreso than any other-- but then you aren't in favor of giving him the ball near 20-25 times int he run and hit him a bit withthe pass - because you want to preserve him? Huh????!!!!!!!!!!!! You don't want to use a lot the greatest RB (will be) in gmen's history along with the wR? How much is OBJ Beckham making and you dont want him being focal points of 34-28 games? AMong the highest paid WR;s in the NFL? Huh???!!!! We passed on taking a QB to get a RB and now we're going to try to preserve him? Huh? Is that what you are saying> I;m asking.
If the defense is very good then it means the giants get the ball back a lot-- so SB and OBJ will still be taking a lot of hits.
Your posts are impossible to read and understand. Try again.
(Building the team folks.. is it)
Loves O vs Read the Market (draft is very D heavy...go for it x4)
Play the market folks.
Is it really that painful to wait until 2020 to pile up the O pieces?
Not if we are getting sacks, stopping the run late in games and gaining PDs! INTs!
I agree with that to an extent but their pass rush is really a complimentary piece to their offense. Their entire defensive approach is predicated on building a lead and forcing the other team to throw. They're dictating the action on the other side of the ball and making opposing offenses play into their strength.
Point 1-- you said below in quotes-
"Does not necessarily mean the defense is better."
What does "not neccessarily" mean? Are you trying to say that the Chiefs overall defense was superior to the Colts?
Point 2-- "Just as bad" - What do you mean by that? How many players do you think the Giants need to have a very good defense? Not an average one but a very good one? Now how many players do you think the Giants need to have a very good offense?
Point 3-- Must the offense and defense be exactly equal?
To harp on O playmakers. right now.. for The Giants, is to presume 'a run' next year...and miss the market.
Have patience.
Manning -may be- only a placeholder ..but that has great, great value if it allows you to attack the excess D supply with a big vacuum.
Quote:
In comment 14260451 Giantimistic said:
Quote:
Stop looking at defenses and judging by regular season stats. In the playoffs you need a defense that has multiple pass rushers that can make a few major timely plays throughout the game. Look and the Chiefs Deline pass rushers and the Rams Dline pass rushers. In the playoffs that is all you really need and the rest of the defense behind can be average. Look at the giants last 2 Superbowls. Same formula. You still need other guys on d to step up but it is about getting to the qb in the playoffs.
On another note, I wasn’t blown away with any qb play in the playoffs but I saw a lot of great running teams. Gettleman May have missed on a free agent player or two but his focus on the lines and the running games are taking us in the right direction to be a playoff team.
Your post is all wrong. You mean the Chargers had pass rushers but the Raven's didn't (Ravens had more sacks)? You mean the Rams have the pass rushers but the Cowboys didn't (Cowboys had more sacks)? You mean the Seahawks had pass rushers but the Cowboys didn't? (Seahawks had more). You mean The Colts had more sacks and Houston didn/t (The Texans had more)? You mean the Eagles had more sacks and tHe bears didn't?
***Try another dart. This one doesn't stick.
ANd you want to look back at the Giants back in 2011 - that a 7 year old formula still works while burying your head in the sand with current data? This is the point we're saying about some of you and I say with respect -- you are thinking in terms of old time football. Yes even 7 years ago is old time.
You are really hung up on stats to make your point. I am not talking sacks numbers. I am talking about what makes a playoff defense. All teams that were in the playoffs had players who could make game changing plays on defense. Also, you are judging the Rams and KC defense by stats without considering how teams had to play them to keep up with them or when playing from behind. The Giants need to continue fixing the oline but are not going anywhere without defensive players who can make a difference at the end of games.
The games yesterday were won by running the ball, stopping the run, dline pressure and making a few big plays on defense. Sounds really new age football to me.
What you aren't considering is that if the Giants get a good QB and TWO FA Olinemen - and all your other picks go toward the defense then - for example Gmen love Haskins lets say - and 2nd round pick on defense andany other trade up or pick this yea is defense. Well in 2019 they arent a contender but in 2020 Haskins gets better while you draft more defense and you pick up free agents on defense etc -- now in 2020 your defense has improved.
It's as though you are assuming because the GiaNts don't draft a pass rusher witH the 6tH pick it means they can't have a good defense at some point in thE futuRe.
**THE SCENARIO YOU CITE OF HOW THE RAMS AND CHIeFS PLAY BECOMES WHAT THe GIANTS CAN BE.
You're hung up on my title and not on the point that thE Giants can still build the defense WHILE HAVE A SUPER OFFENSE.
ALL.
That's part of my point Big Blue. With all due respect you want to look back into 80's and 90's football. The game has changed in that it protects the QB. For example you remember what Parcells used to say about how he wanted his defense to keep hitting the QB (i.e. that it wasn't all about the sacks?)? Why do you think he wanted his team to do it? It would be that he thought it could eventually rattle the qb ot some extent, right?
Well you know nowadays they have taken that away. What about the punishment that used to happen by defenses leading wiht the helmet - ofc its a good thing but you dont think there was more fear back then going over the middle than now? how about when you used to see the great Stealers defense keep hitting a guy like Ealr Cambell even when he was out of bounds?
I remember when Fran Tarkenton tried to run an option play one time and the defender didn't give a damn if he pitched to the RB. He went after Tarkenton above his shoulders and knocked him out of the game.
The era of defense that we loved is gone with the wind. Sure one year maybe two some defense will rise but with free agency and how the game protects the QB and the offense - the defense can't last. You have better chance with the offense and right now the Gmen have super talents in SB and OBJ in which the rules of football now favor then greatly.Exploit it. DOn't pretend old time football still exists.
Hell, even this year you cited the Bears, as the #1 defense and they lost. And while that's true, it took a chip shot FG miss for them to lose.
That said I don't entirely disagree with you, except until you get the RIGHT QB, it's really not going to matter much if you draft a strong RT and OG. The Giants would be best served by getting elite talent where it presents itself in the draft, regardless of position.
In this upcoming particular draft, it is highly likely that the best player available to them, and the player that would make the most impact, would be a defensive player like Christian Wilkins or Josh Allen, for example.
It is very unlikely the Giants will draft a QB that is better than Mahomes. The way to beat Mahomes and that Chiefs team is with a relentless defense that can pressure the QB and stop the run.
If it were only just so easy to draft a QB that will end up as the best in the NFL, then ok. But that's not very likely.
Further, the best remaining defense in the playoffs is probably the Chargers, and I like them to beat the Chiefs, who they defeated in week 15 in Kansas City, holding the Chiefs to 28 points.
The Rams did just beat the Cowboys on their defense, and even though the season rankings aren't that impressive, they made huge investments in their defense. Donald, Suh, Talib, Marcus Peters, Michael Brockers, and Samson Ebukam...very good to great players all over that defense.
Hi Joe - I see what you an idiotsavant are saying. I'll address more of his points but both of you asked the same thing about Rams?Chiefs.
Tell me-- going into the game of Chiefs vs Colts and Rams vs cowboys who would you say had the better defense? An who would you say had the better offense?
If the Chiefs or Rams were to have been shutdown by the other defense woudl oyu have said that their offenses werent veyr good? You wouldn't. You'd look at the whole seaosn- the body of work, right? SO why would you say then thta the Cheifs and Rams defenses are good after just one game and ignore the whole season in which they were ranked 20th and 24th?
My point is the Giants CAN BE the CHiefs or Rams in quick time with just THREE players and then draft predominantly defense throughout 2019 and 2020 while in 2020 predominantly FA defensive pickups. A good qb (doesn't need to be great just good.), and TWO GOOD FA Olinemen. You get these guys and draft all defense you could have a subpar or bad defense - but you could still be a threat to win it all as The Chiefs are and as the Rams are.
KC is first in sacks, 9th in interceptions and 4th is forced fumbles
Rams 15 in sacks, 3rd in interceptions and 4 th in forced fumbles
Saints are 5th in sacks 18th in ints and 4th in foxes funbles
Patriots are 30 in sacks, 3 in interceptions and 12 in forced fumbles
I think we see the chargers and eagles lose today.
Chargers are 19 in sacks, 15 in ints, and 19 in forced fumbles
Eagles are 8 in sacks, 25 in ints and 19 in forced fumbles.
Stats out of context aren’t always helpful but these give a better representation of the teams defenses than just points allowed. Now it could be argued that the teams with great offenses can be more aggressive on defense because the offense can bail them out, however you need the players. In obvious passing down this year when it mattered, giants couldn’t even sniff the qb without a blitz.
It’s not just that giants need one pass rusher. They need about 3. Maybe Vernon, carter and a draft choice could get us there if we are lucky, but we need the help. The locker culture will not be great if we have an offense doing its job and a defernse that loses games.
Quote:
Aren’t good but both can rush the passer. You have to be able to rush the passer to win anything of significance in the NFL.
I agree with that to an extent but their pass rush is really a complimentary piece to their offense. Their entire defensive approach is predicated on building a lead and forcing the other team to throw. They're dictating the action on the other side of the ball and making opposing offenses play into their strength.
It’s more of a prerequisite to winning championship now. I can’t recall the last SB champion incapable of rushing the passer. You can get by with questionable secondary play if you have a good front.
The Eagles had a bad secondary last year. 3 of the 5 remaining teams have a bad secondary this year.
To harp on O playmakers. right now.. for The Giants, is to presume 'a run' next year...and miss the market.
Have patience.
Manning -may be- only a placeholder ..but that has great, great value if it allows you to attack the excess D supply with a big vacuum.
Noooo - you're worng here on many levels.
1-- Is teh NFL favorign mroe offense or defense? It favors more offense. Thus tehbest way to utlitze/exploit the NFL rules and more importantly exploit OBJand SBis giving them a good QB and two good OL. Ponnt is give your superstras teh best chance to exploit their talents.
2-- When you build a team must a defense and offense be equally as good? It doiesn't. You see this year what a poor defense liek the Chiefs imapcted the tema-- it didn't. This shows you-- you cna have a poor defense and that poor defense cna rise to the occassion and you cna still be a champiuonship contender.
3-- Even if you build the offense thsi year- relaitically we all know- most of us rational fans -that we are NOT a contender next year. Butwe knwo this--
a--- If Haskisn s good and you give him TWO GOOD FA Olinemen then in 2020 the offense is amongthe best 2-3 in all of fotball, agree? ANdnow you;d have a sustained great offense for several years, correct?
b--- IF IF IF Haskisn is good then round 2 you slect defense and eah round after and maybe oyu even trade up etc but it's abotu defense. And in 2020 you darft defense and and use FA market for defense, why cant your defense be as good as teh CHiefs?
c-- Severla QB's last until 35 or more playing veryy good fotball. How long can Barkley last vs how many years is it going to take to equallybuild up BOTH defense and offense? Chances are SB is not going to last 10 years as a terrific back. You have a shorter widnow withhim. The point is EXPLOIT IT AS QUICK AS YOU CAN. -- Wiht the relaization thta 2019 Gmen are goign nowhere. How long do you want ot wait for that defense? And if you don't get good Olinemen in 2019 or at latest in 2020 - it may take time for them ot mesh as a unit- There goes another year.
In summary as the data I've show form above-- you haven't refuted because you can;t. The stats speak for themselves. And the trend in the NFL is offense and the rules favor the offense. so why bury your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist? Don't ignore defense but OFFENSE is key especially when you have guys like SB and OBJ. To bets exploit them is to get a good QB and Two good OL. and a stated I'm okay taking DL with 6ht pick if Gmen don't like the QB that much. BUT BUT BUT they better not be wrong.
The rams are 15th in the league in sacks. Can't the Giants be that in 2 years if for example the Gmen let's say they love Haskins and draft him and get him two good FA OLinemmen. Then in rd 2nd thereafter they draft defense and in 2020 fa they draft defense and get defense through FA.
With all that you don;t think we can be around 15th defensively in sacks in 2 years (ie have an average pass rush in which our offense would be so great that it would dictate other teams that they;d have to pass?)?
You are missing the point.
1-- I have shown offenses can win. NOT that it is the ONLY way to WIN.
2-- IMO I have shown the fastest way to win is through build the offense just by getting 3 players. NOT that it is the ONLY way to win.
3-- Barkley is not going to last like a QB can. (What do you want to bet someone will over-exaggerate my statement and say thatI;m saying SB only has "3 years?"). But But BUT the window for SB is shorter than for a team with a rel good QB. You have ti take that into account.
4-- I showed you stats in 2018 -- those stats DO show you something. You showed me stats in 2017. well in 2016 I'll show you stats of Atlanta and Green Bay. Atlanta's defense was ranked 27th and Green Bays 21st. In 2014 packers had 14th rated and COlts had 19th rated. SO noooo - what I reference is NOT an outlier. we see sub par to por defensive teams HAVE BEEN title contenders.
Other than robbie who else have i insulted. I think you need to look in the mirror pal.
team was the JPP accident and some very poor drafts .
I think we go Defense with the first pick need a
playmaker . I really like Josh Allen but I am leaning
towards a bigger player that play both the run and rush the
passer . Clelin Ferrell But Josh Allen has the frame
to add muscle so all in all He is still my favorite
pick if he is sitting there at #6 We desperately need
a Playmaker on the Defense Josh checks all the boxes .
still have to go BPA I don't see them taking Haskins
No pass rusher is going to get to the qb in under 2.5 seconds.
What was particularly impressive to me about Mahomes was not just how quickly he got the ball off but how accurately he was throwing the ball in less than ideal conditions.
Also, the Chiefs WR's were getting into deep zones in the secondary but Mahomes was still getting the ball off quickly.
Don;t know about "main point" but
1-- Gmen aren't going anyhwere in 2019, right?
2-- If you keep ELi what are chances of him being good enough in 2020?
3-- A young Qb needs at least 1 year generally, right? SO wouldn;t it stand to reason the quicker you get a young QB then the faster the offense can turn around and be great?
4-- And for all my "blustering" the stats I provided still show to be true. You don;t want to believe them okay-- but imo you're wrong if you don't. As I've showed another poster there were examples in 2016 and 2014 too.
Quote:
Aren’t good but both can rush the passer. You have to be able to rush the passer to win anything of significance in the NFL.
The rams are 15th in the league in sacks. Can't the Giants be that in 2 years if for example the Gmen let's say they love Haskins and draft him and get him two good FA OLinemmen. Then in rd 2nd thereafter they draft defense and in 2020 fa they draft defense and get defense through FA.
With all that you don;t think we can be around 15th defensively in sacks in 2 years (ie have an average pass rush in which our offense would be so great that it would dictate other teams that they;d have to pass?)?
No, because pass rushers are hard to find. Teams understand the value of them so they rarely hit the market. That means you have to find them in the draft.
It just so happens this draft is loaded for pass rushers. Now is the time to draft one or two.
No pass rusher is going to get to the qb in under 2.5 seconds.
What was particularly impressive to me about Mahomes was not just how quickly he got the ball off but how accurately he was throwing the ball in less than ideal conditions.
Also, the Chiefs WR's were getting into deep zones in the secondary but Mahomes was still getting the ball off quickly.
The Colts D only gave up 24 points. If Luck did anything in the first half it’s a completely different game.
We need talent everywhere. We're set @ RB - where else are we set? We need offensive line help, we need defensive line help, we could use linebacker help, we need DB help - particularly an upgrade @ FS and better CB depth, we need WR help.
The Giants need to have one strategy...
Bring in as much talent as possible.
Now, I am purposely simplifying a difficult task - it's not easy to do, and the Giants should have a plan - but the plan needs to be fluid and needs to be able to bend with different scenarios. We can't be married to something like "build the offense first" - because the defense needs a LOT of help, and if there are players who can help that unit, we shouldn't be opposed.
KC is first in sacks, 9th in interceptions and 4th is forced fumbles
Rams 15 in sacks, 3rd in interceptions and 4 th in forced fumbles
Saints are 5th in sacks 18th in ints and 4th in foxes funbles
Patriots are 30 in sacks, 3 in interceptions and 12 in forced fumbles
I think we see the chargers and eagles lose today.
Chargers are 19 in sacks, 15 in ints, and 19 in forced fumbles
Eagles are 8 in sacks, 25 in ints and 19 in forced fumbles.
Stats out of context aren’t always helpful but these give a better representation of the teams defenses than just points allowed. Now it could be argued that the teams with great offenses can be more aggressive on defense because the offense can bail them out, however you need the players. In obvious passing down this year when it mattered, giants couldn’t even sniff the qb without a blitz.
It’s not just that giants need one pass rusher. They need about 3. Maybe Vernon, carter and a draft choice could get us there if we are lucky, but we need the help. The locker culture will not be great if we have an offense doing its job and a defernse that loses games.
So before someone said it's about sacks. SO now it's no longer about sacks?
Secondly if you have a great offense and then you can dictate other teams need to pass - it seems you just roll over it. THAT MATTERS THAT MATTERS. You're taking the interceptions stat out of context almost as if the high powered offense does little yet accusing me of doing it with points scored.
Third- you make a point "when it mattered" yet ignore for example our 4ht quarter offense how often the Gmen failed offensively when it mattered late in games ANd secondly regards to your comment of mattering -- "when did it matter?" We were 1-7 -- at that point didn't most of it "no longer matter?" Do you really think teams don't play down to other lousy teams?
And while the Gmen defense stunk - they had a gift playing against 2nd string QB's. SO with 1st string QB's the opposing team probably does better thus can dictate the game more as a result can rush Eli more thus probably causing more turnovers, right? SO again your point of "mattering" needs to be taken in context vs the point of you're also using interceptions.
You have to take into account the Eli will regress. ANd secondly Barkley is probably not a 10 year guy. You get 5 great years from 2019 thne year 5 roughly he starts to decline. why not try to get as much of his peak as possible? I don;t want ot see the box stuffed vs this all-time great during his peak. He can greatly influence games at a far, far greater level if you give him a good QB with a good OLine vs a good defense without a good QB/ AND good OL.
And a final point you make when you say "You need players." what does that even mean? I can say the same thing offensively and defensively. And I can focus on the offense in which the defense can eventually be fine-- "The Gmen need need players on offense so they can dictate the pace of the game thereby forcing the opposing team to try to keep up and score with them. By forcing the pace of play you can force interceptions in many games because your offense is so dominant."
IMO you are trying to minimize points scored to fit your argument.
We need talent everywhere. We're set @ RB - where else are we set? We need offensive line help, we need defensive line help, we could use linebacker help, we need DB help - particularly an upgrade @ FS and better CB depth, we need WR help.
The Giants need to have one strategy...
Bring in as much talent as possible.
Now, I am purposely simplifying a difficult task - it's not easy to do, and the Giants should have a plan - but the plan needs to be fluid and needs to be able to bend with different scenarios. We can't be married to something like "build the offense first" - because the defense needs a LOT of help, and if there are players who can help that unit, we shouldn't be opposed.
Read my initial posts and then what does "have a plan" mean to you? May I ask what is your plan for getting a Qb for the future? There "needs" to eb a plan there, correct? Always taking BPA -- you may never get there, right?
Also secondary issue not that important but how long will SB be outstanding - a guess what would it be?
I said I'm okay NOT taking a QB this draft. I'm with you. But I think your plan of not addressing the QB (By making/implying take BPA does NOT address the qb issue.) is horrible and we will end up wasting Barkley for too too too many years because you have no plan for the QB and the protection of him.
Your BPA on offense could be WR or Tight end and mostly on defense thus not get enough of the talent you need (later draft picks) ot help the QB and Barkley.
Quote:
In comment 14260562 WillVAB said:
Quote:
Aren’t good but both can rush the passer. You have to be able to rush the passer to win anything of significance in the NFL.
The rams are 15th in the league in sacks. Can't the Giants be that in 2 years if for example the Gmen let's say they love Haskins and draft him and get him two good FA OLinemmen. Then in rd 2nd thereafter they draft defense and in 2020 fa they draft defense and get defense through FA.
With all that you don;t think we can be around 15th defensively in sacks in 2 years (ie have an average pass rush in which our offense would be so great that it would dictate other teams that they;d have to pass?)?
No, because pass rushers are hard to find. Teams understand the value of them so they rarely hit the market. That means you have to find them in the draft.
It just so happens this draft is loaded for pass rushers. Now is the time to draft one or two.
Qb's are hard to find too, aren;t they?
Quote:
is a stat that flashed on the screen late into the Chiefs game reflecting the great majority of pass plays by Mahomes were thrown in less than 2.5 seconds.
No pass rusher is going to get to the qb in under 2.5 seconds.
What was particularly impressive to me about Mahomes was not just how quickly he got the ball off but how accurately he was throwing the ball in less than ideal conditions.
Also, the Chiefs WR's were getting into deep zones in the secondary but Mahomes was still getting the ball off quickly.
The Colts D only gave up 24 points. If Luck did anything in the first half it’s a completely different game.
IF IF IF the CHiefs did anything in the 2nd half the game would have been beyond a complete embarrassment.
Quote:
Again - this is a suboptimal way of building a football team. We shouldn't be pre-planning any sort of direction or forcing talent on one side of the football and not the other.
We need talent everywhere. We're set @ RB - where else are we set? We need offensive line help, we need defensive line help, we could use linebacker help, we need DB help - particularly an upgrade @ FS and better CB depth, we need WR help.
The Giants need to have one strategy...
Bring in as much talent as possible.
Now, I am purposely simplifying a difficult task - it's not easy to do, and the Giants should have a plan - but the plan needs to be fluid and needs to be able to bend with different scenarios. We can't be married to something like "build the offense first" - because the defense needs a LOT of help, and if there are players who can help that unit, we shouldn't be opposed.
Read my initial posts and then what does "have a plan" mean to you? May I ask what is your plan for getting a Qb for the future? There "needs" to eb a plan there, correct? Always taking BPA -- you may never get there, right?
Also secondary issue not that important but how long will SB be outstanding - a guess what would it be?
I said I'm okay NOT taking a QB this draft. I'm with you. But I think your plan of not addressing the QB (By making/implying take BPA does NOT address the qb issue.) is horrible and we will end up wasting Barkley for too too too many years because you have no plan for the QB and the protection of him.
Your BPA on offense could be WR or Tight end and mostly on defense thus not get enough of the talent you need (later draft picks) ot help the QB and Barkley.
My plan for taking a QB is to identify one we really like and draft him - not force a positional pick because we know we need one.
I actually like Haskins a lot and am starting to want the Giants to draft him. I didn't say not to take a QB or ignore the position - I am simply saying your overall premise is flawed and not optimal.
We need to improve both units.
WR is still a major need. The best player on the board @ 6 is not going to be a WR - so no need to even hypothesize on that point. If WR is the best player on the board in rounds beyond that, we shouldn't be afraid to take one.
Forcing positional drafting is always a poor strategy.
There's basically no player the Giants could take outside of a running back that you can say "we don't need him" or "we don't need help there."
There's basically no player the Giants could take outside of a running back that you can say "we don't need him" or "we don't need help there."
Kicker!
Quote:
In comment 14260683 giantstock said:
Quote:
In comment 14260562 WillVAB said:
Quote:
Aren’t good but both can rush the passer. You have to be able to rush the passer to win anything of significance in the NFL.
The rams are 15th in the league in sacks. Can't the Giants be that in 2 years if for example the Gmen let's say they love Haskins and draft him and get him two good FA OLinemmen. Then in rd 2nd thereafter they draft defense and in 2020 fa they draft defense and get defense through FA.
With all that you don;t think we can be around 15th defensively in sacks in 2 years (ie have an average pass rush in which our offense would be so great that it would dictate other teams that they;d have to pass?)?
No, because pass rushers are hard to find. Teams understand the value of them so they rarely hit the market. That means you have to find them in the draft.
It just so happens this draft is loaded for pass rushers. Now is the time to draft one or two.
Qb's are hard to find too, aren;t they?
I don’t think they are in today’s NFL.
You’re hyping Haskins and you had no clue who he was a month ago.
Quote:
In comment 14260752 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
Again - this is a suboptimal way of building a football team. We shouldn't be pre-planning any sort of direction or forcing talent on one side of the football and not the other.
We need talent everywhere. We're set @ RB - where else are we set? We need offensive line help, we need defensive line help, we could use linebacker help, we need DB help - particularly an upgrade @ FS and better CB depth, we need WR help.
The Giants need to have one strategy...
Bring in as much talent as possible.
Now, I am purposely simplifying a difficult task - it's not easy to do, and the Giants should have a plan - but the plan needs to be fluid and needs to be able to bend with different scenarios. We can't be married to something like "build the offense first" - because the defense needs a LOT of help, and if there are players who can help that unit, we shouldn't be opposed.
Read my initial posts and then what does "have a plan" mean to you? May I ask what is your plan for getting a Qb for the future? There "needs" to eb a plan there, correct? Always taking BPA -- you may never get there, right?
Also secondary issue not that important but how long will SB be outstanding - a guess what would it be?
I said I'm okay NOT taking a QB this draft. I'm with you. But I think your plan of not addressing the QB (By making/implying take BPA does NOT address the qb issue.) is horrible and we will end up wasting Barkley for too too too many years because you have no plan for the QB and the protection of him.
Your BPA on offense could be WR or Tight end and mostly on defense thus not get enough of the talent you need (later draft picks) ot help the QB and Barkley.
My plan for taking a QB is to identify one we really like and draft him - not force a positional pick because we know we need one.
I actually like Haskins a lot and am starting to want the Giants to draft him. I didn't say not to take a QB or ignore the position - I am simply saying your overall premise is flawed and not optimal.
We need to improve both units.
WR is still a major need. The best player on the board @ 6 is not going to be a WR - so no need to even hypothesize on that point. If WR is the best player on the board in rounds beyond that, we shouldn't be afraid to take one.
Forcing positional drafting is always a poor strategy.
There's basically no player the Giants could take outside of a running back that you can say "we don't need him" or "we don't need help there."
You have misread my entire point. I said the SAME THING you are saying. I said IF IF IF the Giants like Haskins then they got to take him. And if Gme get Haskins - wouldn't it stand ot reason you had better get him a good offensive line?
Read my 2nd post on this thread. I have NO PROBLEM with getting a pass rusher with the 6th pick and going defense in rd 2 etc.
1--- But htye NEED a QB soon.
2-- They NEED to get that QB a legit Oline. You can;t do this "slowly" can you? Especially with having SB and OBJ? You get teh QB you liek oyumean you won't try extremly hard ot get forexampel TWO good FA's at the OL to help the QB and CB and OBJ? If you don;t get the young qb a good OL and also to support SB and OBJ then what;s the point?
---
Here maybe we disagree-
3-- Barkley and OBJ are super great players. Their ability to impact games is awesome. There are just THREE players needed to make them extremely extremely awesome. And they aren't like a QB thta is going to be around 12+ years playing at a high level. How many with SB? By giving him TWO FA OL and One QB - what three players on defense that are avialable you think can improve Gmen more instead if you give SB a good QB and two good OL?
I dont want to force the pick too much but imo there is a need to look into getting a good QB as soon as possible and you want that OL ready for him. And this would help Sb and OBJ exponentially -- moreso than say taking three good defensive players. The Three O-Players that are good will have a greater overall impact helping SB and OBJ.
My point is just that I don't think there's any reason to paint ourselves into a corner anywhere. I'd prefer to take an edge rusher over an offensive linemen if the grade we have on the edge rusher is higher, for example. No need to force linemen. That's how you wind up with Ereck Flowers.
If Haskins is there @ 6 and Gettleman likes him, I hope he pulls the trigger.
My point is just that I don't think there's any reason to paint ourselves into a corner anywhere. I'd prefer to take an edge rusher over an offensive linemen if the grade we have on the edge rusher is higher, for example. No need to force linemen. That's how you wind up with Ereck Flowers.
If Haskins is there @ 6 and Gettleman likes him, I hope he pulls the trigger.
DO you disagree wit me in that i feel if DG takes Haskins that we should try to get two good OL?
If we did that and you say you like Haskins - What would be your projection of 2020 be for the offense?
Quote:
In comment 14260724 WillVAB said:
Quote:
In comment 14260683 giantstock said:
Quote:
In comment 14260562 WillVAB said:
Quote:
Aren’t good but both can rush the passer. You have to be able to rush the passer to win anything of significance in the NFL.
The rams are 15th in the league in sacks. Can't the Giants be that in 2 years if for example the Gmen let's say they love Haskins and draft him and get him two good FA OLinemmen. Then in rd 2nd thereafter they draft defense and in 2020 fa they draft defense and get defense through FA.
With all that you don;t think we can be around 15th defensively in sacks in 2 years (ie have an average pass rush in which our offense would be so great that it would dictate other teams that they;d have to pass?)?
No, because pass rushers are hard to find. Teams understand the value of them so they rarely hit the market. That means you have to find them in the draft.
It just so happens this draft is loaded for pass rushers. Now is the time to draft one or two.
Qb's are hard to find too, aren;t they?
I don’t think they are in today’s NFL.
You’re hyping Haskins and you had no clue who he was a month ago.
Time to put you on ignore. Pass rusher hard to find but Qbs aren;t. I want what you're smoking.
And yeah buddy it matters who the giants take because of when I supposedly knew about Haskns. Not to mention I didnt say I'd take him unless Gmen say he;s good enough.
I said IF IF IF.
But ofc you figured you'd try to misrepresent my posts, didn;t you? What the hell difference does it make when I said to take him (even though I said IF IF IF Gmen like him.) ? SO you odn;t agree with my onion so you imply or misrepresent my posts. That;s just great.
Quote:
The Giants are going to address the OL - there's no doubt about that. We have like 10-11 picks. I expect Gettleman to draft like 2-3 offensive linemen and a couple of them will be early.
My point is just that I don't think there's any reason to paint ourselves into a corner anywhere. I'd prefer to take an edge rusher over an offensive linemen if the grade we have on the edge rusher is higher, for example. No need to force linemen. That's how you wind up with Ereck Flowers.
If Haskins is there @ 6 and Gettleman likes him, I hope he pulls the trigger.
DO you disagree wit me in that i feel if DG takes Haskins that we should try to get two good OL?
If we did that and you say you like Haskins - What would be your projection of 2020 be for the offense?
I don't disagree with that - it just depends on how things play out. It's hard to map a draft because too many unpredictable things happen that have a trickle down effect and throw everything for a loop.
I think we should want 2 starting caliber offensive linemen with OR without Haskins. Wheeler needs to be replaced. He's bad.
We might already have options @ OC. But the right side needs two new starters.
My only point really is - if we take Haskins in the first round, I wouldn't then turn around and say "okay, now I have to draft two offensive linemen next"
I'd certainly be hoping things played out that way - but if the draft doesn't dictate that, so be it.
I think an edge rusher is just as important as the offensive line, honestly.
We lost several games this year because we could not get a stop late in the 4th quarter. No one could get to the QB. It was too easy. If we want to be a better team next year, we will have to be able to close games out. It's very hard to do that without a pass rush.
And as typical of a Bob Sutton D they are flying around playing like savages.
Football isn't a stats game but by the eyeball test the Chiefs D is in another world to the Giants. They can really get after you. The Colts interior OL got demolished. The Giants can't do that.
Quote:
In comment 14260828 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
The Giants are going to address the OL - there's no doubt about that. We have like 10-11 picks. I expect Gettleman to draft like 2-3 offensive linemen and a couple of them will be early.
My point is just that I don't think there's any reason to paint ourselves into a corner anywhere. I'd prefer to take an edge rusher over an offensive linemen if the grade we have on the edge rusher is higher, for example. No need to force linemen. That's how you wind up with Ereck Flowers.
If Haskins is there @ 6 and Gettleman likes him, I hope he pulls the trigger.
DO you disagree wit me in that i feel if DG takes Haskins that we should try to get two good OL?
If we did that and you say you like Haskins - What would be your projection of 2020 be for the offense?
I don't disagree with that - it just depends on how things play out. It's hard to map a draft because too many unpredictable things happen that have a trickle down effect and throw everything for a loop.
I think we should want 2 starting caliber offensive linemen with OR without Haskins. Wheeler needs to be replaced. He's bad.
My only point really is - if we take Haskins in the first round, I wouldn't then turn around and say "okay, now I have to draft two offensive linemen next"
I'd certainly be hoping things played out that way - but if the draft doesn't dictate that, so be it.
I think an edge rusher is just as important as the offensive line, honestly.
We lost several games this year because we could not get a stop late in the 4th quarter. No one could get to the QB. It was too easy. If we want to be a better team next year, we will have to be able to close games out. It's very hard to do that without a pass rush.
I agree an edge rusher is important which is why I said I have no problem Gmen take it if they don't like the QB thatmuch.
With that said I think posters like Will and mystic and idotsavant overrate the rounds you need to take a pass rusher etc.
For example one of them or a another poster cited sacks as an overall measurement t determine team's defense. Well New England is 30th in overall sacks. ANd then whatever counter on sacks was provided then sacks isn't the criteria to use. ANother dart is thrown.
secondly, The Ravens are 11th in pass rush. They got Za"Darius Smith in the 4th round and Matt Judon in the 5th round. Smith leads the team in sacks, Judon is tied for 2nd.
*****ANd Patrick Onwuasor for Ravens was an UNDRAFTED free agent is 4th yet you have this guy on this thread making up that pass rushers are so hard to find vs QB's. The Gmen CAN find pass rushers.You just can't be incompetent.
every stat I've mentioned you have some guys on here preteending that it doens't exist then they make up their own criteria. I think their criteria is wrong or it's one ways to go about it.
*****IMO mine is both faster and because mine enhances the abilites of SB and OBJ better mine is better than theirs. THE GMENS DEFENSE NEEDS A TON OF WORK. WHILE THE OFFENSE IS CLOSE ANDWHAT YOU GET ON OFFENSE HELPS THE GMEN SUPERSTARS MORE. THAT IS WHAT MAKES THE GMEN BETTER. ENHNCE YOUR SUPERSTARS TO START WITH.
*****A terrible defensive team like KC did show that even terrible defenses can rise above in the playoffs.
**Let me ask you -- why don't you like my idea of getting two good quality OL in free agency? Why must it only be in the draft IF IF IF you say draft Haskins too?
And as typical of a Bob Sutton D they are flying around playing like savages.
Football isn't a stats game but by the eyeball test the Chiefs D is in another world to the Giants. They can really get after you. The Colts interior OL got demolished. The Giants can't do that.
Who says in year 1 Isaid the Giants defense is going to be much of anything? DId you bother even reading or just looked at the title and the 1st sentence? Can I have what you're smoking? and btw, That 54-51 game s vs the Rams yeah they were a handful for teh rams OLine. Thanks.
Before their last game vs the Raiders they let up 54, 33, 24, 29 and 38. Yeah just awesome.
So if you draft the QB but dont fill the position with offensive linemen because of other positions you go with BPA-- how do you think that will play out for the young B you drafted over the next couple of years?
Quote:
Barkley, OBJ and Engram...I can live with winning games 34-28. We have no core on defense and I feel the need to maximize the careers of those aforementioned 3.
Huh? Are you serious? Never mind the point of trying to win as son as possible and that a RB can get hit at any time and he;s done moreso than any other-- but then you aren't in favor of giving him the ball near 20-25 times int he run and hit him a bit withthe pass - because you want to preserve him? Huh????!!!!!!!!!!!! You don't want to use a lot the greatest RB (will be) in gmen's history along with the wR? How much is OBJ Beckham making and you dont want him being focal points of 34-28 games? AMong the highest paid WR;s in the NFL? Huh???!!!! We passed on taking a QB to get a RB and now we're going to try to preserve him? Huh? Is that what you are saying> I;m asking.
If the defense is very good then it means the giants get the ball back a lot-- so SB and OBJ will still be taking a lot of hits.
Who the fuck said anything about preservation? In fact, I want to use those 3 guys + the new QB to the max. You're rambling is incoherent.