|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| There seems to be a very good chance that they'll take one with the sixth pick of the draft where quarterbacks like Ohio State's Dwayne Haskins, Missouri's Drew Lock, Duke's Daniel Jones and maybe even Oklahoma's Kyler Murray are possible options. Several others, like West Virginia's Will Grier, could be options on Day 2. The Giants could also use their second-round pick to trade back into the first round if one of those top-tier quarterbacks slips farther than they expect. So their options are open, but they do seem more serious about finding Manning's heir apparent than they were at this time last year. Manning, as SNY has been reporting, is expected to return as the starter for the 2019 season. But the Giants are hopeful that right behind him on the depth chart his eventual successor will be on board. |
Brees and Favre (off the top of my head), otherwise not a great track record for 2nd round QB's.
I still have major reservations about Murray, but I'm fine taking a shot on the talent and trying to hit a home run.
The one positive with Murray is he won't be a "QB Hell" type of guy.
We will know if he can swing it in the NFL pretty fast - he won't be a guy like Tannehill where you go back and forth constantly and can't figure out if the risk is greater in keeping him and spending money on him or letting him walk and potentially getting saddled with something worse.
That said - I still want Haskins, think he is the top guy in this class, and if NYG like him, I want them to be aggressive and go get him.
Yep, that's why I posted it. He was fairly spot on last year about intentions and hit on a bunch of their picks in previous years too.
It’s what they do, but there seems to be more of a consensus this year as opposed to last year that the giants are going qb or at least want to go qb relatively early in this draft.
We don't know that yet. I need more than a lukewarm report from Vacchiano.
If they really like Haskins or Murray and take one of them @ 6 or even move up for Haskins, I don't think that's forcing anything.
It's only forcing it if they don't actually like these guys much but take them anyway. I don't think Gettleman is going to take a QB if he's wishy-washy on him.
I still have major reservations about Murray, but I'm fine taking a shot on the talent and trying to hit a home run.
The one positive with Murray is he won't be a "QB Hell" type of guy.
We will know if he can swing it in the NFL pretty fast - he won't be a guy like Tannehill where you go back and forth constantly and can't figure out if the risk is greater in keeping him and spending money on him or letting him walk and potentially getting saddled with something worse.
That said - I still want Haskins, think he is the top guy in this class, and if NYG like him, I want them to be aggressive and go get him.
That’s exactly why I kind of want Murray, assuming he checks off the boxes after the combine, which to be fair is not a lock. I just think Murray isn’t going to need too much time here. We’re going to reap the rewards early or learn rather quickly whether he’s a pro qb.
I know it’s a pocket passer game in the playoffs. I still think Murray is worth investigating.
Now - you draft top 5, you pick a guy - and if he doesn't work out you're back in the same place 3 years later and you can try again.
Not saying it's ideal - but is it 'hell'? Punitive enough to make you completely overlook the possibility unless there's some sure fire candidate to select?
We still have one of the most amazing offensive talents in the game today. Let’s not forget that impact here. We have a piece.
The qbs last year were overrated. I’ll say that until the end of time, with maybe mayfield being the exception and we couldn’t pick him.
Last year’s class is akin to guys like Goff or trubisky or RG3. Talents to be sure. Guys you can win with to be sure. And guys you can lose with too. Sounds like someone else we know and love, just older.
You'd think that the narrative would be the one time he had to take a QB high he hit. Instead it is that he hasn't had to take a QB high since eli, so he'll shit the bed.
Just another made-up criticism that may not even fucking apply this year. So we should have drafted a QB last year because the choices are worst this year? Awesome way to go about the draft.
Well there isn’t one on it to be taken off
Now - you draft top 5, you pick a guy - and if he doesn't work out you're back in the same place 3 years later and you can try again.
Not saying it's ideal - but is it 'hell'? Punitive enough to make you completely overlook the possibility unless there's some sure fire candidate to select?
Liie most on here, you are not using Gettleman's definition of QB hell.
Quote:
Forcing a QB pick in a weak QB class, and the only experience Gettleman has had in his entire career taking a QB this high is when we got Eli.
You'd think that the narrative would be the one time he had to take a QB high he hit. Instead it is that he hasn't had to take a QB high since eli, so he'll shit the bed.
Just another made-up criticism that may not even fucking apply this year. So we should have drafted a QB last year because the choices are worst this year? Awesome way to go about the draft.
No, but I would say Goterps caution is correct, one would hope DG does not feel compelled to draft a qb high because he "must."
I think the answer lies in the middle. Good qb, but not the panacea that so many fans attach to the “young franchise qb” entity.
And the QBs last year aren’t even in Goff’s class yet. My god you guys overstate the value of a young so called franchise qb. And this coming from someone who wanted the giants to move heaven and earth to draft Eli.
The depth or strength of the "class" doesn't matter. What matters is if the guy you take is better than the guy you could've taken the previous year. If Haskins turns out to be as good or better than Rosen, Darnold, Allen and the rest of the QB's this year are out of the league in 5 years or backups then the 2018 class was better but it is totally meaningless to the team that takes Haskins. Ditto for Lock, Murray or Jones if that ends up being that guy.
2018 class consisted of quantity. Not one qb other than maybe mayfield was concsidered csnt miss. Not one was even close to the level of an Andre luck or even an Eli Manning 2004. There were lots of guys. Woopee. In this year’s class there are less guys. Doesn’t mean we can’t get the same caliber of talent. I still say Haskins is every bit the prospect rosen and darnold were and the draft will show this to be true because he’s going top ten barring a last second bong video.
Quote:
off the table! Just sayin
Well there isn’t one on it to be taken off
So, you are Dave G's Counsel I guess...
His definition is paying a QB a lot and having a team competitive enough that they aren't in position in the draft to take one high while not being good enough to win a championship.
Fair point, and it remains to be seen if it was the right decision in the long term. You could argue the gap in talent of Saquon vs. any RB in the near future and he's a generational talent that you don't pass. And if they land Haskins (for argument sake). Haskins is probably just as good a prospect as Darnold, Rosen, and Allen. So I'll reserve judgement on the QB hell argument until we see what happens this year.
Quote:
but he's had a pretty good track record as far as the draft is concerned IIRC.
Yep, that's why I posted it. He was fairly spot on last year about intentions and hit on a bunch of their picks in previous years too.
Agreed. RV has a pretty good track record with picks. I'm on record as not wanting any QB at #6, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if the Giants took a QB with that pick. I'd much rather trade the #6 pick for Rosen, but would probably prefer not to do that either.
Your like a broken record. You were wrong last year, Giants drafted the best player in the draft. In fact, in case you missed it he won rookie of the year. They thought they did a better job with the OL they didn't. This year that will be addressed better Eli will be the QB and this team will be better. If by some miracle this team wins it all next year you will be the 1st to say yeah, we won but we could have set ourselves up better for the future if we had drafted Darnold or Rosen. Barkley was the right choice and he proved it, get over it.
But we sat out a draft on the level of 83 or 04? That is based on absolutely nothing so far.
Meanwhile if our guy strings together a bunch of seasons like his Rollie year all he’ll do is go to the HOF.
The Vikes, Skins, Broncos, Lions, whoever is dumb enough to trade for Foles, etc.
Why was last year the year to take a QB high, and this year is "forcing" it? Do you see how your own personal biases are merging into things you present as facts?
Maybe Gettleman and Shurmur view Haskins or one of the other QBs as being on par with Darnold or Rosen? There is this narrative forming that last year's QB class was can't miss, but that hardly seems the case. The only one who has separated himself so far is Mayfield, and he was off the board before the Giants picked.
If the Giants don't like one of the QBs I think there is little chance they "force" the pick anyway. That is a fan's view of the game, not a professional's.
I disagree, and since your opinion is different than mine that means you are an idiot :)
Quote:
Now is when we feel the impact of last year's draft decision. Forcing a QB pick in a weak QB class, and the only experience Gettleman has had in his entire career taking a QB this high is when we got Eli.
Fair point, and it remains to be seen if it was the right decision in the long term. You could argue the gap in talent of Saquon vs. any RB in the near future and he's a generational talent that you don't pass. And if they land Haskins (for argument sake). Haskins is probably just as good a prospect as Darnold, Rosen, and Allen. So I'll reserve judgement on the QB hell argument until we see what happens this year.
My big disagreement there would be with Haskins being as good a prospect as those three guys. I don't see it, and I think he's a reach at 6.
Yeah we're not likely to come across another Barkley any time soon, but you don't have to have a Barkley to have a good offense...and as we saw in 2018 your offense can still stink with him on it.
People bring up QB hell; that's where we are right now. We're vastly overpaying at the position and we seem hesitant to make the change needed...keeping Eli on the roster is a ridiculous decision.
But we sat out a draft on the level of 83 or 04? That is based on absolutely nothing so far.
Meanwhile if our guy strings together a bunch of seasons like his Rollie year all he’ll do is go to the HOF.
Don't make this a dishonest ripjob on BBI. The QBs last year were universally well-rated and expected to go high. And judging them based on one year is dumb.
...is quite serious.
If they like a particular QB at #6 they better snatch him.
And if they think this QB could go two or three slots higher, they better trade up.
Of course, the Giants are one of the last teams in the NFL that can afford to give up premium picks, but there's always an exception to that rule:
When a team has no long term answer at QB.
You cannot force a player to be that guy if he doesn't have that in him. But you had better believe there is a sense of urgency here that was not there a year ago.
+1,000,000,000,000,000
Seems to me if they were interested in drafting a QB at six, it makes no sense to let anyone know.
Allen literally did nothing better than Haskins did throwing the football. His numbers were worse, his competition was worse, his completion % was about 20% lower.
Josh Allen is a big arm, measurables guy - and the best thing he did as a rookie was run the ball. He generally sucked throwing it.
I can buy Mayfield, Darnold or even Rosen... even though I'm not sure I even agree that Darnold or Rosen were better prospects, but it would at least be a reasonable stance.
Quote:
.
His definition is paying a QB a lot and having a team competitive enough that they aren't in position in the draft to take one high while not being good enough to win a championship.
That's a pretty shitty definition - it basically implies that any team that's not good enough to win a championship is in QB hell. According to that, we've been in QB hell since 2012.
Championships are great, and the ultimate goal - but only one team per year gets one. Most teams go decades between wins, and some haven't won at all. The objective should be to be in position to compete for a championship every year, and the easiest metric is entry to the playoffs.
/thread because this is absolutely 100% true.
Quote:
to some on BBI and yet pre-draft most here didn’t want to touch 2 of those guys with a ten foot pole (Allen and Jackson), the other guy went before our pick and is a totally moot point (Mayfield) and the other two guys were thoroughly mediocre and/or missed time due to injury and can be firmly placed in the “We’ll see” category at this point.
But we sat out a draft on the level of 83 or 04? That is based on absolutely nothing so far.
Meanwhile if our guy strings together a bunch of seasons like his Rollie year all he’ll do is go to the HOF.
Don't make this a dishonest ripjob on BBI. The QBs last year were universally well-rated and expected to go high. And judging them based on one year is dumb.
There were 5 1st round QB's with Mayfield as an elite prospect. This year there are 3 first round QBs. What difference does it make when you are only taking 1, especially when you don't have the top overall pick.
Obviously you don't take a guy at a position you have on lock in round one (like the Giants at RB right now) but you try to line up needs and draft strengths by moving up or down.
This to me looks like a Defensive draft. So, unless Haskins is close to the top rated guy on your board (same tier as others still available) you don't reach. You take the top rated guy.
What then do the Giants do at QB? Eli for 2019 and 2020? Make some trades to position themselves for who they want in the 2020 draft? A FA stop gap for 2020?
They have many options.
Seems to me if they were interested in drafting a QB at six, it makes no sense to let anyone know.
I don’t pretend to know what the Giants will do. What I do know is that the Giants are incapable of using misdirection. The organization is terrible at it; Gettleman is bad at it. I figured there is no way he’d be so gung ho on Barkley last year unless he wanted to bluff Cleveland into taking the guy. Nope. He just couldn’t help himself. At that point, I knew that whatever was leaked about the Giants was true, and I figure that remains true this year as well.
Quote:
In comment 14289780 jcn56 said:
Quote:
.
His definition is paying a QB a lot and having a team competitive enough that they aren't in position in the draft to take one high while not being good enough to win a championship.
That's a pretty shitty definition - it basically implies that any team that's not good enough to win a championship is in QB hell. According to that, we've been in QB hell since 2012.
Championships are great, and the ultimate goal - but only one team per year gets one. Most teams go decades between wins, and some haven't won at all. The objective should be to be in position to compete for a championship every year, and the easiest metric is entry to the playoffs.
The definition can mean whatever you want it to mean but the phrase was used by Gettleman. No disrespwct to you but if people are going to continually use that phrase I'd hope they'd know his definition.
It is like when Jerry Reese said Blue Goose or something like that and then all these fans use that phrase or when Tom Coughlin used the phrase green zone. It happens all the time. Once someone says it then it is overused all the time. The phrase QB was never ised before Gettleman. Now everybody uses it and it has a million different definitions.
Quote:
In comment 14289780 jcn56 said:
Quote:
.
His definition is paying a QB a lot and having a team competitive enough that they aren't in position in the draft to take one high while not being good enough to win a championship.
That's a pretty shitty definition - it basically implies that any team that's not good enough to win a championship is in QB hell. According to that, we've been in QB hell since 2012.
Championships are great, and the ultimate goal - but only one team per year gets one. Most teams go decades between wins, and some haven't won at all. The objective should be to be in position to compete for a championship every year, and the easiest metric is entry to the playoffs.
That's not really true. Guys like Big Ben, Brees, prime Eli, Luck, Rodgers even Ryan and Newton are good enough to win SBs with.
It's the teams with the Alex Smith/Kirk Cousins/Matt Stafford type QBs that are in QB hell because they're paying them elite QB $$$ but getting average QB play.
I would agree.. Rosen was behind a horrible line.. much worse than our OL.. I would trade a 2nd round for him or even first round if they are willing to give us something back.
Obviously you don't take a guy at a position you have on lock in round one (like the Giants at RB right now) but you try to line up needs and draft strengths by moving up or down.
This to me looks like a Defensive draft. So, unless Haskins is close to the top rated guy on your board (same tier as others still available) you don't reach. You take the top rated guy.
What then do the Giants do at QB? Eli for 2019 and 2020? Make some trades to position themselves for who they want in the 2020 draft? A FA stop gap for 2020?
They have many options.
I'm a big advocate for BPA, but you need to include positional value into that argument. To me it's really hard seeing that Haskins isn't as valuable as the defensive players that will be available to us in this draft. Honestly, I think he could make the argument to go 1.
I personally think last year's positional players were head and shoulders above what is available this year. Barkley, Nelson, Chubb, and Ward are better than Bosa and company. That is the difference between this year and last year. I think overall it was a much better blue chip class last year. Haskins will be better value than anyone that we take at 6 and we stay there I doubt we get him.
Have you ever considered being a draft prognosticator?
From this organization? That's hilarious.
Quote:
to some on BBI and yet pre-draft most here didn’t want to touch 2 of those guys with a ten foot pole (Allen and Jackson), the other guy went before our pick and is a totally moot point (Mayfield) and the other two guys were thoroughly mediocre and/or missed time due to injury and can be firmly placed in the “We’ll see” category at this point.
But we sat out a draft on the level of 83 or 04? That is based on absolutely nothing so far.
Meanwhile if our guy strings together a bunch of seasons like his Rollie year all he’ll do is go to the HOF.
Don't make this a dishonest ripjob on BBI. The QBs last year were universally well-rated and expected to go high. And judging them based on one year is dumb.
Last year was a case of quantity more than quality. There were a lot of well-regarded QBs in the pool, but none of them were considered to be a can't-miss QB.
SI Article - ( New Window )
You can make an article like that for any position. Also, did you notice the most recent QB from that list is 2011? The league has done a much better job of identifying NFL QB's and there are more QB's coming out deserving of a 1st round grade.
Quote:
In comment 14289808 Chris684 said:
Quote:
to some on BBI and yet pre-draft most here didn’t want to touch 2 of those guys with a ten foot pole (Allen and Jackson), the other guy went before our pick and is a totally moot point (Mayfield) and the other two guys were thoroughly mediocre and/or missed time due to injury and can be firmly placed in the “We’ll see” category at this point.
But we sat out a draft on the level of 83 or 04? That is based on absolutely nothing so far.
Meanwhile if our guy strings together a bunch of seasons like his Rollie year all he’ll do is go to the HOF.
Don't make this a dishonest ripjob on BBI. The QBs last year were universally well-rated and expected to go high. And judging them based on one year is dumb.
Last year was a case of quantity more than quality. There were a lot of well-regarded QBs in the pool, but none of them were considered to be a can't-miss QB.
Some NFL executives have said the top guy in this class (Haskins) would have been the 5th or 6th best QB in last year’s draft. This class has been shit on since the end of last draft season. I’ve pointed out this being a down class since last March. My opinion isn’t changing on these guys. I would be disappointed in a major way if DG took any of these guys.
Yep.
1. Paying an elite player elite money. Whenever it's time for KC to pay Mahomes, just do it and don't think twice.
2. A kid in his rookie deal.
3. A journeyman that can hold the position down at a low cost; Ryan Fitzpatrick and Teddy Bridgewater each had about a $3M cap hit last year. Think about that...a viable starting QB that probably wouldn't have been much worse than what Eli ($22.2M) did for us at the cost of what we paid Jonathan Stewart.
If you're not in one of these three groups with your starting QB, you're doing it wrong.
Right now, the Giants are doing it wrong.
So what is your plan to get Tua?
Quote:
Without a QB on the roster than panic pick an inferior QB prospect in this draft.
So what is your plan to get Tua?
Fromm
Herbert
Eason
There are other options.
It would be shocking if they don't.
...is quite serious.
If they like a particular QB at #6 they better snatch him.
And if they think this QB could go two or three slots higher, they better trade up.
Of course, the Giants are one of the last teams in the NFL that can afford to give up premium picks, but there's always an exception to that rule:
When a team has no long term answer at QB.
1) I believe RalphV was a little loose with his verbage. I suspect what is really happening is that at least at this point in the process the Giants preference would be to a get a QB in the 1st or 2nd rounds but like last year they aren't going to force a pick.
2) There's been certain amount of misunderstanding about last year's draft class. On the one hand at this time in the process it WAS considered to be a really good group with at least three guys (Darnold, Allen, Rosen) who were considered to have elite arm talent. All three guys though also had significant red flags such that when we actually got to the draft it was no longer considered to be that good a class. Indeed, the guy who ended up going #1 overall was an idiot who was barely 6-feet who wasn't considered to be a likely top 5 guy until literally just days before the draft.
3) I've noted elsewhere that right now3 the league is still trying to figure out what they have in Haskins and Murray. The sense you get is that most teams now view Haskins as a legit top 5 guy; indeed, I have talked to several people @ the league who say he would have been the #1 pick in a heartbeat in 2018. (The kicker is that those same people think that Haskins would still only be the 4-5 guy off the board next year, although he'd still likely be there somewhere in the top 10). Murray is a different animal entirely as teams just don't know what to make of him; he's an elite talent but at 5-9 there is just no comp; not even close.
4) The last thing is history has shown that when it comes to drafting QBs early NFL generally throw the BPA book out the window. You need a QB; you like a QB, you go get him. In the past ten years 7 of the 10 #1 overall picks have been QBs. QBs make up almost half (13) of the 30 players taken with picks 1, 2 or 3 in the past ten years; indeed almost as many QBs have been taken within the first three picks (13) as have been taken in the rest of the opening round (17) over the past ten years. Maybe the most fascinating factoid in this issue (if you can follow) is that the last time the first QB selected was a top 10 pick but was not taken in the first three picks was 1992. Fact is QBs get overdrafted every year. You want one you have to get him.
Quote:
In comment 14289828 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
In comment 14289808 Chris684 said:
Quote:
to some on BBI and yet pre-draft most here didn’t want to touch 2 of those guys with a ten foot pole (Allen and Jackson), the other guy went before our pick and is a totally moot point (Mayfield) and the other two guys were thoroughly mediocre and/or missed time due to injury and can be firmly placed in the “We’ll see” category at this point.
But we sat out a draft on the level of 83 or 04? That is based on absolutely nothing so far.
Meanwhile if our guy strings together a bunch of seasons like his Rollie year all he’ll do is go to the HOF.
Don't make this a dishonest ripjob on BBI. The QBs last year were universally well-rated and expected to go high. And judging them based on one year is dumb.
Last year was a case of quantity more than quality. There were a lot of well-regarded QBs in the pool, but none of them were considered to be a can't-miss QB.
Some NFL executives have said the top guy in this class (Haskins) would have been the 5th or 6th best QB in last year’s draft. This class has been shit on since the end of last draft season. I’ve pointed out this being a down class since last March. My opinion isn’t changing on these guys. I would be disappointed in a major way if DG took any of these guys.
This doesn't jibe with Colin's post above.
I agree with #3 and many on BBI should read that since they are constantly throwing out inaccurate comps.
1) There probably won't be a blue chip positional guy there at 6. The alternate options aren't as strong as they were last year. Guys like Oliver, Gary and the CBs come with major questions. The top OT may be a tweener with limited upside. The BPA will probably be an ILB, which isn't a premium position and he isn't exactly screaming "generational talent". It's not like Barkley and Chubb are sitting there. Not even a Ward or Nelson either.
2) Missing on a round 1 QB isn't as detrimental as it used to be. 10 years ago, if you missed on a QB high, you missed on the pick but also had to pay that player as one of the highest in the league. I'm fairly certain Jamarcus Russell and Matt Stafford instantly became the highest paid QBs in the league after signing their rookie deals. New CBA is much different. Last year, Jamies Winston and Marcus Marriotta were at the end of their rookie deals (and highest annuals). They were the 26th and 27th highest paid QBs in the league. Pretty good value actually from a cap perspective. Even the pricey option year is paying them "fairly" at about what they would command on the open market as high end bridge guys. And these players are considered disappointments.
For those reasons, I have no issue with Haskins, despite the risks. I don't see a sure thing on the board at any position and the QB situation will be at desperate levels next year. If they pass on one in April, they will be QB at all cost in 2020. Good luck negotiating a trade up from that position, especially if they improve their way to the middle of the round. It would be foolish to pass on Haskins at 6 given those variables, even if he grades out lower than a Greedy Williams and he doesn't give you the warm and fuzzies (another fantasy about drafting a QB).
Do you trade up for Haskins? I think that's where the real debate is and very much relies on where they stand on him as a prospect.
Quote:
In comment 14289828 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
In comment 14289808 Chris684 said:
Quote:
to some on BBI and yet pre-draft most here didn’t want to touch 2 of those guys with a ten foot pole (Allen and Jackson), the other guy went before our pick and is a totally moot point (Mayfield) and the other two guys were thoroughly mediocre and/or missed time due to injury and can be firmly placed in the “We’ll see” category at this point.
But we sat out a draft on the level of 83 or 04? That is based on absolutely nothing so far.
Meanwhile if our guy strings together a bunch of seasons like his Rollie year all he’ll do is go to the HOF.
Don't make this a dishonest ripjob on BBI. The QBs last year were universally well-rated and expected to go high. And judging them based on one year is dumb.
Last year was a case of quantity more than quality. There were a lot of well-regarded QBs in the pool, but none of them were considered to be a can't-miss QB.
Some NFL executives have said the top guy in this class (Haskins) would have been the 5th or 6th best QB in last year’s draft. This class has been shit on since the end of last draft season. I’ve pointed out this being a down class since last March. My opinion isn’t changing on these guys. I would be disappointed in a major way if DG took any of these guys.
You have been an outspoken advocate AGAINST picking a QB, so you are cherry picking. There are several other experts who believe Haskins and Murray - if he stops with the baseball nonsense - would rank ahead of many of the QBs selected in last year’s draft. You may hate them, others don’t.
I don’t get this place sometimes. People slammed Darnold and Rosen for turning the ball over and some subpar play, yet they slam Haskins for playing well because of the great team surrounding him. Of course,those same people want to draft Tua next year, even though he has superior talent around him, and he struggled against high level competition. People see what they want to see, and they will credit players they like and vice versa. You hate the QBs in this class, so you will do anything to show they stink. But when you do so, at least do it in a uniform manner.
Now - you draft top 5, you pick a guy - and if he doesn't work out you're back in the same place 3 years later and you can try again.
Not saying it's ideal - but is it 'hell'? Punitive enough to make you completely overlook the possibility unless there's some sure fire candidate to select?
Agree completely. Jags are exhibit A. Took Bortles. Miss. But it was very clear after 3 years that he wasn't the answer. They were in a position to draft Watson or Mahomes but took Fournette instead. Bad evaluation of the talent in question not some QB Hell from which there was no escape.
What does one have to do with the other? Mayfield was labeled an idiot because of his character. There were no such concerns with Lamar Jackson.
Quote:
Back in the day, the top picks used to get paid a ton of money - in addition to ponying up a massive draft resource to acquire a guy, you also had to dedicate a chunk of cap space to him. Then, you had some time to ramp him up where he usually didn't play, and then had to give him 2-3 years to see if he works out. All said and done, a considerable amount of time and resources spent.
Now - you draft top 5, you pick a guy - and if he doesn't work out you're back in the same place 3 years later and you can try again.
Not saying it's ideal - but is it 'hell'? Punitive enough to make you completely overlook the possibility unless there's some sure fire candidate to select?
Agree completely. Jags are exhibit A. Took Bortles. Miss. But it was very clear after 3 years that he wasn't the answer. They were in a position to draft Watson or Mahomes but took Fournette instead. Bad evaluation of the talent in question not some QB Hell from which there was no escape.
Except they then stupidly extended Bortles.
Keeping Eli around to "mentor" will be the mistake. Likely the Giants start slow, pressure will build for Eli to take a seat by week 4.
Haskins comes in week 5 as old Eli is scapegoated and Shurmur pulls the plug. Haskins is mediocre as a rookie QB, takes kill shot and is injured/concussed mid third quarter of week 9. Eli comes off the bench to lead team to victory. Eli leads team to strong finish, make playoffs as a wild card and go on to win it all.
Quote:
Pretty much jives what I have been saying, but sounds like some of your connects have a major problem with Mayfield for some reason? I'm sure he rubs some people the wrong way, but his teammates love him and he's definitely not an idiot. If Mayfield is an idiot what the hell does that make a prospect like Lamar Jackson?
What does one have to do with the other? Mayfield was labeled an idiot because of his character. There were no such concerns with Lamar Jackson.
To label him an idiot because of character concerns is idiotic. Call them character concerns. Also the most overblown character concerns I've ever heard. Oh he grabbed his dick put him in prison! That is just who he is- a shit talker - some people aren't going to like that, but I've never heard of the guys in his foxhole complaining. Just the opposite in fact.
He got arrested plastered for underage drinking and tried to run. Definitely not the first kid his age to do that. Immature decision making doesn't make one an idiot especially when that person isn't a fully mature adult!
Agree that is worst choice. Keep the old guy one more year and keep building the team if there are no blue chip QB'S in the Giants' estimation.
If there is a guy, gotta cut Eli loose.
Thats more damning about Goff than anything. When the dust settles I think its going to be pretty clear that McVay's ability to work Goff through games is the real genius. He throws a pretty ball though.
Quote:
...
From this organization? That's hilarious.
LOL....the ripping of the Giants just isn't given a rest by Terps...........
4) The last thing is history has shown that when it comes to drafting QBs early NFL generally throw the BPA book out the window. You need a QB; you like a QB, you go get him. In the past ten years 7 of the 10 #1 overall picks have been QBs. QBs make up almost half (13) of the 30 players taken with picks 1, 2 or 3 in the past ten years; indeed almost as many QBs have been taken within the first three picks (13) as have been taken in the rest of the opening round (17) over the past ten years. Maybe the most fascinating factoid in this issue (if you can follow) is that the last time the first QB selected was a top 10 pick but was not taken in the first three picks was 1992. Fact is QBs get overdrafted every year. You want one you have to get him.
Absolutely. We needed a QB just as much last year. Instead, all of the eggs at Jints Central were thrown into the Eli basket. And we took a flyer with Lauletta. And then that was further mismanaged by never playing him when the season was clearly over by Halloween.
Which makes this year trickier because this year's QB crop is very hard to evaluate. There is talent there, it's just very unusual - a QB who played in an ideal setting where a lot of QBs would look good (Haskins), a QB who looks like a freak athlete and thrower, but he's likely 5'9"ish (Murray), a QB with ties the Mannings, via Cutcliffe, but his performance versus better ACC competition was modest at best (Jones), and a QB with great gifts to throw the ball, and desired size and athleticism, but he may have some challenges above the shoulders (Lock)...
Very challenging times when we definitely need to get younger and better at the QB position...
And more.........
When would you deem it not a shit show?
Quote:
In comment 14289872 Mr. Bungle said:
Quote:
...
From this organization? That's hilarious.
LOL....the ripping of the Giants just isn't given a rest by Terps...........
It is a daily obligation, I guess.
I think they would have, esp given the point total allowed.
The experience factor in this particular case, is huge.
Quote:
In comment 14289875 Go Terps said:
Quote:
In comment 14289872 Mr. Bungle said:
Quote:
...
From this organization? That's hilarious.
LOL....the ripping of the Giants just isn't given a rest by Terps...........
It is a daily obligation, I guess.
Talk about frustrated fan. Is he even having any fun?
I think I recommended taking 6 months off and returning.....you know, like a hiatus.
Why would they have been anything less than 100% serious about finding Manning's replacement last year when: (1) they had the second pick in the draft; (2) Manning was 37 and coming off an awful season; and (3) there were at least four quarterbacks considered to have first round ability?
The only defensible argument for the Giants selection of Barkley last year is that the organization did the absolute maximum due diligence on each of the quarterback prospects and simply did not like any of them. However, if the record eventually shows that the Giants did not, in fact, have maximally serious interest in trying to find their future quarterback last offseason (the "ehh, Eli might still have it, and plus, look at Barkley's thighs!" mentality), then it is one of the greatest strategic blunders in the franchise's history.
If they follow that up with reaching on a quarterback selection this year to try to overcompensate for last year's blunder, well these are the kinds of scenarios where you look up one day and realize it's been a quarter century since you won a playoff game.
Why would they have been anything less than 100% serious about finding Manning's replacement last year when: (1) they had the second pick in the draft; (2) Manning was 37 and coming off an awful season; and (3) there were at least four quarterbacks considered to have first round ability?
The only defensible argument for the Giants selection of Barkley last year is that the organization did the absolute maximum due diligence on each of the quarterback prospects and simply did not like any of them. However, if the record eventually shows that the Giants did not, in fact, have maximally serious interest in trying to find their future quarterback last offseason (the "ehh, Eli might still have it, and plus, look at Barkley's thighs!" mentality), then it is one of the greatest strategic blunders in the franchise's history.
If they follow that up with reaching on a quarterback selection this year to try to overcompensate for last year's blunder, well these are the kinds of scenarios where you look up one day and realize it's been a quarter century since you won a playoff game.
Maybe they were just content taking the best player in the draft.
Not everything has to be a blunder of epic proportions. Some of you guys are so fucking dramatic and ridiculous with the hyperbole.
They obviously liked Barkley more than the QB's last year and so far, nothing has happened to prove that they were wrong in thinking that. Mayfield wasn't available to us and Barkley was pretty clearly a better rookie than Darnold, Rosen, and Allen. Quite frankly, it wasn't close.
Jackson probably had a more effective rookie campaign than any of those 3 guys, honestly. And he only started half the season.
I think he would have performed better than Goff in that game however that's based more on "Eli Magic". If we're basing it on how they've looked the last couple of seasons and the Rams lack of running game + Pats pass rush? A ton of doubt. We know exactly how this version of Eli looks under those conditions.
Try this on for size:
Does anyone doubt that if Goff had the WRs Nicks, Cruz, and Manningham as his 1,2,3 receivers, instead of Cooks, Woods and Reynolds the outcome would have been different? Goff put balls in guys' hands many more times than they came down with the ball IMO. They weren't separating much, either. Yet you think it's simply Eli vs Goff? That's a very ignorant (or heavily biased) opinion.
What your wrote buffets my prediction that some team will trade up above the Giants to land Haskins.
What do you suspect the Giants will do in that case? I've read rumors that they like Stidham in round 2 if he's on the board then, which seems likely.
Quote:
In comment 14289872 Mr. Bungle said:
Quote:
...
From this organization? That's hilarious.
LOL....the ripping of the Giants just isn't given a rest by Terps...........
In fairness, if you (or any fans) believe that the Giants FO, Gettleman included, are capable of pulling off a smokescreen rather than being completely transparent about their intentions, you're doing so purely out of wishful thinking. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that the Giants have employed that sort of gamesmanship in recent years.
Quote:
but he's had a pretty good track record as far as the draft is concerned IIRC.
Yep, that's why I posted it. He was fairly spot on last year about intentions and hit on a bunch of their picks in previous years too.
This is in addition to what Schwartz said. Last year the top beats pretty much sniffed out the lean towards Barkley and/or at least the non-QB direction. If the top 2 are both saying QB it makes sense. Eli is on his last year of contract and it makes sense to bring in a guy at this point to learn for a year under Eli.
1. Paying an elite player elite money. Whenever it's time for KC to pay Mahomes, just do it and don't think twice.
2. A kid in his rookie deal.
3. A journeyman that can hold the position down at a low cost; Ryan Fitzpatrick and Teddy Bridgewater each had about a $3M cap hit last year. Think about that...a viable starting QB that probably wouldn't have been much worse than what Eli ($22.2M) did for us at the cost of what we paid Jonathan Stewart.
If you're not in one of these three groups with your starting QB, you're doing it wrong.
Right now, the Giants are doing it wrong.
Right on the $$$. You can't expect to win when you pay a guy 20% of your cap and he isn't in the top half at the position, especially the QB spot.
How long has Gettleman been on the job, and how many drafts has he run with the Giants?
Your basing you analysis on....one year?
Quote:
"they do seem more serious about finding Manning's heir apparent than they were at this time last year."
Why would they have been anything less than 100% serious about finding Manning's replacement last year when: (1) they had the second pick in the draft; (2) Manning was 37 and coming off an awful season; and (3) there were at least four quarterbacks considered to have first round ability?
The only defensible argument for the Giants selection of Barkley last year is that the organization did the absolute maximum due diligence on each of the quarterback prospects and simply did not like any of them. However, if the record eventually shows that the Giants did not, in fact, have maximally serious interest in trying to find their future quarterback last offseason (the "ehh, Eli might still have it, and plus, look at Barkley's thighs!" mentality), then it is one of the greatest strategic blunders in the franchise's history.
If they follow that up with reaching on a quarterback selection this year to try to overcompensate for last year's blunder, well these are the kinds of scenarios where you look up one day and realize it's been a quarter century since you won a playoff game.
Maybe they were just content taking the best player in the draft.
Not everything has to be a blunder of epic proportions. Some of you guys are so fucking dramatic and ridiculous with the hyperbole.
They obviously liked Barkley more than the QB's last year and so far, nothing has happened to prove that they were wrong in thinking that. Mayfield wasn't available to us and Barkley was pretty clearly a better rookie than Darnold, Rosen, and Allen. Quite frankly, it wasn't close.
Jackson probably had a more effective rookie campaign than any of those 3 guys, honestly. And he only started half the season.
The argument as to whether the Giants should have taken a qb in 2018 vs. Barkley won't be settled for some time. I cannot put stock in a running backs rookie year vs. a qb, you are comparing apples to oranges. There are a lot of moving parts here, but this will largely depend on how, in my opinion, Darnold (you can look at all three qbs available there in fairness) develops and if the Giants are able to find a legit top 10-12 qb to replace Manning.
This argument will persist and rightfully so, it was a major impactful organizational decision. And that is not, as most BBIs love to say, hyperbole.
Quote:
Does anyone here doubt that the rams might have won the super bowl if Eli Manning is under center instead of Goff? Think about it.
Try this on for size:
Does anyone doubt that if Goff had the WRs Nicks, Cruz, and Manningham as his 1,2,3 receivers, instead of Cooks, Woods and Reynolds the outcome would have been different? Goff put balls in guys' hands many more times than they came down with the ball IMO. They weren't separating much, either. Yet you think it's simply Eli vs Goff? That's a very ignorant (or heavily biased) opinion.
I'm of the opinion Goff couldn't translate what he was looking at.
He had open receivers but chose to go elsewhere.
The third quarter pass to Cooks was the most glaring error....guy was open for seconds, and he didn't recognize it before it was too late.
Quote:
Without a QB on the roster than panic pick an inferior QB prospect in this draft.
So what is your plan to get Tua?
My preference is Fromm.
Quote:
In comment 14290007 eugibs said:
Quote:
"they do seem more serious about finding Manning's heir apparent than they were at this time last year."
Why would they have been anything less than 100% serious about finding Manning's replacement last year when: (1) they had the second pick in the draft; (2) Manning was 37 and coming off an awful season; and (3) there were at least four quarterbacks considered to have first round ability?
The only defensible argument for the Giants selection of Barkley last year is that the organization did the absolute maximum due diligence on each of the quarterback prospects and simply did not like any of them. However, if the record eventually shows that the Giants did not, in fact, have maximally serious interest in trying to find their future quarterback last offseason (the "ehh, Eli might still have it, and plus, look at Barkley's thighs!" mentality), then it is one of the greatest strategic blunders in the franchise's history.
If they follow that up with reaching on a quarterback selection this year to try to overcompensate for last year's blunder, well these are the kinds of scenarios where you look up one day and realize it's been a quarter century since you won a playoff game.
Maybe they were just content taking the best player in the draft.
Not everything has to be a blunder of epic proportions. Some of you guys are so fucking dramatic and ridiculous with the hyperbole.
They obviously liked Barkley more than the QB's last year and so far, nothing has happened to prove that they were wrong in thinking that. Mayfield wasn't available to us and Barkley was pretty clearly a better rookie than Darnold, Rosen, and Allen. Quite frankly, it wasn't close.
Jackson probably had a more effective rookie campaign than any of those 3 guys, honestly. And he only started half the season.
The argument as to whether the Giants should have taken a qb in 2018 vs. Barkley won't be settled for some time. I cannot put stock in a running backs rookie year vs. a qb, you are comparing apples to oranges. There are a lot of moving parts here, but this will largely depend on how, in my opinion, Darnold (you can look at all three qbs available there in fairness) develops and if the Giants are able to find a legit top 10-12 qb to replace Manning.
This argument will persist and rightfully so, it was a major impactful organizational decision. And that is not, as most BBIs love to say, hyperbole.
Acting like we're going to go a "quarter of a century" without winning a playoff game if we pick a QB this year to "overcompensate" for not taking one last year most certainly is hyperbolic thinking.
Pretty much textbook. It's a ridiculous way of posting to try to drive home a point - which is what people here often do, and why BBI'ers often call it out. It's a shitty argumentative tactic that is usually used when actual supporting facts or basis' are lacking.
Quote:
Does anyone here doubt that the rams might have won the super bowl if Eli Manning is under center instead of Goff? Think about it.
Try this on for size:
Does anyone doubt that if Goff had the WRs Nicks, Cruz, and Manningham as his 1,2,3 receivers, instead of Cooks, Woods and Reynolds the outcome would have been different? Goff put balls in guys' hands many more times than they came down with the ball IMO. They weren't separating much, either. Yet you think it's simply Eli vs Goff? That's a very ignorant (or heavily biased) opinion.
It's not Eli v. Goff per say. In this particular case, it's the experience factor.
I think there are other QBs around the league that would have fared better than Goff on Sunday, that Goff would decidedly be ranked ahead of on any list.
Experience really did him in.......and the Patriot experience in particular.
Quote:
In comment 14290015 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
In comment 14290007 eugibs said:
Quote:
"they do seem more serious about finding Manning's heir apparent than they were at this time last year."
Why would they have been anything less than 100% serious about finding Manning's replacement last year when: (1) they had the second pick in the draft; (2) Manning was 37 and coming off an awful season; and (3) there were at least four quarterbacks considered to have first round ability?
The only defensible argument for the Giants selection of Barkley last year is that the organization did the absolute maximum due diligence on each of the quarterback prospects and simply did not like any of them. However, if the record eventually shows that the Giants did not, in fact, have maximally serious interest in trying to find their future quarterback last offseason (the "ehh, Eli might still have it, and plus, look at Barkley's thighs!" mentality), then it is one of the greatest strategic blunders in the franchise's history.
If they follow that up with reaching on a quarterback selection this year to try to overcompensate for last year's blunder, well these are the kinds of scenarios where you look up one day and realize it's been a quarter century since you won a playoff game.
Maybe they were just content taking the best player in the draft.
Not everything has to be a blunder of epic proportions. Some of you guys are so fucking dramatic and ridiculous with the hyperbole.
They obviously liked Barkley more than the QB's last year and so far, nothing has happened to prove that they were wrong in thinking that. Mayfield wasn't available to us and Barkley was pretty clearly a better rookie than Darnold, Rosen, and Allen. Quite frankly, it wasn't close.
Jackson probably had a more effective rookie campaign than any of those 3 guys, honestly. And he only started half the season.
The argument as to whether the Giants should have taken a qb in 2018 vs. Barkley won't be settled for some time. I cannot put stock in a running backs rookie year vs. a qb, you are comparing apples to oranges. There are a lot of moving parts here, but this will largely depend on how, in my opinion, Darnold (you can look at all three qbs available there in fairness) develops and if the Giants are able to find a legit top 10-12 qb to replace Manning.
This argument will persist and rightfully so, it was a major impactful organizational decision. And that is not, as most BBIs love to say, hyperbole.
Acting like we're going to go a "quarter of a century" without winning a playoff game if we pick a QB this year to "overcompensate" for not taking one last year most certainly is hyperbolic thinking.
Pretty much textbook. It's a ridiculous way of posting to try to drive home a point - which is what people here often do, and why BBI'ers often call it out. It's a shitty argumentative tactic that is usually used when actual supporting facts or basis' are lacking.
That's fine, but I think calling 2018 a very impactful offseason for the Giants is fair. It could have had long last impacts, we won't know for some time.
Quote:
"they do seem more serious about finding Manning's heir apparent than they were at this time last year."
Why would they have been anything less than 100% serious about finding Manning's replacement last year when: (1) they had the second pick in the draft; (2) Manning was 37 and coming off an awful season; and (3) there were at least four quarterbacks considered to have first round ability?
The only defensible argument for the Giants selection of Barkley last year is that the organization did the absolute maximum due diligence on each of the quarterback prospects and simply did not like any of them. However, if the record eventually shows that the Giants did not, in fact, have maximally serious interest in trying to find their future quarterback last offseason (the "ehh, Eli might still have it, and plus, look at Barkley's thighs!" mentality), then it is one of the greatest strategic blunders in the franchise's history.
If they follow that up with reaching on a quarterback selection this year to try to overcompensate for last year's blunder, well these are the kinds of scenarios where you look up one day and realize it's been a quarter century since you won a playoff game.
Maybe they were just content taking the best player in the draft.
Not everything has to be a blunder of epic proportions. Some of you guys are so fucking dramatic and ridiculous with the hyperbole.
They obviously liked Barkley more than the QB's last year and so far, nothing has happened to prove that they were wrong in thinking that. Mayfield wasn't available to us and Barkley was pretty clearly a better rookie than Darnold, Rosen, and Allen. Quite frankly, it wasn't close.
Jackson probably had a more effective rookie campaign than any of those 3 guys, honestly. And he only started half the season.
If Darnold, Rosen or Allen are the goods, they will not reach their full potential as players until Barkley is already in the twilight of his career. In the 2001 draft, the Chargers took LaDainian Tomlinson in the first round and Drew Brees in the second round. Tomlinson's last impactful NFL season was 11 years ago. Drew Brees lead his team to the number 1 seed and the NFC Championship Game less than a month ago.
The only thing that is ridiculous is, when hearing that your team wasn't serious about drafting a franchise quarterback when it had the second pick in the draft, just shrugging your shoulders and saying the running back they took with that pick instead had a better rookie season for your 5-11 team. No one knows exactly what the thought process was. But if the thought process that lead to taking Barkley involved the Giants not being serious about trying to find a franchise quarterback, then there is no amount of hyperbole to describe how wrong that thought-process was.
However if you go on you tube and see him go over the all 22 with analysts Haskins seems to know what he’s looking at in the film room.......
Quote:
In comment 14290007 eugibs said:
Quote:
"they do seem more serious about finding Manning's heir apparent than they were at this time last year."
Why would they have been anything less than 100% serious about finding Manning's replacement last year when: (1) they had the second pick in the draft; (2) Manning was 37 and coming off an awful season; and (3) there were at least four quarterbacks considered to have first round ability?
The only defensible argument for the Giants selection of Barkley last year is that the organization did the absolute maximum due diligence on each of the quarterback prospects and simply did not like any of them. However, if the record eventually shows that the Giants did not, in fact, have maximally serious interest in trying to find their future quarterback last offseason (the "ehh, Eli might still have it, and plus, look at Barkley's thighs!" mentality), then it is one of the greatest strategic blunders in the franchise's history.
If they follow that up with reaching on a quarterback selection this year to try to overcompensate for last year's blunder, well these are the kinds of scenarios where you look up one day and realize it's been a quarter century since you won a playoff game.
Maybe they were just content taking the best player in the draft.
Not everything has to be a blunder of epic proportions. Some of you guys are so fucking dramatic and ridiculous with the hyperbole.
They obviously liked Barkley more than the QB's last year and so far, nothing has happened to prove that they were wrong in thinking that. Mayfield wasn't available to us and Barkley was pretty clearly a better rookie than Darnold, Rosen, and Allen. Quite frankly, it wasn't close.
Jackson probably had a more effective rookie campaign than any of those 3 guys, honestly. And he only started half the season.
If Darnold, Rosen or Allen are the goods, they will not reach their full potential as players until Barkley is already in the twilight of his career. In the 2001 draft, the Chargers took LaDainian Tomlinson in the first round and Drew Brees in the second round. Tomlinson's last impactful NFL season was 11 years ago. Drew Brees lead his team to the number 1 seed and the NFC Championship Game less than a month ago.
The only thing that is ridiculous is, when hearing that your team wasn't serious about drafting a franchise quarterback when it had the second pick in the draft, just shrugging your shoulders and saying the running back they took with that pick instead had a better rookie season for your 5-11 team. No one knows exactly what the thought process was. But if the thought process that lead to taking Barkley involved the Giants not being serious about trying to find a franchise quarterback, then there is no amount of hyperbole to describe how wrong that thought-process was.
You've created your own scenario here. There's nothing to suggest the Giants just ignored the 2018 QB class. They preferred Barkley. It's simple.
You're writing your own narrative without actually having facts to back it up. It's a poor argument.
And Drew Brees wound up shining for the team that didn't even draft him. The Chargers gave up on him and opted to draft Rivers instead. Beyond that, Drew Brees is an outlier for many reasons. The odds of there being a Drew Brees in last year's draft are exceptionally small.
Yes, QB's take time to develop. But Mayfield hit the ground running this year and Baltimore was able to find a niche for Jackson as well. None of Darnold, Allen, or Rosen had impactful rookie years at all and still have tons of work to do.
The Giants would have been just as awful with any of those guys - probably worse - and then we'd have the same complaints about a 3-5 win team and whether or not we even took the right guy while Barkley was running wild in another city - maybe even across town.
None of this is going to set the Giants back 25 years. Just stop with the dramatics.
Quote:
In comment 14290015 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
In comment 14290007 eugibs said:
Quote:
"they do seem more serious about finding Manning's heir apparent than they were at this time last year."
Why would they have been anything less than 100% serious about finding Manning's replacement last year when: (1) they had the second pick in the draft; (2) Manning was 37 and coming off an awful season; and (3) there were at least four quarterbacks considered to have first round ability?
The only defensible argument for the Giants selection of Barkley last year is that the organization did the absolute maximum due diligence on each of the quarterback prospects and simply did not like any of them. However, if the record eventually shows that the Giants did not, in fact, have maximally serious interest in trying to find their future quarterback last offseason (the "ehh, Eli might still have it, and plus, look at Barkley's thighs!" mentality), then it is one of the greatest strategic blunders in the franchise's history.
If they follow that up with reaching on a quarterback selection this year to try to overcompensate for last year's blunder, well these are the kinds of scenarios where you look up one day and realize it's been a quarter century since you won a playoff game.
Maybe they were just content taking the best player in the draft.
Not everything has to be a blunder of epic proportions. Some of you guys are so fucking dramatic and ridiculous with the hyperbole.
They obviously liked Barkley more than the QB's last year and so far, nothing has happened to prove that they were wrong in thinking that. Mayfield wasn't available to us and Barkley was pretty clearly a better rookie than Darnold, Rosen, and Allen. Quite frankly, it wasn't close.
Jackson probably had a more effective rookie campaign than any of those 3 guys, honestly. And he only started half the season.
The argument as to whether the Giants should have taken a qb in 2018 vs. Barkley won't be settled for some time. I cannot put stock in a running backs rookie year vs. a qb, you are comparing apples to oranges. There are a lot of moving parts here, but this will largely depend on how, in my opinion, Darnold (you can look at all three qbs available there in fairness) develops and if the Giants are able to find a legit top 10-12 qb to replace Manning.
This argument will persist and rightfully so, it was a major impactful organizational decision. And that is not, as most BBIs love to say, hyperbole.
Acting like we're going to go a "quarter of a century" without winning a playoff game if we pick a QB this year to "overcompensate" for not taking one last year most certainly is hyperbolic thinking.
Pretty much textbook. It's a ridiculous way of posting to try to drive home a point - which is what people here often do, and why BBI'ers often call it out. It's a shitty argumentative tactic that is usually used when actual supporting facts or basis' are lacking.
Also, if it was not clear, I am not saying that reaching for a quarterback this year will cause the Giants to not win a playoff game for 25 years. I am saying it would be indicative of the kind of decision-making process that we have seen from the worst-run organizations in the league, some of whom have actually gone 25 years without winning a playoff game.
You're writing your own narrative without actually having facts to back it up. It's a poor argument.
And Drew Brees wound up shining for the team that didn't even draft him. The Chargers gave up on him and opted to draft Rivers instead. Beyond that, Drew Brees is an outlier for many reasons. The odds of there being a Drew Brees in last year's draft are exceptionally small.
Yes, QB's take time to develop. But Mayfield hit the ground running this year and Baltimore was able to find a niche for Jackson as well. None of Darnold, Allen, or Rosen had impactful rookie years at all and still have tons of work to do.
The Giants would have been just as awful with any of those guys - probably worse - and then we'd have the same complaints about a 3-5 win team and whether or not we even took the right guy while Barkley was running wild in another city - maybe even across town.
None of this is going to set the Giants back 25 years. Just stop with the dramatics.
Go back and look at my initial post. I quoted directly from Vacchiano. He said the Giants are "more serious" about finding their future quarterback this year. If we agree that words have meaning, then that quote means that the Giants were "less serious" last year. My point is, why would they not have been maximally serious last year? Maybe Vacchino is wrong, none of us know. But I am not creating my own narrative out of thin air here.
Also, your counterfactual is pretty laughable. Where would the Giants be without Barkley? I mean, they were out of it before Halloween and won 5 games. Who cares if it had been 3 wins instead of 5?
I think you're a little too quick to say the giants would have been just as bad if they had Darnold. The Jets have garbage for offensive skill players. The expectations for Darnold have to take that into account. And I don't even care much for Darnold, before the morons charge in babbling about 'cultists'.
rocco8112 : 12:40 pm : link : reply
Keeping Eli around to "mentor" will be the mistake. Likely the Giants start slow, pressure will build for Eli to take a seat by week 4.
Haskins comes in week 5 as old Eli is scapegoated and Shurmur pulls the plug. Haskins is mediocre as a rookie QB, takes kill shot and is injured/concussed mid third quarter of week 9. Eli comes off the bench to lead team to victory. Eli leads team to strong finish, make playoffs as a wild card and go on to win it all.
have you been having this dream?
As for those Saying Eli would have had a better game than Goff, after the first sack, Eli would have been dumping the ball off instead of looking downfield.....this is 2018 Eli, not 2011.....
my BEST guess RIGHT NOW before combine/pro days/etc.
someone trades up for haskins (we wanted him but only at 6) we pass on lock and take devin white. daniel jones is the pick at 38....if DG doesnt think he will last, a small move up to lets say 28-34 prob suffices and we get jones who has a ton of links to us.
sooo
d white and jones are first two picks. sign williams to play RT and that isnt a horrible offseason
Quote:
There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that the Giants have employed that sort of gamesmanship in recent years.
How long has Gettleman been on the job, and how many drafts has he run with the Giants?
Your basing you analysis on....one year?
Oh, is last year the only year that Gettleman has been a GM or the only year that he's been a part of the Giants' front office?
I must have been confusing him with someone else.
Quote:
In comment 14290037 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that the Giants have employed that sort of gamesmanship in recent years.
How long has Gettleman been on the job, and how many drafts has he run with the Giants?
Your basing you analysis on....one year?
Oh, is last year the only year that Gettleman has been a GM or the only year that he's been a part of the Giants' front office?
I must have been confusing him with someone else.
In case you thought last year was somehow a break from Gettleman's past, here's an article from his time in Carolina. And while I realize that it's a 24/7 Sports link, it's based on something from PFT.
McCaffrey to Panthers Likely a Smokescreen - ( New Window )
rocco8112 : 12:40 pm : link : reply
Keeping Eli around to "mentor" will be the mistake. Likely the Giants start slow, pressure will build for Eli to take a seat by week 4.
Haskins comes in week 5 as old Eli is scapegoated and Shurmur pulls the plug. Haskins is mediocre as a rookie QB, takes kill shot and is injured/concussed mid third quarter of week 9. Eli comes off the bench to lead team to victory. Eli leads team to strong finish, make playoffs as a wild card and go on to win it all.
have you been having this dream?
As for those Saying Eli would have had a better game than Goff, after the first sack, Eli would have been dumping the ball off instead of looking downfield.....this is 2018 Eli, not 2011.....
What a crock of sh-t.
Manning was sacked a career high 40 plus times this year and was still pushing the ball downfield.
Funny how that works.
1. Paying an elite player elite money. Whenever it's time for KC to pay Mahomes, just do it and don't think twice.
2. A kid in his rookie deal.
3. A journeyman that can hold the position down at a low cost; Ryan Fitzpatrick and Teddy Bridgewater each had about a $3M cap hit last year. Think about that...a viable starting QB that probably wouldn't have been much worse than what Eli ($22.2M) did for us at the cost of what we paid Jonathan Stewart.
If you're not in one of these three groups with your starting QB, you're doing it wrong.
Right now, the Giants are doing it wrong.
I'm already looking forward to how you contradict this post sometime in a week or two.
Quote:
You want to be in one of three places with your starting QB:
1. Paying an elite player elite money. Whenever it's time for KC to pay Mahomes, just do it and don't think twice.
2. A kid in his rookie deal.
3. A journeyman that can hold the position down at a low cost; Ryan Fitzpatrick and Teddy Bridgewater each had about a $3M cap hit last year. Think about that...a viable starting QB that probably wouldn't have been much worse than what Eli ($22.2M) did for us at the cost of what we paid Jonathan Stewart.
If you're not in one of these three groups with your starting QB, you're doing it wrong.
Right now, the Giants are doing it wrong.
I'm already looking forward to how you contradict this post sometime in a week or two.
You can call Go Terps a lot of things, but inconsistent isn't one of them
Completion %: 66% - career high
Interceptions: 11 - career low
Yards/Attempt: 7.5 - 16th in NFL
Yards/Completion: 11.3 - 17th in NFL
Avg. Intended Air Yards: 7.2 - 31st in NFL (out of 39)
#1. Eli's eye level has lowered to the pressure.
#2. Eli is trying to avoid negative plays.
The combination of #1 and #2 result in conservative quarterbacking from Eli. That's why Saquon Barkley was targeted 121 times out of Eli's 576 pass attempts (21%).
When Eli threw to Barkley, his YPA was 5.96. That number is way too low for 21% of all our pass plays.
It's all there in the numbers if you want to look, but you're not going to like what you see.
Funny how that works.
Brady and Brees also take care of themselves with diet and workout routines. I remember seeing Eli in a meeting room with Peyton few years back that was televised and he was munching on fucking potato chips.
NFL Matchup on ESPN 12/18/18 - ( New Window )
Completion %: 66% - career high
Interceptions: 11 - career low
Yards/Attempt: 7.5 - 16th in NFL
Yards/Completion: 11.3 - 17th in NFL
Avg. Intended Air Yards: 7.2 - 31st in NFL (out of 39)
#1. Eli's eye level has lowered to the pressure.
#2. Eli is trying to avoid negative plays.
The combination of #1 and #2 result in conservative quarterbacking from Eli. That's why Saquon Barkley was targeted 121 times out of Eli's 576 pass attempts (21%).
When Eli threw to Barkley, his YPA was 5.96. That number is way too low for 21% of all our pass plays.
It's all there in the numbers if you want to look, but you're not going to like what you see.
and from the eye test, his deep ball has deteriorated. They really seem to hang now.
NFL Matchup on ESPN 12/18/18 - ( New Window )
But I heard Eli can’t throw the deep ball anymore...
I heard it here. On BBI!
the only pick I questioned , so far the draft looks
to be an A or A minus . As bad as Lauletta looked I am
not going to totally write the guy off . I just don't
think we go QB unless Haskins or someone else has a
great combine . I don't want a 5' 8-9 in QB as well as he played he is still a very small player physically .
I think we go Trenches at #6 or move down unless they are
High on and ede rusher I wouldn't be shocked if they took
Williams LT . I will stick with Josh Allen Clelin Ferrell
as my one two favorites .
rocco8112 : 12:40 pm : link : reply
Keeping Eli around to "mentor" will be the mistake. Likely the Giants start slow, pressure will build for Eli to take a seat by week 4.
Haskins comes in week 5 as old Eli is scapegoated and Shurmur pulls the plug. Haskins is mediocre as a rookie QB, takes kill shot and is injured/concussed mid third quarter of week 9. Eli comes off the bench to lead team to victory. Eli leads team to strong finish, make playoffs as a wild card and go on to win it all.
have you been having this dream?
As for those Saying Eli would have had a better game than Goff, after the first sack, Eli would have been dumping the ball off instead of looking downfield.....this is 2018 Eli, not 2011.....
Would be cool wouldn't it? I have no evidence but my gut feeling. Shurmur doesn't really do it for me yet, so my money is the team losing early next season and if the Giants draft the next QB and Eli is here, he will be scapegoated and benched by week five.
Dollars to donuts the o line sucks again, so Haskins comes in with no consistent run game and faces intense pressure and constant long down and distance. He will now be playing against teams better then his mates, the polar opposite of Ohio State.
Haskins will get lit up like a Christmas tree and be hurt within three weeks of being named starter, the old warhorse will come off the bench and win. Maybe the Super Bowl is a stretch, but he will lead to wins.
As for the Rams, I personally believe if the Rams had Eli they would be champions. Goff shit the bed, hard.
All joking aside, in my opinion the worst move for the Giants is drafting a QB high and keeping Eli.
Roll with Eli once more, or draft someone and cut him loose.
That's as simple as it gets above.
You can't say he's not pushing the ball downfield when we're top ten in attempting deep passes.
You're over complicating the numbers and twisting them to fit what you want them to.
Funny how that works.
Now list Eli’s accomplishment the last 2 seasons.. He’s been pedestrian at best while leading his team to 3 and 5 wins. He’s ineffective and expensive terrible combo to have at QB.. When will you people wake up and smell the roses when is this so called HOF QB with the huge cap number gonna start winning games? Should that not be the standard? Our highest paid player needs excuses.. smfh the definition of Insanity is...
Link - ( New Window )
Completion %: 66% - career high
Interceptions: 11 - career low
Yards/Attempt: 7.5 - 16th in NFL
Yards/Completion: 11.3 - 17th in NFL
Avg. Intended Air Yards: 7.2 - 31st in NFL (out of 39)
#1. Eli's eye level has lowered to the pressure.
#2. Eli is trying to avoid negative plays.
The combination of #1 and #2 result in conservative quarterbacking from Eli. That's why Saquon Barkley was targeted 121 times out of Eli's 576 pass attempts (21%).
When Eli threw to Barkley, his YPA was 5.96. That number is way too low for 21% of all our pass plays.
It's all there in the numbers if you want to look, but you're not going to like what you see.
You don’t need the numbers to tell you much of anything... If you watched the Giants you already know his completion rate was high because he was throwing non stop check downs to Saquon he was king of the 5 yard pass on 3rd and 8.. 19 TD passes in like 580 attempts in today’s NFL is pedestrian at best
Kyle Jusczyk - 10.8
Austin Ekeler - 10.4
Tarik Cohen - 10.2
Melvin Gordon - 9.8
Todd Gurley - 9.8
Duke Johnson - 9.1
James Conner - 9.0
Kenyan Drake - 9.0
David Johnson - 8.9
TJ Yeldon - 8.9
Jalen Richard - 8.9
Alvin Kamara - 8.8
Tevin Coleman - 8.6
James White - 8.6
Christian McCaffrey - 8.1
Jacquizz Rodgers - 8.0
Saquon Barkley - 7.9
I suspect this is the result of both ultra-conservative QB play leaning on Barkley as a 3rd down checkdown AND poor offensive scheming by Shurmur, but this is completely unacceptable. We spent a blue chip pick so we could get this ultra-explosive player, and there are 16 teams utilizing their RBs more efficiently in the passing game. Ridiculous.
Roll with Eli once more, or draft someone and cut him loose.
Eli has a 5m roster bonus hitting just prior to the draft and free agency. This forces the Giants to act on Eli before they know they have a replacement.
How you can sit there and try and say he didn't push the ball downfield is crazy. Delusional.
White (123)
Barkley(121)
So we're using him more than almost anyone else uses their RB in the passing game, but getting less out of it than half the league.
Not so sure about this, Terps. It would be great to ditch Eli and land the future young, cost controlled QB.
BUT the problem is that Eli is due a $5M roster bonus on St. Patrick's Day and that's over a month before the draft. Can they really afford to dump Eli and roll the dice and hope the young QB is there when the Giants pick???
I think they are stuck with Eli for this year.
The other point I would make relates to something we call the 'Draftnik's Lament!' And that is that no matter how much digging we do we will never have the same kind of info available to us that NFL teams do. Regarding Eli, for example, Shurmur and his staff spend hours with him every day and as a result are going to have a much more intimate sense of where he is these days with his arm strength, mobility and decision making than even the most seasoned analyst on the outside. If they think he can still play and contribute at a high level, then he likely will be around for a while. If they don't, then he'll likely be gone sooner rather than later no matter what the blathering from the peanut gallery.
How you can sit there and try and say he didn't push the ball downfield is crazy. Delusional.
No, they were 10th in attempts of 20+. Do you have the numbers for 30+? 40+?
I DO have the numbers for how far the ball goes in the air per pass, and they ranked 31 out of 39. And they were 3rd in RB targets, and that RB was 17th in YPC.
You're the one that is, and has been, delusional. The sad thing is the front office continues to share in your delusion. Finger on the pulse, but the pulse is fucked.
It's all there in the numbers if you dig for more than a fucking screen capture from ESPN.
So now we have to make up a new definition since this one doesn't work for you?
You reject the NFL's long time measure of what is classified as a deep ball.
We threw the ball over 20 yards more than 22 other teams in the league.
That is pushing the ball downfield. Period.
I'm merely talking about attempts.
Quote:
where Eli's Army begin their annual push into trying to make the audience believe Eli was really good, and the rest of us are just missing his very goodness, and/or a victim of circumstances.
Link - ( New Window )
I love Eli Manning. Always will.
It's time to find his long term replacement.
But I still think that Giants can win with him if he is protected. That's a very popular stance and one that is pretty hard to argue.
Quote:
Forcing a QB pick in a weak QB class, and the only experience Gettleman has had in his entire career taking a QB this high is when we got Eli.
You'd think that the narrative would be the one time he had to take a QB high he hit. Instead it is that he hasn't had to take a QB high since eli, so he'll shit the bed.
Just another made-up criticism that may not even fucking apply this year. So we should have drafted a QB last year because the choices are worst this year? Awesome way to go about the draft.
Haha totally agree. I actually am pretty confident that Gettleman knows what he is doing. Especially based on his last draft. Let's let it play out at least before all of the hand wringing... lol
This was more of a function of a poor OL than anything. If the OL can’t protect you can’t take shots down the field. Shurmur must’ve known the OL sucked so he probably schemed more dumpoffs to take some pressure off the OL. The first Dallas game comes to mind.
The Cowboys are 28th in the NFL with 44 throws downfield, only 13 fewer than the Giants. So you're bragging about our high octane passing offense on the strength of 13 plays. The screen capture doesn't list the teams ranked 11th-27th, but the differences between most of the teams in that range are most likely in the single digits...and we're talking a universe of 500-600 total pass plays per team.
And you also have to consider that 2 downfield passes were Beckham's, and not Eli's. If you removed those 2 it probably bumps the Giants down to 18th or something.
Here's another indicator of how the Giants "pushed the ball down the field". Their leading yards/catch player was Beckham at 13.7...which ranked 33rd in the NFL.
And how efficient were we when we threw him the ball? He caught 62.1% of his targets - 133rd in the NFL.
This pass offense was pathetic.
He did. Period. It is inarguable and the number of attempts in doing so back it up.
You can't twist that number.
We don't need to make up stuff to smear the guy, like the poster I was originally responding to that said Eli would become captain checkdown after one sack.
That's all I take issue with and would not really given an opinion on this save for stupid sh-t like that.
That total number could be a reflection of a small sample and not indicative of doing it constantly.
20+ yard passes/total passes
Eli: 55/576=9.54% of his passes went 20+ yards
Prescott: 44/526=8.37% of his passes went 20+ yards
That's the 10th placed guy vs. the 28th placed guy. And you think this is a relevant stat?
This is the second time I'm going to make this reference on BBI...I feel like Vinny Gambini, "I'm sorry I was standing all the way over here. Did you just say you're a fast cook? That's it?"
His eye level has dropped, and he is often picking his receiver before the ball is snapped. It's clear as fucking day. It's clear in the stats, it's clear in the eye test, it's clear when you hear any analyst not affiliated with the Giants talk about him.
He's done.
His eye level has dropped, and he is often picking his receiver before the ball is snapped. It's clear as fucking day. It's clear in the stats, it's clear in the eye test, it's clear when you hear any analyst not affiliated with the Giants talk about him.
He's done.
facts hurt sometimes
But, remember Barkley, is the epicenter of the offense, not Eli. If they can give him room to run and protect Eli when he drops back, this offense can be as good as anyone's. We saw flashes of that last season.
I think RV's article isn't untrue. But, I'm not sure if it is news per se. Of course they would like to get a young QB this year so they have a succession plan at QB. One would think/hope they won't reach. They may not have to if they can finish the OL and block for SB/take the heat off Eli.
BTW, just a hunch, I think they take Grier or Jones in RD2, if one of them is there.
In comment 14290175 Stan in LA said:
Funny how that works.
Mainly because it tends to get missed by a lot of smug fucks.
His eye level has dropped, and he is often picking his receiver before the ball is snapped. It's clear as fucking day. It's clear in the stats, it's clear in the eye test, it's clear when you hear any analyst not affiliated with the Giants talk about him.
He's done.
Terps I'll argue that as bad as the OL was what we are seeing from Manning right now is clearly an adverse effect of said OL but also the effects of two completely new and different systems in the last 3 years. I know it's been brought up before but Eli clearly does not excel in WCO type offensive systems but rather what he had with Gilbride or even McAdoo under Coughlin, and with option routes. In my mind I saw better play from not just Eli but the whole offense after they started getting more comfortable under Shurmur (and of course better OL play). I still feel like Eli can play if A) He gets better blocking and B) He and the receivers (Et Al) get more comfortable with the offense. Look we all know we need to be addressing what we are doing after Eli is gone, but I feel like people saying Eli is done is just not accurate.
Be careful! We can’t have any middle ground here! God forbid people around watch the games with an objective and balanced lens.
Eli is a pretty good qb who can win in this league if the team plays good defense and the OL isn’t disgusting. They won in 2016 with the former. They can certainly win in 2019 if and when.
It’s tiring. Really fucking tiring.
Second half of 2018 was a lot different than the first half. You can’t ignore that. Now what you have to ask yourself is was Eli’s improved play over the second half something sustainable? Can it carry over ? Was his improvement all based on his own fixing or the team’s improvement around him? Ok play. Coaching. Team responding to said coaching.
I think the league has proven if you want to get a QB you can trade for one
Darnold, Trubisky, Goff, Wentz, Allen, Rosen, Jackson, Mahomes, RG111 - all were picked after teams traded up.
If you want to wait until next year you can - there is zero point to force a QB pick
Quote:
I'm saying Eli Manning is done taking hits. That doesn't make him a coward. It makes him an old 38 (he's played a lot of games) in a young man's game.
His eye level has dropped, and he is often picking his receiver before the ball is snapped. It's clear as fucking day. It's clear in the stats, it's clear in the eye test, it's clear when you hear any analyst not affiliated with the Giants talk about him.
He's done.
Terps I'll argue that as bad as the OL was what we are seeing from Manning right now is clearly an adverse effect of said OL but also the effects of two completely new and different systems in the last 3 years. I know it's been brought up before but Eli clearly does not excel in WCO type offensive systems but rather what he had with Gilbride or even McAdoo under Coughlin, and with option routes. In my mind I saw better play from not just Eli but the whole offense after they started getting more comfortable under Shurmur (and of course better OL play). I still feel like Eli can play if A) He gets better blocking and B) He and the receivers (Et Al) get more comfortable with the offense. Look we all know we need to be addressing what we are doing after Eli is gone, but I feel like people saying Eli is done is just not accurate.
The data says he has become very conservative. I guess he can still play in that he still can throw a football and read a defense, but his conservative nature (whatever its cause) is going to limit the offense result in losses.
He certainly, absolutely, is not worth the $23.2M cap hit or even the $17M we'd gain by cutting him. Even if he can "still play", so can his younger, cheaper replacement.
Quote:
That's not what the numbers say:
Completion %: 66% - career high
Interceptions: 11 - career low
Yards/Attempt: 7.5 - 16th in NFL
Yards/Completion: 11.3 - 17th in NFL
Avg. Intended Air Yards: 7.2 - 31st in NFL (out of 39)
#1. Eli's eye level has lowered to the pressure.
#2. Eli is trying to avoid negative plays.
The combination of #1 and #2 result in conservative quarterbacking from Eli. That's why Saquon Barkley was targeted 121 times out of Eli's 576 pass attempts (21%).
When Eli threw to Barkley, his YPA was 5.96. That number is way too low for 21% of all our pass plays.
It's all there in the numbers if you want to look, but you're not going to like what you see.
You don’t need the numbers to tell you much of anything... If you watched the Giants you already know his completion rate was high because he was throwing non stop check downs to Saquon he was king of the 5 yard pass on 3rd and 8.. 19 TD passes in like 580 attempts in today’s NFL is pedestrian at best
Yeah no other QB's check down or get garbage time stats.
Remind yourself that next time you look at Matt Ryan's numbers.
The data says he has become very conservative. I guess he can still play in that he still can throw a football and read a defense, but his conservative nature (whatever its cause) is going to limit the offense result in losses.
He certainly, absolutely, is not worth the $23.2M cap hit or even the $17M we'd gain by cutting him. Even if he can "still play", so can his younger, cheaper replacement.
I agree he has become more conservative but how much of that is on the system and the coaching, as well as lack of familiarity (or rather comfort level) with the offense? Coupled with terrible OL play? I don't disagree at all on the cap # though. I wish they could renegotiate his deal.
Second half of 2018 was a lot different than the first half. You can’t ignore that. Now what you have to ask yourself is was Eli’s improved play over the second half something sustainable? Can it carry over ? Was his improvement all based on his own fixing or the team’s improvement around him? Ok play. Coaching. Team responding to said coaching.
I find the second half of the season to be a bit of fools gold similar to Sam Darnold's last 4 games. Giants got a lot of teams in bad spots. Redskins quit, Colts slept through first quarter of game, shutout in Titans game, and scored on a cowboys team that had nothing to play for. That's the last four games of the season. The Bears game was the only truly impressive offensive performance in that second half that gets thrown around.
Shurmur:
A: Yeah, we called them. There were deep routes called that we couldn’t get the ball downfield, so you check it down. Then you move on.
A: You call plays to be aggressive. If they’re there, you take your shots. That’s how you dictate. And if they’re not there, you check them down, and then the backs catch the ball and run with it. You’re talking about seven-eight yard gains, which is fine, so that’s how you dictate. Then you make them defend those. That’s how you dictate, and then when you choose to run the ball, you make yardage.
Eli:
A: That usually leads to bad plays. There’s ways to get explosive plays without throwing it deep. It’s not like they all have to be go-routes or post-routes. Hitting guys on the move when they do play man, in zones you can still hit plays. In breaking routes and buying time. You can still hit explosive plays when teams are trying to take away the deep shots.
Case Keenum in Denver:
Also found and posted this article about Pat Shurmur's QB concepts for Case Keenum in Minny:
Minnesota’s offense was all predicated on staying on schedule. They weren’t built to come from behind or convert a lot of 3rd and longs (few teams are built for this). Their run/pass split was one of the most balanced in the league last year as they were near 50% of runs and passes.
Getting small chunks of yards that set up 2nd or 3rd and manageable kept them from getting behind the sticks early in drives.
Low risk plays led to low turnovers
Low risk doesn’t necessarily mean no big plays, as Keenum still had his fair share of big plays. However, the bread and butter of the offense was a short/intermediate passing game that were inherently lower risk passes.
This approach allowed Keenum to finish top 5 in interception rate, along with Drew Brees and Tom Brady (who employ similar offensive strategies).
Get the ball to players in space
We’ll dig into it more in a later post, but Case Keenum and the Minnesota offense was one of the best in the league at generating YAC for the offense. They did this by scheming players into space where they could go make a play.
Link - ( New Window )
It's not a comparison, it's context on what Shurmur is asking the QB to do.
Eli has thrown 7,972 passes in the NFL...that's 6th all time. He's thrown more passes than Roger Staubach and Terry Bradshaw combined. He's had one of the longest, fullest careers in NFL history. The guy wasn't going to play forever, and things rarely end the way we want them to. He is not the player he was in 2011. He's not even the player he was in 2015.
As a fan I wish he'd walk away, but I get the $23M is a lot of money to walk away from. That's why Mara has to be the adult in the room on this and do what's right by the team.
His eye level has dropped, and he is often picking his receiver before the ball is snapped. It's clear as fucking day. It's clear in the stats, it's clear in the eye test, it's clear when you hear any analyst not affiliated with the Giants talk about him.
He's done.
Agree on all points. I still would rather go with him and tank naturally in 2019 and go get our guy in the spring of 2020.
Second half of the career: the stats are solid, but few wins
You not be any more wrong but hey, it’s what you do. Keep on fighting the good fight.
Second half of the career: the stats are solid, but few wins
The stats aren't great in the second half. The picks are down and the completion % is up, but the TD totals and yard/attempt are down...and that has coincided with the Giants consistently being in the top half/top 10 in NFL scoring 2004-2011 to only being in the top 10 once since 2013.
The guy has had two careers. One was great, one has been mediocre to bad.
The Cowboys are 28th in the NFL with 44 throws downfield, only 13 fewer than the Giants. So you're bragging about our high octane passing offense on the strength of 13 plays. The screen capture doesn't list the teams ranked 11th-27th, but the differences between most of the teams in that range are most likely in the single digits...and we're talking a universe of 500-600 total pass plays per team.
And you also have to consider that 2 downfield passes were Beckham's, and not Eli's. If you removed those 2 it probably bumps the Giants down to 18th or something.
Here's another indicator of how the Giants "pushed the ball down the field". Their leading yards/catch player was Beckham at 13.7...which ranked 33rd in the NFL.
And how efficient were we when we threw him the ball? He caught 62.1% of his targets - 133rd in the NFL.
This pass offense was pathetic.
Are we allowed to attribute the OL issues and new offense being implemented in 2018? I’m not making excuses. I’m just asking.
Do we ever chalk up wins and losses to more than just qb play? And if so when are those other factors applicable?
I’m not trying to make excuses as much as I’m just dying to know when some of you guys give the qb a pass? When? Eli’s numbers were ordinary in 2018 right? So, is it fair to say that Eli can play better if the team plays better— like most qbs?
When do we give the qb a pass ?
Here come the platitudes.
Yeah, hopefully Eli will play better if the team around him improves, but why should we take that on faith? Do you think that's what successful teams do? Take things on faith?
You can't make huge decisions on ifs and hopefullys. While we hope that Eli will improve at 38 (and how many athletes do that?), the greater likelihood is that his game will continue to degrade because he is a human being, and time is undefeated.
Quote:
First half of the career: it’s about wins, not stats
Second half of the career: the stats are solid, but few wins
The stats aren't great in the second half. The picks are down and the completion % is up, but the TD totals and yard/attempt are down...and that has coincided with the Giants consistently being in the top half/top 10 in NFL scoring 2004-2011 to only being in the top 10 once since 2013.
The guy has had two careers. One was great, one has been mediocre to bad.
YPA and TD/INT ratio are the two most important stats for a QB. I'm not sure why people care about completion percentage. In the grand scheme of things it isn't that important. Yards per play and turnover differential are the two most important metrics in football.
The only question that would matter to me as GM, and I've posted it at least 1000 times; can the roster improve to a point to be championship-level in the time Manning has left?
Not competitive, not eek into the playoffs, but with enough talent and depth to go toe-to-toe with the big kids. And not "stranger things have happened" or "why not" -- but confident.
Anything less than planning confidentially for a championship is lame.
Submit your application, you probably won’t even need to interview!
The only question that would matter to me as GM, and I've posted it at least 1000 times; can the roster improve to a point to be championship-level in the time Manning has left?
Not competitive, not eek into the playoffs, but with enough talent and depth to go toe-to-toe with the big kids. And not "stranger things have happened" or "why not" -- but confident.
Anything less than planning confidentially for a championship is lame.
I would agree. The timing is not good at all unless we have one hell of a draft and FA period. It sucks because I fully believe that this is 100% on Reese and his complete and utter lack of proficiency in evaluating OL and in ANY position picked below the 2nd round. And that has wasted Eli's prime years. I also believe that he has not lost any more than any of his contemporaries... Ben, Rivers, etc. I just think he is (at this point in time) in a worse position both in protection and scheme familiarity. And his cap # sure isn't helping us. At the end of the day I still think he can play.
I'd take a closer look at that one. NYG offense was pretty much a disaster for entire first half of that game. Five punts and an INT. Ten points on the board came from an Ogletree pick six and a last second 57 yd FG after CHI coach got too greedy and called a TO when Giants were going to run out the clock.
Second half: trick play long TD pass by OBJ for a TD. CHI gave Giants a fumble on the 13 yd line and offense settled for a FG.
One sustained 12 play drive for a TD and a FG drive in OT for the win. Eli only threw for 170 yards for the game.
Quote:
The Bears game was the only truly impressive offensive performance in that second half that gets thrown around.
I'd take a closer look at that one. NYG offense was pretty much a disaster for entire first half of that game. Five punts and an INT. Ten points on the board came from an Ogletree pick six and a last second 57 yd FG after CHI coach got too greedy and called a TO when Giants were going to run out the clock.
Second half: trick play long TD pass by OBJ for a TD. CHI gave Giants a fumble on the 13 yd line and offense settled for a FG.
One sustained 12 play drive for a TD and a FG drive in OT for the win. Eli only threw for 170 yards for the game.
I stand corrected- I totally forgot about that Herculian effort by Barkley before the half. Yeh this whole notion of Eli leading this juggernaut of an offense the second half is built on a faulty premise.
Most of our resources are spent on the offensive side of the ball. We are going to need to win games on that side of the ball. There were games we should have closed out games in the second half with our offense and we couldn't.
Yeah, hopefully Eli will play better if the team around him improves, but why should we take that on faith? Do you think that's what successful teams do? Take things on faith?
What difference would there have been if we drafted Sam Darnold, though? We'd have to hope he panned out and developed. He's no surety. No QB we passed on is, nor is any plan.
There's no way to completely mitigate risk in the NFL. Any guy you draft or sign comes with some degree of "hope" that he'll stay healthy, perform, etc.
If the argument is that NYG are hitching themselves to a wagon with low odds, that's fine - but there's really no series of offseason moves that can entirely eliminate the aspect of needing to hope that a lot of things go right and break right.
Every team that wins a Super Bowl catches a few along the way. If Dee Ford isn't lined up in the neutral zone on a crucial play, the Patriots aren't Super Bowl champions and don't even play in it at all - but that's the NFL and those are the breaks. There is often a razor-thin line between success and failure, and if any fans should know that, it's fans of the Giants.
Quote:
I can't speak for you, but I'm tired of basing things on "ifs" and "hopefullys".
Yeah, hopefully Eli will play better if the team around him improves, but why should we take that on faith? Do you think that's what successful teams do? Take things on faith?
What difference would there have been if we drafted Sam Darnold, though? We'd have to hope he panned out and developed. He's no surety. No QB we passed on is, nor is any plan.
There's no way to completely mitigate risk in the NFL. Any guy you draft or sign comes with some degree of "hope" that he'll stay healthy, perform, etc.
If the argument is that NYG are hitching themselves to a wagon with low odds, that's fine - but there's really no series of offseason moves that can entirely eliminate the aspect of needing to hope that a lot of things go right and break right.
Every team that wins a Super Bowl catches a few along the way. If Dee Ford isn't lined up in the neutral zone on a crucial play, the Patriots aren't Super Bowl champions and don't even play in it at all - but that's the NFL and those are the breaks. There is often a razor-thin line between success and failure, and if any fans should know that, it's fans of the Giants.
Luck can get you the last mile, but the first 99 are a combination of sound drafting, smart allocation of resources, and quality coaching that lead to a talented, deep team, that can game plan around adversity and their opponents.
The Giants are in the infancy of a turn around in drafting, have very bad allocation of resources, have few positions with impressive talent, lack depth, and the coaching gets an incomplete.
When a majority of the decisions that comprise your program are wise, you markedly dial-down the dependence on hope.
Brees and Favre (off the top of my head), otherwise not a great track record for 2nd round QB's.
Carr, Garoppolo
Quote:
generally suck.
Brees and Favre (off the top of my head), otherwise not a great track record for 2nd round QB's.
Carr, Garoppolo
Kaepernick
His eye level has dropped, and he is often picking his receiver before the ball is snapped. It's clear as fucking day. It's clear in the stats, it's clear in the eye test, it's clear when you hear any analyst not affiliated with the Giants talk about him.
He's done.
He sold his soul to the devil being able to play at a high level in the 2011 NFCC.
Let's pick the game of the season with the worst weather conditions, where the defense allowed over 200 yards rushing and make it sound like it was the norm for the year.
Not surprising, it mimics real life outside of football.
The offense improved. Nobody is saying it was awesome and a finished product. It improved.
The dudes that are talking the most in the spirit of being "objective" are ironically the ones that are refusing to acknowledge anything positive happened.
Let's pick the game of the season with the worst weather conditions, where the defense allowed over 200 yards rushing and make it sound like it was the norm for the year.
The Giants failed to reach 20 points in six games this season.
The Giants failed to break 300 total offensive yards in 4 games this season.
The Giants finished the year 27th in the league at red zone scoring.
It wasn't good.
The were 31st in points scored last year. They were 16th this year.
They scored the most points in the NFC East.
The were 31st in points scored last year. They were 16th this year.
They scored the most points in the NFC East.
The team is not good. The coach doesn't fill me with confidence.
But, by years end the offense and the passing game in particular became the strength of the team. Sure, too little too late and the defnese had one key player shipped out (Apple was no big loss), but the defnese got worse as the year went on and it sucks in general. Eli and the passing game helped by some big runs by Barkley were carrying the squad. Eli and the passing game became the strength of the team like it has been almost every season since he has been here.
It may be the end, Eli is old no doubt about it. I still think, even after all these seasons, he still is not near the top of the list of things wrong with this team.
Quote:
and hit 40 points once. Something they hadn't done since Tom Coughlin left.
The were 31st in points scored last year. They were 16th this year.
They scored the most points in the NFC East.
The team is not good. The coach doesn't fill me with confidence.
But, by years end the offense and the passing game in particular became the strength of the team. Sure, too little too late and the defnese had one key player shipped out (Apple was no big loss), but the defnese got worse as the year went on and it sucks in general. Eli and the passing game helped by some big runs by Barkley were carrying the squad. Eli and the passing game became the strength of the team like it has been almost every season since he has been here.
It may be the end, Eli is old no doubt about it. I still think, even after all these seasons, he still is not near the top of the list of things wrong with this team.
The offense produced too with all universe WR Beckham out too.
Titans game showed how soft this team is. It was chilly so they shit the bed, I don't blame Eli too much for that one.
Is what it is.
Just got to keep plugging holes and hope that trend continues.
I think I read that it takes nearly a full season to implement a new playbook, and that that do it in chunks throughout the season. It's possible that the playbook wasn't even fully implemented until mid-season. I know Gettlemen said he thought it would take about 8 weeks.
Quote:
In comment 14290400 Go Terps said:
Quote:
I can't speak for you, but I'm tired of basing things on "ifs" and "hopefullys".
Yeah, hopefully Eli will play better if the team around him improves, but why should we take that on faith? Do you think that's what successful teams do? Take things on faith?
What difference would there have been if we drafted Sam Darnold, though? We'd have to hope he panned out and developed. He's no surety. No QB we passed on is, nor is any plan.
There's no way to completely mitigate risk in the NFL. Any guy you draft or sign comes with some degree of "hope" that he'll stay healthy, perform, etc.
If the argument is that NYG are hitching themselves to a wagon with low odds, that's fine - but there's really no series of offseason moves that can entirely eliminate the aspect of needing to hope that a lot of things go right and break right.
Every team that wins a Super Bowl catches a few along the way. If Dee Ford isn't lined up in the neutral zone on a crucial play, the Patriots aren't Super Bowl champions and don't even play in it at all - but that's the NFL and those are the breaks. There is often a razor-thin line between success and failure, and if any fans should know that, it's fans of the Giants.
Luck can get you the last mile, but the first 99 are a combination of sound drafting, smart allocation of resources, and quality coaching that lead to a talented, deep team, that can game plan around adversity and their opponents.
The Giants are in the infancy of a turn around in drafting, have very bad allocation of resources, have few positions with impressive talent, lack depth, and the coaching gets an incomplete.
When a majority of the decisions that comprise your program are wise, you markedly dial-down the dependence on hope.
Eh, this seems like a really unnecessarily complicated way of saying "make smarter choices, draft better, coach better" which really doesn't change my point that any strategy is accompanied by a degree of risk.
There's no NFL team that doesn't need to hope their drafted players develop, perform, stay healthy, stay out of trouble - there's no roster construction blueprint that guarantees success or free agent signing where past outcomes guarantee future returns.
It's literally not possible for a GM to change everything that was done by his predecessor over the course of a decade+ in one singular offseason.
I'm still a little lost on exactly what people expected the Giants to be in 2018. I get the impression that frustration is just overtaking rationality in this discussion because the roster clearly had tons of holes, underwent significant turnover, hired a new coach, new OC, new DC, different positional coaches, traded away starters in-season, and were a 3 win team last year.
It's almost like since we weren't a winning team right away, now that means we definitely hired the wrong people and should just fire everyone and start over again. A dangerous cycle indicative of a franchise without any plan whatsoever. And, if I'm not mistaken, a lot of people here are clamoring for a "plan."
Well, if you want a plan, then you need to let it play out for more than one season. We still have a lot of holes and obviously weren't a year away from turning this around.
The first 8 games the Giants scored 15, 13, 27, 18, 31, 13, 20, 13 (broke 20 points 3/8 games).
The last 8 games the Giants scored 27, 38, 22, 30, 40, 0, 27, and 35 points (broke 20 points 7/8 games).
That's improvement. I don't know how anybody can say differently.
Personally, i agree with Go Terps. I think Eli is cooked. And i also question if they should bring him back if the plan is to make him a lame duck. Unfortunately, there is no obvious way of handling this situation.
When i read talk here about the last quarterback class, i laugh. Why? Its like some here think good qb prospects are now extinct. I've read all over this place the Giants screwed up the next decade because they didn't take a quarterback.
Except, in 1 year, a QB has emerged from Ohio State who many scouts like more than the guys last year. A guy no one saw coming. Guess who took the best player in the draft last year and is still in a prime position to get him? Lets stop pretending we know with certainty how good each qb class will be.
Anyone catch Colin's post? The Giants did arguably more due diligence on the qb's last year than any other team. They passed because they saw a can't miss prospect who they deemed to have HOF talent. They were right.
Anyone watch the playoffs? The team in New England ran the ball down people's throats, controlling the clock en route to another super bowl.
You can win in a variety of ways. Smashmouth football may go out of style, but it will always have a place in the game of football (proper personnel permitting)
Build the defense, build the offensive line, KEEP your qb under center and this team will find itself right back in the playoffs. Not a bad way of bringing along a young qb either.
Now, there were questions about if Wilks could step up to being a HC, but how they were able to judge his performance, I don't know.
Meanwhile, they just hired a guy who has underwhelmed when leading teams, but he's supposedly good with QB's.
We'll see how that goes and if he gets another year after a 4 win season.
Now, there were questions about if Wilks could step up to being a HC, but how they were able to judge his performance, I don't know.
Meanwhile, they just hired a guy who has underwhelmed when leading teams, but he's supposedly good with QB's.
We'll see how that goes and if he gets another year after a 4 win season.
Wilks fired his OC and than promoted Leftwich. I know Leftwich is considered a hot name, but he's a first time OC. I see why they decided to wipe the slate with a young QB. If they knew they were drafting Rosen I doubt they would have hired Wilks in first place.
Just got to keep plugging holes and hope that trend continues.
I think I read that it takes nearly a full season to implement a new playbook, and that that do it in chunks throughout the season. It's possible that the playbook wasn't even fully implemented until mid-season. I know Gettlemen said he thought it would take about 8 weeks.
"Plugging holes". That is a low, low bar.
The last 8 games the Giants scored 27, 38, 22, 30, 40, 0, 27, and 35 points (broke 20 points 7/8 games).
That's improvement. I don't know how anybody can say differently.
This is misleading. You need context - as usual.
The 9ers were 27th in points allowed per game. The Bucs were basically dead last with Oakland.
The Skins started Sanchez, who gave us points with his incompetency, and they were flat-lining at the time. When we played Philly, their secondary was in shambles. And the Bears game started the same way with Daniel giving us points.
And don't be fooled by the last game against Dallas. They didn't have their foot on the gas pedal. They were tapping the brakes in the game.
The Titans rolled us.
The Indy effort was decent.
So I am not fooled by this so called improvement. I think it's more fake than real...
It's a disingenuous way of minimizing the Giants.
Whenever we have these discussions, we're the only ones with half our wins asterisked while all of these other brilliant teams are apparently winning in much more convincing ways.
We didn't play any poor teams, just playoff teams? That's why we were 31st in scoring Mr. Context?
We didn't play any poor teams, just playoff teams? That's why we were 31st in scoring Mr. Context?
2017 was a health crisis for the team.
Regards.
Mr. Context
The Giants were 5-11 last year, the 6th worst team in a league of 32 teams. They came out of training camp and preseason a disorganized disaster, and started the season 1-7. They won only 1 game in the division. They won only 2 games at home. And for those pointing to the second half of the season...they ended the season losing their last 3 games, 2 of which were at home.
Those are the facts, provided without bias. It's an ugly picture.
I'm not. You know 2017 was driven largely by injury. My hope is I don't have to remind you of the offensive fire-power we lost.
It's a disingenuous way of minimizing the Giants.
Whenever we have these discussions, we're the only ones with half our wins asterisked while all of these other brilliant teams are apparently winning in much more convincing ways.
I wouldn't characterize those discussions that way. Change/trend, in this case F8 vs L8, needs to be scrubbed to make sure we're looking at the results beyond the simplistic notion that we just played football games against 16 teams that are equal.
And that's to say nothing of the critical job of a new regime: to implement a winning culture. The culture we got was:
- Analytics are for geeks behind computers
- Let's use the backup QB as a punchline to get back at some beat reporters
- Let's have the star WR sit next to Lil Wayne and criticize the organization and QB a month after getting a huge contract
- Bring up the 3-13 a dozen times to the media after going 5-11... Talk about moving the goalposts
Great leadership. Great culture.
None of that stuff would matter, we'd be back on the winning path.
Because let's all call it what it is, that is what is at the heart of this matter here.
None of that stuff would matter, we'd be back on the winning path.
Because let's all call it what it is, that is what is at the heart of this matter here.
No, it isn't. We'd be in a better place, but Shurmur would still be a shitty coach and Gettleman would still be a Luddite.
The Giants were 5-11 last year, the 6th worst team in a league of 32 teams. They came out of training camp and preseason a disorganized disaster, and started the season 1-7. They won only 1 game in the division. They won only 2 games at home. And for those pointing to the second half of the season...they ended the season losing their last 3 games, 2 of which were at home.
Those are the facts, provided without bias. It's an ugly picture.
It is difficult to argue with this.
The team sucks and has for many seasons now.
If the Giants didn't collapse week 17 against Dallas, that sixth win would have been a career high for Shurmur as HC. He should spend less time rationalizing and making excuses in public, and more time winning.
The Giants were 5-11 last year, the 6th worst team in a league of 32 teams. They came out of training camp and preseason a disorganized disaster, and started the season 1-7. They won only 1 game in the division. They won only 2 games at home. And for those pointing to the second half of the season...they ended the season losing their last 3 games, 2 of which were at home.
Those are the facts, provided without bias. It's an ugly picture.
Ah, the "rationalization" buzzword...
Bottom line is that you guys are lumping both regimes together whether intentionally or not.
Anything pre-2018 is essentially irrelevant as far as approach or roster construction goes.
The 2018 team was essentially what I expected them to be. A team with tons of holes that started slow for several reasons and wasn't very good.
Anyone who expected a winning record or playoffs this year just grossly miscalculated what was here and doesn't understand the concept of transitioning. It's as simple as that.
Not everything has to be an "excuse" - some of it can just be reality - a reality that some of you guys just don't want to accept because it doesn't fit the narrative where the Giants have become this abhorrent, bottom of the barrel franchise that will never be good again.
Quote:
"Providing context" is actually just rationalizing and excuse making. One year in and already the excuses are flowing (including from the mouths of Gettleman and Shurmur themselves).
The Giants were 5-11 last year, the 6th worst team in a league of 32 teams. They came out of training camp and preseason a disorganized disaster, and started the season 1-7. They won only 1 game in the division. They won only 2 games at home. And for those pointing to the second half of the season...they ended the season losing their last 3 games, 2 of which were at home.
Those are the facts, provided without bias. It's an ugly picture.
Ah, the "rationalization" buzzword...
Bottom line is that you guys are lumping both regimes together whether intentionally or not.
Anything pre-2018 is essentially irrelevant as far as approach or roster construction goes.
The 2018 team was essentially what I expected them to be. A team with tons of holes that started slow for several reasons and wasn't very good.
Anyone who expected a winning record or playoffs this year just grossly miscalculated what was here and doesn't understand the concept of transitioning. It's as simple as that.
Not everything has to be an "excuse" - some of it can just be reality - a reality that some of you guys just don't want to accept because it doesn't fit the narrative where the Giants have become this abhorrent, bottom of the barrel franchise that will never be good again.
But, the Giants are a bottom of the barrel franchise and right now my money is on the team continuing to be bad for a long time.
I am looking for reasons to be optimistic, and for me the HC so far is not a reason to be optimistic.
Build around that.
I can't find them.
I'm just not sure what people expected this season to be. Apparently much more than it was. Which tells me expectations were basically just not reasonable.
Hell, just read the thread..
Terps is right near the top saying the 2018 team could win 10 games if things broke right and had them at 8-8 as a baseline.
Some of you guys simply misread what this team was and now you're walking it back and acting like you knew this would be a 5 win team all along.
You didn't.
Link - ( New Window )
Build around that.
Yes, it is the build part that is worrisome and besides the tease that was the 2016 defense, I don't even remember what it is like for the Giants to have an above average defense.
Specials improved this year which is good.
But, the o line has sucked
Quote:
Here's one: Saquon Barkley. 3rd rookie in history with 2000 yards from scrimmage and rookie of the year.
Build around that.
Yes, it is the build part that is worrisome and besides the tease that was the 2016 defense, I don't even remember what it is like for the Giants to have an above average defense.
Specials improved this year which is good.
But, the o line has sucked
Look at it this way, the O-line made more strides in one season that Jerry Reese made on it in seven.
It took Dave Gettleman all of what, four games to cut Flowers? Yeah, he signed a stinker in Omameh but he turned around and cut him too, didn't even wait until the offseason. Jamon Brown and some shuffling gave us better o-line play than we've had in years.
That was encouraging for me.
I can't find them.
I'm just not sure what people expected this season to be. Apparently much more than it was. Which tells me expectations were basically just not reasonable.
Hell, just read the thread..
Terps is right near the top saying the 2018 team could win 10 games if things broke right and had them at 8-8 as a baseline.
Some of you guys simply misread what this team was and now you're walking it back and acting like you knew this would be a 5 win team all along.
You didn't. Link - ( New Window )
I'm not on that thread but my opinion was that they could turn it around quickly. I underestimated just how absolutely horrible our roster was. But I still believe that the league is build for worst to first scenarios. It happens every year. It just didn't for us, and we really got a light shined on just how bad our roster and depth was.
How many for a bottom tier offensive line.
How many for a defense that couldn't buy a key stop and gets physically steamrolled on the ground.
How many for a defense that can't generate any meaningful pressure.
How many seasons ending before Halloween does this team get an excuse for?
“He’s more of a runner than a thrower” - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 14291005 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
Here's one: Saquon Barkley. 3rd rookie in history with 2000 yards from scrimmage and rookie of the year.
Build around that.
Yes, it is the build part that is worrisome and besides the tease that was the 2016 defense, I don't even remember what it is like for the Giants to have an above average defense.
Specials improved this year which is good.
But, the o line has sucked
Look at it this way, the O-line made more strides in one season that Jerry Reese made on it in seven.
It took Dave Gettleman all of what, four games to cut Flowers? Yeah, he signed a stinker in Omameh but he turned around and cut him too, didn't even wait until the offseason. Jamon Brown and some shuffling gave us better o-line play than we've had in years.
That was encouraging for me.
Ok good points, glass half full. How many teams two of the starting lineman they broke camp with? They did have the balls to cut bait.
Solder was horrible the first half too. He needs to be consistent and productive next year, it is critical.
Quote:
In comment 14290955 Go Terps said:
Quote:
"Providing context" is actually just rationalizing and excuse making. One year in and already the excuses are flowing (including from the mouths of Gettleman and Shurmur themselves).
The Giants were 5-11 last year, the 6th worst team in a league of 32 teams. They came out of training camp and preseason a disorganized disaster, and started the season 1-7. They won only 1 game in the division. They won only 2 games at home. And for those pointing to the second half of the season...they ended the season losing their last 3 games, 2 of which were at home.
Those are the facts, provided without bias. It's an ugly picture.
Ah, the "rationalization" buzzword...
Bottom line is that you guys are lumping both regimes together whether intentionally or not.
Anything pre-2018 is essentially irrelevant as far as approach or roster construction goes.
The 2018 team was essentially what I expected them to be. A team with tons of holes that started slow for several reasons and wasn't very good.
Anyone who expected a winning record or playoffs this year just grossly miscalculated what was here and doesn't understand the concept of transitioning. It's as simple as that.
Not everything has to be an "excuse" - some of it can just be reality - a reality that some of you guys just don't want to accept because it doesn't fit the narrative where the Giants have become this abhorrent, bottom of the barrel franchise that will never be good again.
But, the Giants are a bottom of the barrel franchise and right now my money is on the team continuing to be bad for a long time.
I am looking for reasons to be optimistic, and for me the HC so far is not a reason to be optimistic.
See, the dramatics are just out of hand now.
We're not a bottom of the barrel franchise. There are teams who haven't even played in a Super Bowl... EVER!
The NFL is cyclical. Basically every single team outside of New England winds up with a competitive window, and then they need to build it back up when their players become too expensive, players leave, get hurt, etc.
The Giants are in a lull and suck right now. This needs more than one year and always did. I don't know what to tell you guys if that's all you're willing to give it before throwing up your arms and deciding we're already sunk.
But how often do teams replace their coaches, turn over more than half their roster and look cohesive and together in Week 1?
I just am surprised that people seemed caught off guard by that as if they weren't expecting there to be any sort of transition for the offense with basically an entirely new offensive line to boot.
Of course we struggled.
We obviously need to figure out our future QB plans. We need defensive help. We need a couple more offensive linemen.
Strong draft and better FA Period and I'm looking for .500+ in 2019. If there's no improvement, I'll have no problem at all suggesting that Gettleman/Shurmur are the wrong guys for this.
Quote:
In comment 14290994 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
In comment 14290955 Go Terps said:
Quote:
"Providing context" is actually just rationalizing and excuse making. One year in and already the excuses are flowing (including from the mouths of Gettleman and Shurmur themselves).
The Giants were 5-11 last year, the 6th worst team in a league of 32 teams. They came out of training camp and preseason a disorganized disaster, and started the season 1-7. They won only 1 game in the division. They won only 2 games at home. And for those pointing to the second half of the season...they ended the season losing their last 3 games, 2 of which were at home.
Those are the facts, provided without bias. It's an ugly picture.
Ah, the "rationalization" buzzword...
Bottom line is that you guys are lumping both regimes together whether intentionally or not.
Anything pre-2018 is essentially irrelevant as far as approach or roster construction goes.
The 2018 team was essentially what I expected them to be. A team with tons of holes that started slow for several reasons and wasn't very good.
Anyone who expected a winning record or playoffs this year just grossly miscalculated what was here and doesn't understand the concept of transitioning. It's as simple as that.
Not everything has to be an "excuse" - some of it can just be reality - a reality that some of you guys just don't want to accept because it doesn't fit the narrative where the Giants have become this abhorrent, bottom of the barrel franchise that will never be good again.
But, the Giants are a bottom of the barrel franchise and right now my money is on the team continuing to be bad for a long time.
I am looking for reasons to be optimistic, and for me the HC so far is not a reason to be optimistic.
See, the dramatics are just out of hand now.
We're not a bottom of the barrel franchise. There are teams who haven't even played in a Super Bowl... EVER!
The NFL is cyclical. Basically every single team outside of New England winds up with a competitive window, and then they need to build it back up when their players become too expensive, players leave, get hurt, etc.
The Giants are in a lull and suck right now. This needs more than one year and always did. I don't know what to tell you guys if that's all you're willing to give it before throwing up your arms and deciding we're already sunk.
Right now, in this league, for a long time, teams WANT to see the Giants on the schedule. They suck.
I have heard many times ownership considers meaningful games in late December to be a baseline for a hood season.
The Giants season this year and last year was over before Halloween. That is even generous. The team sucks. Badly. Many blame Eli, likely the team would be even worse without him. Certainly many Giant QB'S would have been injured with these teams at the very least.
The Giants have no physical identity. They have no defensive identity. I am not saying the Giants are historically bad, but they suck right now. Hard.
As stated on this thread, but they were 6th worst out of 32 and it was the passing game carrying the mail in some of those second half wins. The team also has a HC who has no track record of success.
That said, nothing would make me happier than a 12 win 2019 with s bye week. I will settle for meaningful games in Dec.
He'll be gone soon. They won't get to .500 this year, and then 2020 will be about whether Mara is feeling charitable and wants to give him another shot.
This organization desperately needs an outside party to run a diagnostic analysis on how an NFL front office, scouting department, and coaching staff are run in the 21st century.
He needs to get better in-game. But again, the opinions being stated as fact here - he will be gone, we'll suck next year, etc... we haven't even had the draft or FA period yet. I have no idea how you express yourself with such certainty on the subject when so many important pieces of the equation aren't even in place.
Hell, we don't even know for sure who is going to be under center. I'd bet Eli... but nothing is set in stone.
Until I see who we draft, who we sign, what we're looking like this summer, it'd be pointless for me to predict anything. I really have no idea what next season will hold for us. But I'm not going to write it off before it starts. If that's how you're going to approach this, by all means. It's just not my M.O.
You've already decided we won't get to .500 this year and that Shurmur will be gone.
A lot of certainty while lacking key details...
If we go through the draft and free agency and you decide you don't like what they've done, haven't improved the talent base enough for the record to improve in kind, that's fair.
On February 8th? I don't know. It seems like you're really just using your frustration as a basis for this prediction and not much else.
The excuses run out in 2019. Talk to me then. I didn’t love the hire and I didn’t love shurmur’s first year but he gets another year to make things work. I do think we can do worse and I’d like to let shurmur work with a young qb, I also like his offensive background... let’s see what happens. Hopefully the team is so good in 2019 we don’t even need shurmur to be a great game manager.... ok that’s ridiculous.
He seems like he could be a day two flyer with a lot more value than Webb or Lauletta, but I didn't watch enough college football to get a read on him.
Personally like Haskins or Lock but think Haskins is the safer pick. Not as high on Jones I dont see the same ability to read a defense that I do in Haskins or even Lock. Arm strength is a little more questionable as well.
My fave scenario though maybe just a rumor with no legs, would be Cards trading us Rosen for the #6 pick if Murray blows up the combine. Rosen is the best of the bunch and should have a Goff like rise with better talent and coaching from his rookie year.
It probably makes more sense to release him and start a rookie right away, but that's not how they will operate.
If the season goes decently, some of the stronger Eli backers would probably advocate for him to continue in 2020, but that would probably not be wise, as very few QBs put up great seasons past age 38.
I can almost see the Chargers getting burned pretty hard when they extend Rivers after next season.
arcarsenal : 12:46 pm : link : reply
The problem is that context is rarely provided. We live in a world here where everyone can find every reason under the sun to discredit the games we won, but we operate under the assumption that everyone else's wins were more credible, against teams at full strength, at times where they were playing their best, etc.
It's a disingenuous way of minimizing the Giants.
Whenever we have these discussions, we're the only ones with half our wins asterisked while all of these other brilliant teams are apparently winning in much more convincing ways.
The way other teams are looked at is amusing. Remember how Jax was going to light the world on fire this year?
when presented with the fact that San Diego and Rivers had missed the playoffs 7 out of 8 years were we told it is because of the tough division and injuries and Rivers having a MVP-like season supposedly validated that take.
I had been warning people about the Ravens after Go Terps made it sound like Jackson single-handedly saved their season and succeeded where Flacco couldn't have possibly - yet they beat some of the worst defenses in the league - Tampa, Oakland, Cincy, Atlanta and Cleveland.
But I'm told those takes are rational and we are the ones clinging to false hope....
Nevertheless, Rivers is my number one candidate for falling off hard in the next two years
Phillip Rivers had two seasons with 5 or less wins.
It's just more looking at the rest of the teams through a different lens.
You know what still cracks me up? The Panthers in the entire history have never had back-to-back winning seasons.
But Cam was doing things nobody else was....
No, it would be the opposite - the worst scenario.
You see, Jints Central, the romantics that they are, would undoubtedly succumb to their emotions and bring back Eli for another tour. And that is the last thing this team would need...
That's why the cord needs to cut this year; and the transition can finally begin. Alas, one year too late.
Phillip Rivers had two seasons with 5 or less wins.
It's just more looking at the rest of the teams through a different lens.
You know what still cracks me up? The Panthers in the entire history have never had back-to-back winning seasons.
But Cam was doing things nobody else was....
Have people really said that franchise QBs don't have 5 win seasons? Or did they say that if you're paying franchise QB money to win 5 games, then you're overpaying your QB? I'm not doubting that someone has said the former - on BBI, every opinion comes up at some point or another, after all - but I don't think it's been some common refrain. I think the latter is a more frequent position taken by posters.
Using some form of whataboutism doesn't change the fact that Eli's cap number is somewhat incongruous with the team's results, IMO. That doesn't even factor for the ~.500 career W/L record that Eli will likely have after 2019. And obviously he'll also have 2 Lombardis and 2 SB MVPs, so I'm not trying to say that his career hasn't been worth it for the Giants (or us, as fans) on balance. But the past couple of years are the ones that have dragged that record down dramatically, and those are the ones that I think fans are right to question whether it's worth it to carry an older, declining QB with a relatively large cap number on a crappy team, especially if it delays the inevitability of finding his successor and/or reinforces the notion that ownership has a sentimental bent that runs counter to efficient roster construction.
As for looking at other teams through a different lens, why does that surprise you? Here's the different lens I look through when I consider what those other QBs are or aren't: I don't really care about those teams one way or the other, so I'm not particularly concerned with whether they're using their cap space or building their roster optimally in the same way that I am when it comes to the Giants.
But running a team means you have to make tough decisions on whether or not to cut bait with those QB's or not. The saints had a couple down years after Brees earned his contract, but it would've been a bad move to go away from him, yet it is almost taken as fact that eli is done and is the albatross keeping the team down.
We at least got those 2 SB wins. We could be the Lions who have gotten nothing and have an expensive QB. We could be the Vikings, Redskins, Bengals or Dolphins. Heck we could be the Falcons who have a SB appearance, but no wins. at least the Ravens got a SB with Flacco.
I'm tired of fans seeing a team that has had a poor OL, terrible LB's and lack of depth at DB for years and take the stance that if we just had a different QB. we'd be fine.
I believe that is part of the reason why people state as fact that Eli Manning is done and has been for many years while they don't take that same view with peers who have accomplished much less and still have teams that struggle.
Not everybody posts in paragraph form nor expresses every single contributing or related factor as to why the team has struggled over the recent past.
If you feel the QB gets too much blame (or conversely too much credit at times) by fans, then welcome to life in the NFL...
If one were to scan BBI, they'd probably come to the conclusion that Eli is the reason the team sucks, not drafting his successor last year doomed us to a poor record, and we'll never win again until he's gone.
If they have another good offseason this team should win about 9 games next season give or take. That is the natural and organic progression to expect.
A situation as bereft of talent and roster depth as ours was affords no quick fixes. That is where we were when DG and PS took the reins. By no means do I think they got every decision right. I didn't like the Stewart signing...and he's gone. I didn't have any faith Flowers would play well at any position...and he's gone. I didn't like trading Jones and playing Halapio...who played poorly. That said I do believe they got more right than wrong. I do believe the team played hard for the coach. The Draft barring Lauletta was very good.
So now we enter Phase 2 and watch and wait to see how the braintrust builds on what was a poor record but had some signs of growth and improvement.
I think you are astute enough to concern yourself with opinions that you feel matter versus others, so move along if it bothers you. If you don't simply want to, then so be it.
But then that's on you...
I think you are astute enough to concern yourself with opinions that you feel matter versus others, so move along if it bothers you. If you don't simply want to, then so be it.
But then that's on you...
The irony is that every “Eli apologist” to a man, has agreed with you that it’s time to move on from Eli in the near future and is fine with planning for the future without him. It’s you and posters like you that make it a black or white issue by smearing him, discounting, or heaping the failure of the organization at his feet. You create the very backlash that you rail against and have zero self awareness to realize it.
If you can't see that in what I post...then you continue to be blinded as ever...
If one were to scan BBI, they'd probably come to the conclusion that Eli is the reason the team sucks, not drafting his successor last year doomed us to a poor record, and we'll never win again until he's gone.
Apologies in advance for the long post...
Where I agree with you is that there absolutely is a fundamental divide regarding Eli, but I don't know if it's completely binary in the way that you describe. I know that speaking for myself, I believe that it is far more likely that a 38 year old athlete (in any sport, at any position) will get worse going forward than it is that he'll improve. It logically follows then, for me anyway, that with each passing year, Eli will get worse than he was the season prior.
And while I'm fully aware of the other weaknesses of the roster, particularly the fact that certain elements of the team are contributing factors to the circumstances which are most responsible for exposing Eli's inherent flaws, I believe that we have reached the point in Eli's decline phase where the way that the roster would need to be built in order for him to be successful requires significant investment of resources (draft picks and/or cap dollars) while Eli himself is also occupying some of those resources with his own contract. Furthermore, I believe that the supporting cast that many fans want to see the Giants provide Eli with is essentially the same type of supporting cast that a savvy team would surround a young QB with.
So where that takes me is to ask whether, for any reason other than gratitude and sentimentality, it makes sense to continue to commit a large chunk of the cap to a QB who I believe is in some level of decline, when the path to success with that QB is the same as the path to success with a younger, cost-controlled QB. For me, the answer is no - it doesn't make sense.
I understand those fans that are wary of the process of searching for Eli's successor. I'm aware of the likelihood that the Giants will fail in their efforts to find that successor before they succeed in that endeavor. But it's inevitable that they will indeed need to find his successor at some point. Delaying it doesn't eliminate that.
People love to throw around the "QB hell" term, but if you're taking Gettleman's definition of it - that QB hell is having a QB that isn't good enough to win it all, but is good enough to win enough games that it hinders your ability to find the next QB that CAN win it all - why is that condition limited to young QBs? Why can't you be in QB hell with an aging QB who, with the right pieces around him, is just good enough to interfere with being in position to find his own successor?
And therein lies the fundamental divide, right? Because ultimately it comes down to whether or not you believe that the Giants can win the whole thing anymore with Eli under center. If you do believe they can, then that whole long post above is irrelevant to you. But if you don't think it's possible, or just that it's incredibly remote, whatever, then it's worth questioning, isn't it?
That's my view on it. And I've been vocal in my arguments with those who are ardent supporters of Eli, and I'm trying to do a better job of understanding their position even though I disagree with it. But ultimately, what it boils down to for me is that if we need to put faith in Gettleman to build the right roster for Eli to succeed, why not apply that same faith to building the roster for Eli's successor instead, except armed with more cap room that had previously been occupied by Eli's contract?
You are stuck in neutral with that mindset and going nowhere..
It's not only blind it amusing...
17 mil of cap matters. That can be used to sign players who will be here when we are ready to compete. I'd rather have Landon Collins on the roster than Eli at this point. And it doesn't all have to be spent this year. You can vary cap over.
And please spare me how much a vet stop gap will cost.
Quote:
If the team around him is getting better? That is where you are blind.
17 mil of cap matters. That can be used to sign players who will be here when we are ready to compete. I'd rather have Landon Collins on the roster than Eli at this point. And it doesn't all have to be spent this year. You can vary cap over.
And please spare me how much a vet stop gap will cost.
So... who you signing that's better? I am not particularly enamored of this years draft crop, though if the Giants brass think a guy is worth one of the picks, have at it, I'm happy to support it. And I don't see any FAs that are any better. So people can rail all they want against it but it's likely he is the best option for next season. And frankly, with the opinions people have of him I see here? I hope we sign some good defensive players, the line gels more and the offense is more comfortable and that Eli kicks ass just to shut all the Eli complaining up already... lol
Tyrod Taylor just came off of a 2 year $30 million deal with half guaranteed, and he sucks. So who are we getting for cheaper than that while also absorbing Eli’s dead cap?
Agree with you.
Except you need to realize Eli is a stop gap as well for all extensive purposes so...
And I am okay potentially trying out another seat warmer even if it might be riskier from a win/loss perspective, especially if we plan to aggressively pursue a QB in this draft.
And I think there something to spreading the cap money differently.
And by the way...this team needs to move onto its next phase and next generation of players.
Imv...
Knowing the offense and players has value.
No stop gap that comes in for ballpark pay has any of that.
In terms of personnel, cutting Eli should be at the top of the priority list. Just behind him should be cutting Vernon, Jenkins, and Ogeltree. Cutting those four underperforming contacts would add $41M in cap space. That would get the Giants up to $69M in cap space, and allow them a better opportunity to rethink how they want to approach their cap allocation philosophy.
Not a very productive plan, IMO. I’m fine cutting any or all of them but there’s a lot of missing info there. And if you are cutting all 4 you run to risk of punting the season which may be what you want but it isn’t how business is generally ran.
Perhaps... but a lot of these guys in there now were kids when Manning hit Tyree in SB 42. They watched it on tv just like we did. Now they’re playing with the guy. Then teens in 2011. Watching on tv and dreaming... You don’t think that carries weight?
Quote:
but you are reaching as to his influence in the lockerroom. You know he’s not...hence the moronic move to bring Stewart in here.
Perhaps... but a lot of these guys in there now were kids when Manning hit Tyree in SB 42. They watched it on tv just like we did. Now they’re playing with the guy. Then teens in 2011. Watching on tv and dreaming... You don’t think that carries weight?
I know you won’t agree. But that... right there. This is why you are so biased...you simply cannot let go.
Lord...
Not a very productive plan, IMO. I’m fine cutting any or all of them but there’s a lot of missing info there. And if you are cutting all 4 you run to risk of punting the season which may be what you want but it isn’t how business is generally ran.
Dead cap is $26M. I'm accessing Spotrac on my phone though, so I may be missing something. That's a sunk cost though...the cost of past mistakes. But better to cut bait now than to continue overpaying these four mistakes.
With that much cap space you could sign plenty of second and third tier FAs to support the draft picks and provide depth, especially along both lines. And by avoiding the premium FA market you minimize dead money later because you aren't giving out huge deals to begin with. I think your better off signing more cheaper FAs than a couple expensive FAs.
Talk about a broken freaking record.
Many fans don’t think that. The result is the same, but they are selling playoffs. But no longer selling playoffs you have to deal with what that brings. To me I’m game, doesn’t matter if we suck again, but the giants don’t care about me since I don’t go to games.
Not sure how the Giants are supposed to improve if our plan is to keep cutting loose any guy on the defensive side of the ball who is remotely decent.
Yeah, Vernon's contract sucks. But I'd consider hanging onto him for one more year. I don't think Jenkins' is terrible. He was better later in the year and we are starved for DB depth. Getting rid of these guys will make it so that there are more holes than we have assets again and the team will certainly suck.
Will it be okay that we suck next year if we do that? Or will you guys then lobby for the coach and GM to be fired because of another sunk season?
I can't figure out if people want to win now, or play a long-game where we spend a couple of years building back up with the assumption that it will take some time. It seems like some of these strategies are spitting in the face of one another.
Talk about a broken freaking record.
Hey, its Mr. doesn’t matter...
Isn't waiting until the team is better before addressing QB basically walking ourselves right into Gettleman's definition of QB hell? Isn't that precisely how you end up in a perpetual state of 8-8?
It’s a very tough spot.
Not sure how the Giants are supposed to improve if our plan is to keep cutting loose any guy on the defensive side of the ball who is remotely decent.
Yeah, Vernon's contract sucks. But I'd consider hanging onto him for one more year. I don't think Jenkins' is terrible. He was better later in the year and we are starved for DB depth. Getting rid of these guys will make it so that there are more holes than we have assets again and the team will certainly suck.
Will it be okay that we suck next year if we do that? Or will you guys then lobby for the coach and GM to be fired because of another sunk season?
I can't figure out if people want to win now, or play a long-game where we spend a couple of years building back up with the assumption that it will take some time. It seems like some of these strategies are spitting in the face of one another.
If Gettleman made these moves he'd absolutely get more slack from me. But he hasn't. He doubled down by paying Beckham and Solder, and one year in those both look like stupid contracts.
Better start winning.
It’s a very tough spot.
Morale was great last year and they won 5 games.
Populate this roster with cheap players hungry to get paid, and see how much their morale is impacted because a dipshit "leader" like Jackrabbit isn't there anymore.
It’s a very tough spot.
I've made similar points many times. It's a hard sell to players to basically tell them you're giving up on your next campaign before it starts.
For a guy like Barkley, I think that sucks. You enter your 2nd NFL season and your team basically says they aren't interested in trying to win yet because they want to clear cap space for later.
That doesn't mean we should make short-sighted moves, but I don't think we need to punt an entire season to get better.
Obviously the Vernon contract hasn't panned out and he's overpaid - but he's not an awful player. He's just being paid like a great one and isn't a great one.
While we're trying to incorporate more defensive talent, I think it's not the worst idea to keep him for one more season, and then cut him in 2020 when the dead cap hit is halved and we save 15M.
I would keep Jenkins too. We don't know what Beal is yet and we have virtually nothing behind him. Apple was traded.
If people want to see an even worse defense than last year, then sure - let's get rid of all these guys. But then don't blame the coach that the team isn't winning games if you keep taking good players away from him or expect the team to get any better until we can infuse more talent.
And while that’s being somewhat sarcastic...it’s not all sarcastic.
I don't think you build a team based on how players feel, but if you think players are going to be okay with their franchise effectively telling them that they don't care to try and win games before a season starts, I'm not sure what to tell you - they won't be okay with it. Barkley won't be okay with it, Beckham won't be okay with it... and they shouldn't be. They're competitors and they want to win. If their superiors are sending the message to them that they don't, things will get ugly quickly.
Then what - just get rid of everyone who isn't on board and go into the season with 15 players?
It will create all sorts of distrust, grumbling, and players wanting to get out of here.
I cannot emphasize that enough.
What some of you guys want are things that teams just don't do. It's not Madden.
Which would u try to get players to subscribe to?
You realize your opinion isn’t fact, right? I’m not suggesting making personnel moves to appease players. I’m suggesting that purposely putting a weaker roster on the field won’t sit well with the players and much of the fan base.
Separating your personal opinion is necessary for this kind of conversation.
These guys shouldn't be happy. And if they're too stupid to understand that a 5-11 record is going to cost people their jobs, that's on them.
Beckham especially... Why should we care if he's happy? He's done nothing here but lose, and hasn't had a big season in two years. If he's unhappy he should take a look at his bank statements and be happy his boss was stupid enough to pay him.
Which would u try to get players to subscribe to?
Players know they can have very short careers. None of them want to be told to hang tight while a team wastes valuable years of their prime "fixing the team" and not trying to win.
If the Giants go with a plan where they deliberately eliminate most of the remaining talent on the roster in the name of cap space, I can promise you it will not sit well in the locker room and we'll have another 2017 where the product on the field is awful and everyone is grumbling and unhappy behind the scenes.
If your goal is for the Giants to become an even bigger mess - that's a good way to do it.
We can build from here. We don't need to tear more down and take another step back first.
No, you don't get it. The roster is weak in huge part because these guys are on it. Eli, Vernon, Jenkins, Ogeltree...they hurt the team in that they both underperforming and prevent the team from adding other players.
So I won’t...
Quote:
it’s cool, don’t feel like arguing about it.
No, you don't get it. The roster is weak in huge part because these guys are on it. Eli, Vernon, Jenkins, Ogeltree...they hurt the team in that they both underperforming and prevent the team from adding other players.
Yeah I’m not arguing that, but carry on.
So I won’t...
Thanks for yet another tremendous display of football acumen.
At least you got your ellipses in there!
That’s what you tell folks...
Quote:
In comment 14291382 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
it’s cool, don’t feel like arguing about it.
No, you don't get it. The roster is weak in huge part because these guys are on it. Eli, Vernon, Jenkins, Ogeltree...they hurt the team in that they both underperforming and prevent the team from adding other players.
Yeah I’m not arguing that, but carry on.
We'll explain it to me, because I'm reading this like you're saying we maybe shouldn't cut our bad contracts because it could upset the locker room. Do I have that right, at least? Because if I do, I feel like I'm losing my mind. What's the worst the unhappy locker room can do, play like shit and go 5-11? They already did that.
And arc being concerned about upsetting Beckham is hilarious a year after we paid him on the held of a season lost to injury. The guy's legacy to date is a boat trip, and the front office is supposed to consider his feelings on personnel moves? A year after they paid him and he then motherfucked them on TV?
It's no wonder this team is a mess. This is the culture of the team.
But we sat out a draft on the level of 83 or 04? That is based on absolutely nothing so far.
Meanwhile if our guy strings together a bunch of seasons like his Rollie year all he’ll do is go to the HOF.
Barkley may go to the HOF, but the Giants aren't winning anything without a front line quarterback. And with a front line qb, they can win with any half decent RB. I would have taken Allen over Barkley and I still think Allen was the better choice. The next 4-5 years will tell.
That's Beckham's legacy?? Not the record setting start to his career?
Let me guess, Randy Moss's legacy is smashing a cop onto the hood of a car?
But since we're on Beckham as usual... he signed here because he wants to win here. He's said it a billion times.
He didn't sign this contract so that the Giants could punt away the prime of his career.
The Giants can improve without needing to gut every single remaining bit of talent that wasn't just drafted in 2018.
Quote:
to some on BBI and yet pre-draft most here didn’t want to touch 2 of those guys with a ten foot pole (Allen and Jackson), the other guy went before our pick and is a totally moot point (Mayfield) and the other two guys were thoroughly mediocre and/or missed time due to injury and can be firmly placed in the “We’ll see” category at this point.
But we sat out a draft on the level of 83 or 04? That is based on absolutely nothing so far.
Meanwhile if our guy strings together a bunch of seasons like his Rollie year all he’ll do is go to the HOF.
Barkley may go to the HOF, but the Giants aren't winning anything without a front line quarterback. And with a front line qb, they can win with any half decent RB. I would have taken Allen over Barkley and I still think Allen was the better choice. The next 4-5 years will tell.
Thank god you're not the GM - I've heard you spout this moronic take about 10 different times now.
Josh Allen sucks.
Thank god you're not the GM - I've heard you spout this moronic take about 10 different times now.
Josh Allen sucks.
I agree 100% with you on Allen. Poor Bills. :>(
The good teams know you can't protect yourself against all the variables.
What you can do is invest wisely, prioritize, and be aggressively self aware.
The single factor between Ernie Accorsi being the butt of a hair joke and the elder statesman of NFL management was understanding the window had closed for the 2000 Super Bowl team.
It wasn't so much picking Manning. It was not picking Robert Gallery. He didn't cling to the fleeting hope he could squeeze something out of something that was gone. Collins 31 mind you.
The Giants incontrovertibly haven't invested their cap wisely (~60% in 6 players), haven't succeeded in building a pipeline of depth, and to this point been wise enough to build around a new focal point at QB.
QB is an outsized factor on a team by design. Maybe more than the head coach and GM, an NFL team is who their QB is.
Accorsi knew this, and it made all the difference. Maybe the Giants can eek out a playoff appearance with what Manning has left.
But does anyone see a championship?
Tyrod Taylor just came off of a 2 year $30 million deal with half guaranteed, and he sucks. So who are we getting for cheaper than that while also absorbing Eli’s dead cap?
Fitz, schaubb or mccown
Quote:
but you can’t ignore what Eli is owed because his dead cap hit + what we’d pay a vet will be and even bigger waste of money.
Tyrod Taylor just came off of a 2 year $30 million deal with half guaranteed, and he sucks. So who are we getting for cheaper than that while also absorbing Eli’s dead cap?
Fitz, schaubb or mccown
Great, going to be funny around here with Fitzmagic throwing picks for $8-10m + Eli’s dead cap. Again, what’s the point?
There’s only 2 ways to do this. Cut Eli and go with a rookie or keep Eli and let the rookie sit. Eli’s dead cap makes another “stopgap” even more costly.
QB is an outsized factor on a team by design. Maybe more than the head coach and GM, an NFL team is who their QB is.
Accorsi knew this, and it made all the difference. Maybe the Giants can eek out a playoff appearance with what Manning has left.
But does anyone see a championship?
Exactly. This is the right question to ask. It’s something I’ve said repeatedly - if you can’t build a rational case to win a SB with Eli, at this age and point in his career, there is simply no reason to keep him.
Keeping him wastes time for the team and the next QB to develop with each other.
And short of renegotiating a too-good-to-be true cap friendly contract with Eli, his cap savings are material and important to reinvest in other players/positions.
They won't answer the question can you see a championship with Eli...they will just say who else you gonna get?
Who cares, the whole point of signing him is to move on to a young guy.
That a good enough answer for you?
It just means keep him there until his replacement is found, and if we manage to win in the meantime, then great.
There is no way they buy into the idea of a total rebuild which seems to be what some are suggesting
And it makes sense. Even if you lunatics don't see it, understand it, or want it.
If it results in another loosing season it will be a poor choice.
In terms of personnel, cutting Eli should be at the top of the priority list. Just behind him should be cutting Vernon, Jenkins, and Ogeltree. Cutting those four underperforming contacts would add $41M in cap space. That would get the Giants up to $69M in cap space, and allow them a better opportunity to rethink how they want to approach their cap allocation philosophy.
Meanwhile, there is the minor issue of what do you do under center with the Cap Space Uber Alles plan. Forget for a minute the potential issue of the effect on other players of a public demonstration that the team is punting the season. 7-20 million of that cap space is going to spent on a stopgap while waiting for . . . Lauletta??
I get it; we need to have a plan to move on. I don't think generating cap space for the sake of cap space is it.
That a good enough answer for you?
No, because you’re not rational. Which was the key point of my comment.
You are the Ambassador of Eli.
I think we're at a point where the window is closing on him too quickly for us to have enough time to give him the team he needs. So, we're kind of chasing something I don't think we'll ever be able to catch in that regard.
Hey, I'd take Haskins right now. That's the guy I want to be the next QB here. But I can also see a scenario where there's a much better non-QB prospect on the board @ 6. Williams almost certainly will not be there - but if for some reason he were - I'd pass on the QB's and take him (Haskins would likely have been taken already under that scenario anyway)
If it turns out that we go ER/DL or even OL instead of QB, then I'm not against using Eli as a stopgap for one more year and then just letting him walk and retire in 2020 and going after a QB in that draft. Ideally Tua.
Cutting Eli + paying a veteran doesn't really do anything for me if we're going with anything other than a rookie. What would the point be?
No he wasn't. Did they drop all his passes in the second half as well?
We had a chance to step on them right away - we came out of the gates quickly. But the drops stymied the offense, kept points off the board, and then ultimately just never allowed us to get on track.
There was a glimmer of hope after Eli hit TK on the deep post TD, but the defense that was suffocating and frustrating Rodgers early couldn't hold and the dam broke.
But at this point, what good does it do to re-hash a playoff game from 2 years ago? If we get back, it'll have been 3 years since then. It's basically ancient history as far as the NFL is concerned.
And it makes sense. Even if you lunatics don't see it, understand it, or want it.
Here we go again...yes, they may do it but that doesn't comport to its the right path.
But if that helps you remind everybody that you are a good predictor of poor decisions then so be it.
Might as well sticky this thread. We will need it 12 months from now when nothing has changed...
We had a chance to step on them right away - we came out of the gates quickly. But the drops stymied the offense, kept points off the board, and then ultimately just never allowed us to get on track.
There was a glimmer of hope after Eli hit TK on the deep post TD, but the defense that was suffocating and frustrating Rodgers early couldn't hold and the dam broke.
But at this point, what good does it do to re-hash a playoff game from 2 years ago? If we get back, it'll have been 3 years since then. It's basically ancient history as far as the NFL is concerned.
Yep, they kept scoring and our guys stopped. It was a sound beating over 60 minutes b/c thats how long games last. No matter if their were drops in 1stQTR. He wasn't good enough and they weren't good enough.
Was it the reason we lost? No. Did it play a big factor? Absolutely.
Not sure how that's even debatable.
Momentum and game flow are real and those drops certainly impacted both.
What's the you guys stuff? Did someime hack your account and make all those posts under your username?
Moving on from this historical period of the team that has no relevance whatsoever on this thread.
Except of course for a few to cling on to memories of yesteryear when our HOF QB threw a few good passes that were dropped.
Moving on from this historical period of the team that has no relevance whatsoever on this thread.
Except of course for a few to cling on to memories of yesteryear when our HOF QB threw a few good passes that were dropped.
The hail mary changed the game.
And it makes sense. Even if you lunatics don't see it, understand it, or want it.
Britt, you guessing the Giants will make the loyal, arguably counter productive, decision around Manning is about as impressive as predicting when the clock will strike midnight.
And me guessing Manning will get beat like a bag for half the season as 3/5 of the line gets it together and Manning has zero mobility is equally unimpressive.
If you think there is any comparison to draw between 2016 Manning and the New York Giants 2016 roster -- and today -- that's a pretty good stretch.
"Why not" isn't a faith deepening strategy to run a business.
Riveting stuff...
Pitchers and catchers report this week I think...
Pitchers and catchers report this week I think...
Absolutely! Can’t wait. They’re my one team that actually gives me some hope
Moving on from this historical period of the team that has no relevance whatsoever on this thread.
Except of course for a few to cling on to memories of yesteryear when our HOF QB threw a few good passes that were dropped.
Of course you want to move on, you’re argument sucks. For as much as you give Britt shit you are so far on the other extreme and just as bad.
And I’m not clinging at all to 2016, simply correcting the absurd take that not scoring more points in the 1st half has no impact on the 2nd half. Just awful.
Quote:
in the second half. It was a joke at some point and we were beaten by a much better team.
Moving on from this historical period of the team that has no relevance whatsoever on this thread.
Except of course for a few to cling on to memories of yesteryear when our HOF QB threw a few good passes that were dropped.
Of course you want to move on, you’re argument sucks. For as much as you give Britt shit you are so far on the other extreme and just as bad.
And I’m not clinging at all to 2016, simply correcting the absurd take that not scoring more points in the 1st half has no impact on the 2nd half. Just awful.
the post wasnt to you. Nor is my argument what you are screaming about.
The comment was Eli was good enough to beat GB...and he wasn't. The Giants had drops that caused TDs to be FGs..got it...I am briefed. But they also had 3 more qtrs to make up for it and did nothing on Offense and Defense. That is why they lost. They lost to a team that was better all-around including at QB.
If you want to hypothesize some "lost ring" because of two dropped passes early in this outing or that Eli didn't have time to make up for it or even score a point in the 4thQTR then you are on drugs. Was every single play in the game directly impacted back to these dropped passes? They lost 38-13 and the offense did about what they normally did back then, not score much.
Huh..what is your problem now? How is he throwing back-breaking ints when he hasnt played a game that mattered in years? You are living in 2011...wake up.
They won't answer the question can you see a championship with Eli...they will just say who else you gonna get?
Holy crap why do you guys take this so personally? If people want to be enamored of Eli still (I am STILL), what does it mean to you? I mean really I don't understand these back and forth arguments that he sucks and he's done. At the end of the day he is at the end of his career. Some of us still think he is good enough in a 2-3 year window, especially if the offense keeps growing and he gets protected. And it's not like there is not good evidence to argue that fact. I and others think he is still good enough. I and others don't see any better option for next year. Why can't we just agree to disagree? lol
It doesn't matter how sure we are that we're right, we could (ALL of us here) actually be wrong.
Now he's taking to calling other posters shit stains for disagreeing with him.
But he's not emotional at all.
awful...
Quote:
In comment 14291547 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
in the second half. It was a joke at some point and we were beaten by a much better team.
Moving on from this historical period of the team that has no relevance whatsoever on this thread.
Except of course for a few to cling on to memories of yesteryear when our HOF QB threw a few good passes that were dropped.
Of course you want to move on, you’re argument sucks. For as much as you give Britt shit you are so far on the other extreme and just as bad.
And I’m not clinging at all to 2016, simply correcting the absurd take that not scoring more points in the 1st half has no impact on the 2nd half. Just awful.
the post wasnt to you. Nor is my argument what you are screaming about.
The comment was Eli was good enough to beat GB...and he wasn't. The Giants had drops that caused TDs to be FGs..got it...I am briefed. But they also had 3 more qtrs to make up for it and did nothing on Offense and Defense. That is why they lost. They lost to a team that was better all-around including at QB.
If you want to hypothesize some "lost ring" because of two dropped passes early in this outing or that Eli didn't have time to make up for it or even score a point in the 4thQTR then you are on drugs. Was every single play in the game directly impacted back to these dropped passes? They lost 38-13 and the offense did about what they normally did back then, not score much.
Actually, no - GB was not "better all around"
The Giants defense was better in 2016 and it wasn't even that close. GB had a bottom 3rd unit and ours was top 5. Unless we're going to move the goalposts to make it just about the one game and ignore everything else.
And no one is hypothesizing a "lost ring" - please don't complain about arguments that go nowhere if you're going to constantly use straw men and sarcasm as an argumentative tactic. It's transparent garbage.
They had nice momentum in second half of the season but when a real QB like Rodgers was facing them...they were exposed.
But hey lets focus on what matters...
That's an interesting POV, especially since Lauletta wasn't on the team until six months after McAdoo was fired.
Quote:
this: If McAdoo wasn't such an assclown we'd have found out what Lalitta could do & maybe this would've not be an issue of taking in the 1st rd.
That's an interesting POV, especially since Lauletta wasn't on the team until six months after McAdoo was fired.
He means Lalitta. The QB on the practice squad from Gupton-Jones College of Funeral Service.
Usually you know our roster very well... ;)