year rebuild. I'm surprised at the almost unanimous vitriol the team is getting as they try to completely rework the franchise.
We say we wouldn't trade OBJ unless we got two #1s, and we got a #1, a young former #1 coming into his own who plays a position of need, plus a 3rd rounder. But it's not enough.
We have been pissed at Reese for years because he didn't do a good job of addressing the OL, but rip DG for landing Solder (albeit at an "overpay") and Zeitler for a guy we were going to release.
We were furious with DG for trading Snacks for a 5th and Apple for a 4th, saying that the return sucked. I'm gonna suggest that if they'd have traded Collins for a 3rd at the same time we'd have all been in an uproar. But now, having perhaps gotten a sense of the new price of a contract for a Safety (and I'd like to ask BBI which of us thought Safeties would get 14M a year) and knowing that Collins would hold out until the season if he was franchised, we're furious at DG for not having traded him last year. Perhaps they weren't so sure he wasn't part of the future back then, but seeing his awful coverage this year (different from his best season) they realized they weren't going to commit to him long term. But hindsight is a beautiful thing.
We are in the midst of that 2-3 year rebuild. DG is tearing down the team and unloading high priced players who either weren't living up to their salaries or were headaches and destructive to the team's culture. We have 12 picks this year. I'm going to bet that we'll have extra picks again next year. We'll also have a huge amount of cap space to make FA acquisitions then, when the team is hopefully closer to contending.
I understand the anger and frustration about losing OBJ because he's a special player, one of the few guys who brought excitement in recent years. But I think most of us are overreacting and losing perspective.
Have at me.
The disappointment comes from the fact that we've seen a number of franchise-type players have their careers end here prematurely...either from injury, bad attitude, bad luck, etc....Shockey, Cruz, Nicks, Plax, Beckham, etc. Disappointed that we didn't start the rebuilding process last year and acquire even more draft picks. Disappointed we didn't get a bit more for Beckham.
But I am very curious to see how this all plays out. They have a super-stud in Barkley. They have the makings of a decent line with two fine guards. They just need Solder to play better and find a right tackle. They've got to get 1-2 legit WRs however.
I think they will go heavy on the defense in the draft.
Where I have a real issue is that the notion of a 2-3 year re-build is what some (I honestly don't know if it is most or some) fans said. But, management did not. The moves last year (Omameh, for example) didn't work, but I think the expectation was a much better team. Trading Beckham now all but resigns us to more of a re-build. While I agree with you that Barkley is a super stud, we will have wasted 2-3 (more?) of the start of his career because the rest of the team will suck. Now, I still wouldn't have taken any of those QBs over him. But, I was hoping and expecting a better team last year and moving forward. Having to break down this team further puts us at risk of having another Barry Sanders here.
DG is slowly turning this ocean liner around. I see what he is doing, I like what he is doing, and I think he's making some real progress with changing the culture, and with improving the OL, the running game, and special teams. This year it's finish the OL and start on the defense. Of course, the biggest test is yet to come - Eli's replacement. But that's next year's job.
DG is slowly turning this ocean liner around. I see what he is doing, I like what he is doing, and I think he's making some real progress with changing the culture, and with improving the OL, the running game, and special teams. This year it's finish the OL and start on the defense. Of course, the biggest test is yet to come - Eli's replacement. But that's next year's job.
Two, maybe 3 years to fix the OL, then he just needs linebackers, cornerbacks, WR (they're not paying Shepard), safeties, and RB if they don't pay Saquon. I'm really psyched for the completed rebuild in 2024.
You can overhaul an aircraft carrier in 4 years, but apparent rebuilding a football team demands a 4 year window.
Quote:
A lot of stats and numbers can be moved around to frame a POV better - i.e.. Marshawn Lynch had the 3rd largest cap hit on the team when the Seahawks won the SB a few years ago - he wasn't quite @ 10M, he was just under it @ 8.5. So, the cutoffs wind up omitting players that are very close to the threshold.
I've heard many times that paying WR's big money isn't a winning formula, but Alshon Jeffery was eating the largest portion of the Eagles' SB team cap a couple years ago.
Barkley is an asset any way you look at it. Just because he's here now doesn't mean we're married to him for 10 years.
We could get his best 4-5 years, and then use him as a chip to recoup picks, clear salary, and get younger.
Barkley being on the team in and of itself isn't a total roadblock to winning football games - we have to stop painting that picture.
You can either believe the point of view or not. You've provided two examples, Sharp's has provided every example the last five years and shared the results.
Beckham should be a cautionary tale about Barkley...not with any off the field stuff, but if you're going to pay a guy huge money you have to KNOW that the guy you're paying is going to help your team compete for big things. Otherwise it isn't worth it. Just get another guy at a fraction of the price.
I literally just thought of those off the top of my head - I didn't search for them or really try to find many. I can probably think of a few others but that doesn't matter as much.
My point is, I'm not sure why he chose 10M and 3M as his datapoints. Is there a reason for that? Because you can slide those scales a few ticks in either direction and wind up with quite different results.
I also wonder if there's a difference in looking at it from a single player perspective, or a positional spending perspective.
For example, the Patriots actually allocated more cap dollars to the RB position than we did this past season. It's just spread across 3-4 backs - but they did spend a first round pick on Michel, too.
So, they're treating the position as meaningful and spending money on it. They're just not putting 90% of their eggs in one basket like we are with Barkley. Is one better than the other? I don't know - having quality spread over quantity rather than have it more concentrated may or may not be a better strategy.
Like I said - Barkley is a major asset, just because we drafted him doesn't mean we have to sign him to a gigantic 2nd contract.
If he's still playing at a high level, when his rookie deal is nearing its end, I'd re-evaluate where the team is, and if there's a way to recoup quality assets for him, add cap dollars, and get younger at that position, I am fine with that.
Experience has shown again and again that veteran free agency is not the way to rebuild a football team. Really outstanding players rarely hit vet free agency, and it is not cost efficient either.
Rebuilding requires good drafting with a little luck finding a few worthwhile rookie free agents, supplemented by a few good vet fa signings sprinkled in here and there.
I think that DG felt a responsibility to try to win last year, and DID overestimate the team's talent level. I think that he also had a mandate to try to win quickly, and tried to rebuild on the fly while doing so. He certainly turned over a LOT of the roster even before we went into the season. On a positive note, when he was convinced that the team stunk and some of its players were even worse than that, he cut Flowers, made the trades of Snacks and Apple, and he and Shurmur played a ton of kids as the season wore down. Not ideal, I agree, but at least he saw the light.
As for the QBs, I strongly believe that he'd have taken Mayfield if Cleveland had gone Barkley. So it's not that he ignored the QB issue. But even if that's incorrect (some said it would have been Chubb) I feel certain that he didn't feel confident that any of the remaining QBs were franchise QBs. We'll see if he's right, but that doesn't mean he didn't recognize that the team would have to move on from Eli sooner than later, whatever everyone has been saying publicly.
Quote:
I'm just not sold on Haskins... or any of the QBs in this draft. I need to dive deeper first. What scares me about Haskins is the limited sample size and the clips I've seen of him, there is no one around him.
Haskins is less mobile than Eli and the limited exposure he had to pressure didn't look pretty. No thank you.
This isn't true at all. Literally all of it is wrong.
Everyone saying they wanted multiple first rounders for OBJ - we were only getting that if he was traded after 2016. Not off the prior 2 injury riddled years.
Bad against pressure?
I actually completely agree with this. Herbert looked like Josh Allen to me, he has all the talent and ability but doesn’t produce. He was skipping balls off the ground in one of the games I watched him. Fromm doesn’t really do much for me either, he seems like a good kid from that documentary but He just doesn’t impress me much. Tua looks ok, but he seems to have been taking a beating in the few games I watched. I don’t see what is so incredible about him, but I also didn’t watch more than 2 games of his. I am not much of a college football guy but I do have two buddies that are professional scouts and both told me that there is no guarantee next year will be better than this year. On top of that I have known Brian Gaine a long time, he is a Rockland County guy, last I talked to him he really felt the Giants would go QB. Neither of my scout friends wanted to really answer the question as they don’t know what will happen during the season. Matt Barkley went from being a top pick to the third round after he went back.
Is Herbert the only one that is definitely coming out next year? An injury to Fromm or Tua could make a big difference in the draft.
You have to be absolutely positive these QBs won’t pan out this year because if you have the #2 followed by the #6 pick and you keep passing up on QBs you are backing yourself into a corner, wasting years, and money while trying to find someone.
However, I m one of the few that believes for the first time in a while, Giants are on track. The Beckham trade has invigorated me
Unless he pulls something big off, this is unfortunately true in a lot of regards.
Or they could be like the Rams and get lucky at the QB position and become a contender sooner. Not likely, but possible. And I'd argue that we set ourselves back one year, but that we did so in part because we weren't sold on the QBs last year so didn't get to give a rookie QB a year's experience last year. The Ogletree trade didn't hurt us very much, nor did Omameh and the rest. It was not getting the QB. But the jury's out on whether these guys are what some think they are.
Quote:
DG gave no indication of a 2-3 year rebuild......and because he guessed wrong, now let have a 2-3 year rebuild that may take 5 years or more....
Or they could be like the Rams and get lucky at the QB position and become a contender sooner. Not likely, but possible. And I'd argue that we set ourselves back one year, but that we did so in part because we weren't sold on the QBs last year so didn't get to give a rookie QB a year's experience last year. The Ogletree trade didn't hurt us very much, nor did Omameh and the rest. It was not getting the QB. But the jury's out on whether these guys are what some think they are.
The Rams traded up to 1, how’s that lucky?
Ogletree cost us a 3rd which could have been used to get a younger player.
If you like Haskins numbers, the you will really like Davis Webb’s, you know, BBI’s next savior, the guy who was better than all of the 2018 qbs. College stats are meaningless, I would have thought some of you would have learned your lesson by now .
And that's on a team that wasn't very good to begin with.
Then, there's paying Eli Manning $23M for this season. I came across this gem when looking at PFT in the comments section:
I thought it was wrong - but nope, that's how bad they've been.
Gettleman did nothing of note before being chased out the door in Carolina, and his first season here was a mess. A ton of FA money spent on a mediocre LT, the likes of Jonathan Stewart, Connor Barwin, Patrick Omameh (who didn't last the season). Then, he blew a chance at getting something before Collins walked out the door, and finally gave up and gave away Beckham for peanuts.
There's no plan at QB. The roster is still full of holes. The pro and college scouting staff are still the same guys who were running the show when Reese was here.
Coaching? Pat Shurmur took an awful lifetime coaching record and made it worse.
The upside is what, that they have a lot of picks? Plenty of cap space? The Gang That Can't Shoot Straight is suddenly going to turn this around because they monetized a few good players and turned them into prospects? Good luck.
The NFL doesn't need long term rebuilds. They could have come out of this in 2 years ready to compete, with the likes of Beckham, Barkley, Collins and a few additions, both in FA and the draft. Instead, we've had this half-assed 'build the plane while flying it' approach to a rebuild, which is neither a rebuild nor a shot at a competitive season.
It's a fucking bleak outlook, but it is what it is.
When Marshawn was making that salary Russell Wilson was making under $1M. You just made my point again. The point is there isn't an example of even one of the best RBs winning without a cheap QB. If you want to take your time and think about it go ahead. Doesn't need to be off the top of your head.
You used Jeffrey. That's actually the point that I made in my thread there is precedent for high priced receivers winning a SB. So that isn't a counter example.
What I actually did on that thread is kind of the opposite of cherry picking. I made an exhaustive list of the top running backs. There isn't one example of a talented running back especially that went high in the draft top 10, which you have to segregate because it prices them as a rookie among the top at their position overall. (Which is a fairly unique characteristic to RB)
Which leads into the larger point which is yes, it is a very good idea if you are going to go against the higher level stats to at least have a solid example of bucking the trend.
If lieu of that it's nice to have some analytical angle that say makes the case that Saquon will have a better career than say Barry Sanders.
Also as I said in the other thread I'm pretty indifferent to the pick because it is possible that he's the best ever but this logic both requires him to be the best ever and be so far and away the best ever that he does something that the other consensus best RBs in the modern era could not do.
The issue I have is calling it the "right pick" everyone wants to double down on that when the reality is there isn't right or wrong picks, just some probability that they are and picking Saquon is not playing the team building probabilities in light of our team, it's not playing the team success probabilities in light of stats like what GoTerps presented. I'm not willing to go as far as others as to say it is wrong but it most certainly wasn't the "right" pick ESPECIALLY because of how things have played out now. People want to be like oh he was so awesome this year I know it's right! No, the evidence strongly suggests that RBs are what you add to talented teams to win titles or at least when you have a discounted QB in place.
Let’s even look at where we are now let’s say we started Lauletta instead of Manning when we are 1-7 and we traded Snacks (making what was already a bad defense overall but a good run defense just terrible) we could be in a position to take Haskins or Murray without trading up. Which would actually put us in a better position to draft that discounted QB to pair with SB. We have too many holes to trade up and have a reasonable expectation of competing now. We aren’t taking consistent logical steps that even pair with moves we’ve already made to win.
Look at what the Colts did. Not saying we would nail the picks like that but it’s possible we could be sitting on Barkley still or let’s just say Nelson. The Zeitler money could have then gone to say Williams. Maybe we have Leonard too? Or Chubb and Nelson? Not saying this would be us although people do talk about DG as some transcendent drafter so seemingly more picks would be a good idea.
Anyway I know I’m beating the same drum here but it is honestly a painstaking thing for me to watch for this team to continually make decisions in game and out that don’t seem to reflect an understanding of increasing theoretical win probabilities, when other teams that seem to have the right personnel and stated organizational buy in to harness these theories doing much better than us especially recently.