I really want to like Gettleman. I honestly do.
I don't mind trading Beckham.. but why sign him in the first place if your priority is to build a smash mouth team. plus we lose carryover dollars.
Sorry but Barkley was the wrong choice.. as great as he seems now. QB is by far the most valuable position in sports. It was an error to use the number two pick on anything but a QB because...
... even though Eli is 38 and just about fallen off the cliff, DG is behaving like there is no problem here. Just awful evaluation.
Adding Tate makes absolutely no sense. Great so we can go 5-11 instead of 3-13. What a joke. If you're tanking then tank.
We need to add a QB. It is our most desperate need. If we don't get Murray or Haskins I think time is up for DG.
What is this seeming obsession with smash mouth football. What year is this? 1977?
I believe he is awful. Glad I could get that off my chest.
Quote:
This argument always makes me laugh. So every player that we want here should stay at all costs, no questions asks?
It’s obvious that something went south after he signed. So do you force it to work, likely making it worse, or do you strike a deal to get rid of a problem and recoup assets?
Let me ask you a question, have you ever planned on doing something, committed to it, then something happened where you had to change course?
sure i agree. but it's a failure. especially with millions on the line.
Not really. If we aren’t going to the playoffs this year, which we likely arent with or without Beckham, then eating the dead money now is effectively us buying picks to invest in the future. So idea being here long term was a failure but a net positive will likely happen.
Time to move on.
Quote:
Why sign him to a big contract, when the fifth year option was available?
Once he played a few games, then trade him......would have saved a lot of cap....
DG said he wouldn't trade OBj after signing him, UNLESS he received an offer he couldn't refuse....a ss(who's stats are not eye popping) who is cheap for 2 years, and two unknowns at 17 and the third round? That was a trade he couldn't refuse?
Agree completely. Look I am not mad about the return for OBJ. I never thought we were going to get two or three 1's for him, as some here fantasized.
He likely wouldn’t have played. Have you guys not been paying attention?
Quote:
if that is your real name. Maybe Franchise is on to something here, with a third round comp pick, we could do some real damage...
Do you even follow the NFL?
dO YoU eVeN FoLLow THe NfL?
So you agree that they could have traded Beckham last season with two years of eligibility left. Thanks for agreeing.
Glad you're not our GM.
??? they could have traded him last season and likely gotten more, saved money and cap. That's what we are saying. Maybe I should be the GM.
Are you 14 years old or do you really have no idea how this league works?
You think the Giants could have gotten more for OBJ coming off of that ankle injury AND with only one year left on his deal? Really?
You are doubling down on your stupidity.
Quote:
Glad you're not our GM.
??? they could have traded him last season and likely gotten more, saved money and cap. That's what we are saying. Maybe I should be the GM.
Are you 14 years old or do you really have no idea how this league works?
You think the Giants could have gotten more for OBJ coming off of that ankle injury AND with only one year left on his deal? Really?
You are doubling down on your stupidity.
There were two years left and yes I think they could have gotten as much for OBJ with two years left on a rookie salary than what Cleveland paid for a receiver on a monster salary. You're throwing around the stupidity word but I think you need to look in the mirror.
Quote:
position than Beckham. There is nobody giving up two firsts for a wide receiver who needs to be signed long term. Getting a first alone would have been a coup.
So you agree that they could have traded Beckham last season with two years of eligibility left. Thanks for agreeing.
No, not after that injury. They had to trade him after his 2016 season. You can trade any player anytime though so what point are you even making?
You should read up on the facts before lecturing people.
Quote:
In comment 14354623 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
position than Beckham. There is nobody giving up two firsts for a wide receiver who needs to be signed long term. Getting a first alone would have been a coup.
So you agree that they could have traded Beckham last season with two years of eligibility left. Thanks for agreeing.
No, not after that injury. They had to trade him after his 2016 season. You can trade any player anytime though so what point are you even making?
i'm saying that could have gotten an equal deal last year saved the cap and the money. it is what i said above. it shows a lack of clarity and vision for the team. it is fairly obvious.
Quote:
In comment 14354463 Toth029 said:
Quote:
With a questionable OL and no run game? With a bad defense? Same loser team. But hey, they got a young QB to ruin while your team lacks in premier talent.
Can’t you just say the exact same thing about Barkley?
Sure, it's a same team essentially. Remember the Rashad Jennings or Andre Brown year? So why get any panties in a bunch over them picking an elite prospect over a QB who isn't exactly Andrew Luck coming out? Their obviously picked a better player, in their minds, and I'm okay with that. The Rams picked Gurley early instead of forcing a pick at QB in their waning years post-Bradford.
I completely agree. It will be at least 5 years before you can say either one was a better decision.
Quote:
In comment 14354583 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
Glad you're not our GM.
??? they could have traded him last season and likely gotten more, saved money and cap. That's what we are saying. Maybe I should be the GM.
Are you 14 years old or do you really have no idea how this league works?
You think the Giants could have gotten more for OBJ coming off of that ankle injury AND with only one year left on his deal? Really?
You are doubling down on your stupidity.
There were two years left and yes I think they could have gotten as much for OBJ with two years left on a rookie salary than what Cleveland paid for a receiver on a monster salary. You're throwing around the stupidity word but I think you need to look in the mirror.
Name one player under the franchise tag that was traded for at least what the giants got for Beckham. The giants were able to get more because Beckham was under contract and his cost is controlled as the browns did not absorb the signing bonus.
Sean Gilbert netted the redskins 2 first round picks
Peerless price netted buffalo a first round pick
Quote:
In comment 14354626 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
In comment 14354623 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
position than Beckham. There is nobody giving up two firsts for a wide receiver who needs to be signed long term. Getting a first alone would have been a coup.
So you agree that they could have traded Beckham last season with two years of eligibility left. Thanks for agreeing.
No, not after that injury. They had to trade him after his 2016 season. You can trade any player anytime though so what point are you even making?
i'm saying that could have gotten an equal deal last year saved the cap and the money. it is what i said above. it shows a lack of clarity and vision for the team. it is fairly obvious.
I don’t know how you can possibly think that when any buyer would be buying an injured player. This discussion is beyond stupid.
Quote:
In comment 14354634 EricJ said:
Quote:
In comment 14354583 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
Glad you're not our GM.
??? they could have traded him last season and likely gotten more, saved money and cap. That's what we are saying. Maybe I should be the GM.
Are you 14 years old or do you really have no idea how this league works?
You think the Giants could have gotten more for OBJ coming off of that ankle injury AND with only one year left on his deal? Really?
You are doubling down on your stupidity.
There were two years left and yes I think they could have gotten as much for OBJ with two years left on a rookie salary than what Cleveland paid for a receiver on a monster salary. You're throwing around the stupidity word but I think you need to look in the mirror.
Name one player under the franchise tag that was traded for at least what the giants got for Beckham. The giants were able to get more because Beckham was under contract and his cost is controlled as the browns did not absorb the signing bonus.
Sean Gilbert netted the redskins 2 first round picks
Peerless price netted buffalo a first round pick
There was a demand for Beckham last offseason. The Pats were allegedly very interested. We won't know the offers but I am sure they were decent. The Giants almost dealt him. The Pats paid a first for Cooks (a one year rental) and got a first for Cooks. The Cowboys paid a first for Cooper. Mack went for a better deal than Beckham. All I am saying is the Giants would have gotten at least the deal they got now. It's silly to suggest they wouldn't have gotten a first and a little extra last offseason.
Quote:
In comment 14354639 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
In comment 14354626 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
In comment 14354623 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
position than Beckham. There is nobody giving up two firsts for a wide receiver who needs to be signed long term. Getting a first alone would have been a coup.
So you agree that they could have traded Beckham last season with two years of eligibility left. Thanks for agreeing.
No, not after that injury. They had to trade him after his 2016 season. You can trade any player anytime though so what point are you even making?
i'm saying that could have gotten an equal deal last year saved the cap and the money. it is what i said above. it shows a lack of clarity and vision for the team. it is fairly obvious.
I don’t know how you can possibly think that when any buyer would be buying an injured player. This discussion is beyond stupid.
He's still injured
First of all, there was interest in Beckham last offseason. So I don't even know what your point is that he was too injured to be traded.
Second, he was injured this offseason and still got traded. Again I don't get your pointless argumentation.
Third, Mack was traded and signed by a team that wanted him. I don't think it is far fetched to think Beckham would have been traded and signed by another team, since Cleveland traded for his very large contract.
This thread is great, keep the laughs coming please.
This thread is great, keep the laughs coming please.
You're the laugh. Let me know when you finish college, joker.
Keep it coming, I’m dying to see what you come up with next.
Keep it coming, I’m dying to see what you come up with next.
thanks for the comedy. i appreciate it. but you should have the Alzheimer's looked at. Your memory seems spotty. Let me remind you... The Giants were asking for TWO first rounders last off-season. That's not me. That's Gettleman who you are apparently defending. On this site people thought they shouldn't deal OBJ for anything less than THREE first rounders. I guess you forgot all that. I'm just saying they could have gotten one. If our GM was so badass and thought he could get TWO I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he could have gotten at least one. Don't you? Unless you think he is a moron.
Quote:
In comment 14354635 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
In comment 14354634 EricJ said:
Quote:
In comment 14354583 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
Glad you're not our GM.
??? they could have traded him last season and likely gotten more, saved money and cap. That's what we are saying. Maybe I should be the GM.
Are you 14 years old or do you really have no idea how this league works?
You think the Giants could have gotten more for OBJ coming off of that ankle injury AND with only one year left on his deal? Really?
You are doubling down on your stupidity.
There were two years left and yes I think they could have gotten as much for OBJ with two years left on a rookie salary than what Cleveland paid for a receiver on a monster salary. You're throwing around the stupidity word but I think you need to look in the mirror.
Name one player under the franchise tag that was traded for at least what the giants got for Beckham. The giants were able to get more because Beckham was under contract and his cost is controlled as the browns did not absorb the signing bonus.
Sean Gilbert netted the redskins 2 first round picks
Peerless price netted buffalo a first round pick
There was a demand for Beckham last offseason. The Pats were allegedly very interested. We won't know the offers but I am sure they were decent. The Giants almost dealt him. The Pats paid a first for Cooks (a one year rental) and got a first for Cooks. The Cowboys paid a first for Cooper. Mack went for a better deal than Beckham. All I am saying is the Giants would have gotten at least the deal they got now. It's silly to suggest they wouldn't have gotten a first and a little extra last offseason.
There was not a demand for Beckham. Rumors were out there that the giants were looking to trade Beckham and team's were inquiring if that was the case, because they were looking to see if he could be had cheap. The patriots 31st overall pick in the first round isn't as valuable as the browns 17th overall pick.
You are also going off the basis that Gettleman signed Beckham with the intent of trading him one year later. That wasn't his intent. His intent was that Beckham would be a ny giant for the next 5 years at least. Beckham's actions changed their thinking and they still made a move that netted them a good haul
Quote:
In comment 14354646 TrueBlue56 said:
Quote:
In comment 14354635 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
In comment 14354634 EricJ said:
Quote:
In comment 14354583 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
Glad you're not our GM.
??? they could have traded him last season and likely gotten more, saved money and cap. That's what we are saying. Maybe I should be the GM.
Are you 14 years old or do you really have no idea how this league works?
You think the Giants could have gotten more for OBJ coming off of that ankle injury AND with only one year left on his deal? Really?
You are doubling down on your stupidity.
There were two years left and yes I think they could have gotten as much for OBJ with two years left on a rookie salary than what Cleveland paid for a receiver on a monster salary. You're throwing around the stupidity word but I think you need to look in the mirror.
Name one player under the franchise tag that was traded for at least what the giants got for Beckham. The giants were able to get more because Beckham was under contract and his cost is controlled as the browns did not absorb the signing bonus.
Sean Gilbert netted the redskins 2 first round picks
Peerless price netted buffalo a first round pick
There was a demand for Beckham last offseason. The Pats were allegedly very interested. We won't know the offers but I am sure they were decent. The Giants almost dealt him. The Pats paid a first for Cooks (a one year rental) and got a first for Cooks. The Cowboys paid a first for Cooper. Mack went for a better deal than Beckham. All I am saying is the Giants would have gotten at least the deal they got now. It's silly to suggest they wouldn't have gotten a first and a little extra last offseason.
There was not a demand for Beckham. Rumors were out there that the giants were looking to trade Beckham and team's were inquiring if that was the case, because they were looking to see if he could be had cheap. The patriots 31st overall pick in the first round isn't as valuable as the browns 17th overall pick.
You are also going off the basis that Gettleman signed Beckham with the intent of trading him one year later. That wasn't his intent. His intent was that Beckham would be a ny giant for the next 5 years at least. Beckham's actions changed their thinking and they still made a move that netted them a good haul
Ok this is a fair reply. Yes there was some demand for Beckham. How much we might not ever know but I bet ot was more than just the Pats 31.. They had other picks to deal including an earlier first rounder that became Michel. But set that aside.
You make an interesting point. Beckham did something that suddenly forced their hand. Sorry I don't buy it. I think beckham did next to nothing. What? Pretend to pee? he basically acted as he always did. So I call that a miscalculation by DG. If he didn't want Beckham acting like Beckham then we all would have been better off if he did it a year earlier, hastening our rebuild. This set our rebuild back a year, imo. I feel DG thought we would compete and he needed Beckham to do so. When that failed, miserably, he has now decided he doesnt want to spend that kind of money on a WR and wants to retool the team differently, with a different allocation of resources.
This is a change of course. Which speaks to DG's lack of vision when he took this team over.
Now, I am googling my ass of to see where Gettleman, Mara, or anyone else in a decision making capacity actually said that.
The only thing I could find are "reports" from pundits. That is really strange. Especially considering DG said he was not looking to trade OBJ back then.
So, can someone show me where Gettleman publicly said he wanted two first rounders for OBJ?
Now, I am googling my ass of to see where Gettleman, Mara, or anyone else in a decision making capacity actually said that.
The only thing I could find are "reports" from pundits. That is really strange. Especially considering DG said he was not looking to trade OBJ back then.
So, can someone show me where Gettleman publicly said he wanted two first rounders for OBJ?
People don't announce in the press how much they want for a player. GM's lie all the time publicly anyway. There were press reports (not pundits) that this was the asking price and yes they tested the water last year.
I mean, you do know this basic, elementary level shit don’t you? Why on earth would anyone start negotiations low?
Understand his philosophy: Run the ball, stop the run, rush the passer.
Also understand: Big men who can move win games.
Signing Beckham was just a much Shurmurs idea as DG. A couple of FU’s and the stupid interview, the business decision on the insides kick and missing the last 4 games changed peoples mind about OBJ.
Barkley was the right pick. He was the best player in the draft last year. He is better than any player in this years draft. People are always saying drsftcbest player available, and Barkley was the best player no doubt.
Our O Line is way better than 2 years ago. It’s not close. A RT away from a total rebuild in less than 2 years. A great RB to run behind that line. A great NY Giant QB to lead the team in Manning. He is not perfect. But he is our QB. Deal with it.
I expect a good amount of draft picks to help build our defense. It will be better next year.
Let me see if I can explain it...If the Giants franchise tag OBJ, a team who signs him, have to give the Giants 2 first round picks. So no team is doing that. If no team will give up 2 1st for a franchise tagged player then the only way to keep control of him is to sign him to a long term deal. Do you want the giants to let OBJ hit the FA market in 2 years and get nothing for him? No.
17th pick, 3rd and Peppers is a really good deal.
Plus Dee Ford got traded for a 2nd rounder in 2020.
DE>WR and just look at both deals.
It's not complicated.
Not going to sweat it have plenty of picks to help
bolster the talent we do have SB will have a big season .
We may go 9-7 i DKN ..
Now, I am googling my ass of to see where Gettleman, Mara, or anyone else in a decision making capacity actually said that.
The only thing I could find are "reports" from pundits. That is really strange. Especially considering DG said he was not looking to trade OBJ back then.
So, can someone show me where Gettleman publicly said he wanted two first rounders for OBJ?
I don’t have the link handy, but in the Gettleman interview with Papa the other day he said his initial thought in terms of Beckham was two first rounders. He then said we got #17, and a former first rounder meaning Peppers. That was the first time I had seen anyone from the Giants say anything about two first rounders.
I don’t necessarily agree on the Barkley vs. Allen comment, but I agree with the rest, including why we did we dump Webb for Lauletta. I really wish we just kept Webb last year and picked a player we could use in the 4th round.
I mean, you do know this basic, elementary level shit don’t you? Why on earth would anyone start negotiations low?
George Costanza held out for less
Quote:
is that the Giants were looking for 2 first round picks last year for OBJ.
Now, I am googling my ass of to see where Gettleman, Mara, or anyone else in a decision making capacity actually said that.
The only thing I could find are "reports" from pundits. That is really strange. Especially considering DG said he was not looking to trade OBJ back then.
So, can someone show me where Gettleman publicly said he wanted two first rounders for OBJ?
People don't announce in the press how much they want for a player. GM's lie all the time publicly anyway. There were press reports (not pundits) that this was the asking price and yes they tested the water last year.
So what you are telling me is that Gettleman told the press that he wanted 2 first round picks while all along never saying that he was looking to trade Odell.
That makes a lot of sense. The more you talk the more interesting the fairy tale becomes.
I get accused of trolling almost daily because I dare criticize the aristocracy at Jints Central... ;)
Amen to that.
Angry douche in Charlotte and his posse.
Quote:
if you continue to post repeatedly, the same material - in new threads - we will regard it as trolling
So you are putting a quota on how many times a poster can say the same thing?
Why? Because it goes against some preferred mainstream thought?
Sorry, I find this very bizarre.
Quote:
In comment 14354680 EricJ said:
Quote:
is that the Giants were looking for 2 first round picks last year for OBJ.
Now, I am googling my ass of to see where Gettleman, Mara, or anyone else in a decision making capacity actually said that.
The only thing I could find are "reports" from pundits. That is really strange. Especially considering DG said he was not looking to trade OBJ back then.
So, can someone show me where Gettleman publicly said he wanted two first rounders for OBJ?
People don't announce in the press how much they want for a player. GM's lie all the time publicly anyway. There were press reports (not pundits) that this was the asking price and yes they tested the water last year.
So what you are telling me is that Gettleman told the press that he wanted 2 first round picks while all along never saying that he was looking to trade Odell.
That makes a lot of sense. The more you talk the more interesting the fairy tale becomes.
where did I say that? I'll answer: no where. The leaks to the press were probably from one or more of the teams who talked with the Giants. Some of the things you guys say really defy rational thought.
thanks.. I didn't think I was saying anything controversial. I don't really understand the nastiness and the blow back from my post. These are obvious areas to question.
[quote] In comment 14354667 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
pure gold. I can’t wait to get tons of first round picks for every player that an opposing team is interest in. Who cares about the rest, so long as there’s interest!
Keep it coming, I’m dying to see what you come up with next.
thanks for the comedy. i appreciate it. but you should have the Alzheimer's looked at. Your memory seems spotty. Let me remind you...
Poor taste my friend, if you ve ever been touched by this hideous disease you would not use it in a cavalier manner.
[quote] In comment 14354667 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
pure gold. I can’t wait to get tons of first round picks for every player that an opposing team is interest in. Who cares about the rest, so long as there’s interest!
Keep it coming, I’m dying to see what you come up with next.
thanks for the comedy. i appreciate it. but you should have the Alzheimer's looked at. Your memory seems spotty. Let me remind you...
Poor taste my friend, if you ve ever been touched by this hideous disease you would not use it in a cavalier manner.
i sincerely apologize. I didn't mean to offend. It was a thoughtless and stupid comment by me.
They thought wrong about a lot of things.
Hooray that they recognized the error in a lot of cases and cut/traded the thought wrongs. But it doesn't fill one with confidence for the future.
Too soon to speak definitively about DG and the decision committee. This is an important year for them, and the team.
you can't count them wrong for not taking a QB, until they don't take one and one pans out.
Or perhaps, and more likely, people are too sensitive to this subject.
They thought wrong about a lot of things.
Hooray that they recognized the error in a lot of cases and cut/traded the thought wrongs. But it doesn't fill one with confidence for the future.
Too soon to speak definitively about DG and the decision committee. This is an important year for them, and the team.
you can't count them wrong for not taking a QB, until they don't take one and one pans out.
at least one of those QBs is going to pan out in a big way. They have a chance this year to maybe fix it. Let's hope they do.
2018 was actually one of the best of Eli’s career, behind a dogshit OL for much of the season.
You want to make the point the Giants need to draft his replacement anyway? Fine, fair point. But to claim he’s suddenly not good anymore reveals a pretty low football IQ
Eli Manning is the same QB he’s always been - ( New Window )
Dumb article. Basically says quarterbacks do better with no pressure....not exactly newsbreaking. What i saw was Eli make a bad decision. He should have run to his letf, taken the sack or thrown it away.
Its a message board where people express their opinions and vent when they disagree with something. If you don't get that then you re the moron.
Yes and that worries me. Im all for giving DG the benefit of the doubf at this point but If we continue to win only 5 or so games the next two years Dave shoult go but i think Mara will give him more time than that. Should be an interesting next couple of years.