|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| The giants and bills have discussed a deal to move up to #9 for jones. I'm told it's more likely they just take Jones at six. reason being is the giants think both washington and Cincinatti want Jones as well. Giants may still trade up to 9 if they take Jones at six for either a defensive player or hockenson. They've fielded calls on Engram as they dont see him as a fit in a powerfootball esque offense. Remmers is a done deal as long as the giants are pleased with the results of his physical. Contract details all worked out as I already told you. |
No.. a rookie heir apparent at qb should start when he is ready. In most cases that is not week 1. They usually need time to catch up to the speed of the game. Very few rookie qbs are ready week 1. But if we draft Jones andhe ready week 4, then yes he must start then.
Still don't agree but I hear you - fair enough.
Investing a top ten pick in a QB should completely change the dynamic of a team's plan for the year (unless the QB in place is still relatively young and very established).
The goal should be finding the fastest way to get the QB into as many live games as possible, with a minimum of eight as the starter. Reps/experience are the foundation to determining if the pick can be successful or not. Otherwise, it's a wasted a contract year.
We are in an age where these QBs have been exposed to so many high level camps, coaching, and the latest advancements (techniques and training) that they are more ready than ever to hit the ground running. Like you said, and I agree, the biggest adjustment is the speed of the game.
I seriously doubt they would keep both of them though. EE could have some really good trade value, especially considering he would have 2 more years under contract, plus the option year. I don't think anyone (or the Giants) hate him. It's just having contingency plans in case Hock falls to them or in their vicinity at 17. He's a better fit for what DG views this offense being going forward.
Quote:
Right now he is our only playmaker in the passing game. I think adding Hockenson makes a ton of sense for us because it will improve our running game and open up Engram to do what he does best.
I seriously doubt they would keep both of them though. EE could have some really good trade value, especially considering he would have 2 more years under contract, plus the option year. I don't think anyone (or the Giants) hate him. It's just having contingency plans in case Hock falls to them or in their vicinity at 17. He's a better fit for what DG views this offense being going forward.
I think they genuinely want to get rid of as many Reese players as possible, but they did just sign Shepard, so that goes against it.
Engram fits perfectly with Hockenson in a Hernandez/Gronk scheme, if you want to feature 2 TE sets - which is what the Giants did down the stretch. Hockenson can be the in-line guy, while you can flex Engram out. You are mis-using Engram if you want him to play with his hand in the ground. But match him up in the passing game with a LB, and he’s deadly. He’ll also be fine blocking those guys. He can’t block DEs.
In comment 14392135 Beer Man said:
Quote:
and delete this thread? This Simo crap needs to be cut off at the knees.
You do know that one of the Mod's created this thread, right?
He can't block well but neither can David Njoku or Jordan Reed.
Goddam frustrating.
Quote:
and delete this thread? This Simo crap needs to be cut off at the knees.
You do know that one of the Mod's created this thread, right?
I think that is Mike's point.
Quote:
I respect your opinion, but don't agree. He's at best a marginal blocker, which was well known at the time. But I also said I oppose trading him despite that because he stretches the field. And I never compared him to Adrien Robinson.
You didn't have to mention Robinson by name. He's the quintessential JR "measurables" guy, a label you stuck on Engram, which was, again, incorrect due to his college production. You said nothing, initially, about Engram's blocking. Your suggestion was that JR drafted him simply because he was fast.
If I'd wanted to compare Engram to Robinson I would have. I didn't. Regardless of his production in college, I still considered Engram a "measurables" player because he couldn't block. I think it's possible to be productive in college and still be a "measurables" player. You apparently do not, which is fine. As I said, I respect your opinion. But the discussion has become too testy for me, so I will leave the last word to you.
Defensive heavy draft DOES NOT mean taking a player on defense is always the better choice. If there pick comes and they have an OT, TE, QB, etc rated higher than all remaining defenders AND it's still a position of need, draft the higher rated player on your board.
Quote:
In comment 14392098 Zeke's Alibi said:
Quote:
Right now he is our only playmaker in the passing game. I think adding Hockenson makes a ton of sense for us because it will improve our running game and open up Engram to do what he does best.
I seriously doubt they would keep both of them though. EE could have some really good trade value, especially considering he would have 2 more years under contract, plus the option year. I don't think anyone (or the Giants) hate him. It's just having contingency plans in case Hock falls to them or in their vicinity at 17. He's a better fit for what DG views this offense being going forward.
I think they genuinely want to get rid of as many Reese players as possible, but they did just sign Shepard, so that goes against it.
Engram fits perfectly with Hockenson in a Hernandez/Gronk scheme, if you want to feature 2 TE sets - which is what the Giants did down the stretch. Hockenson can be the in-line guy, while you can flex Engram out. You are mis-using Engram if you want him to play with his hand in the ground. But match him up in the passing game with a LB, and he’s deadly. He’ll also be fine blocking those guys. He can’t block DEs.
Holy crap, we agree on something.
Quote:
In comment 14392058 AcidTest said:
Quote:
I respect your opinion, but don't agree. He's at best a marginal blocker, which was well known at the time. But I also said I oppose trading him despite that because he stretches the field. And I never compared him to Adrien Robinson.
You didn't have to mention Robinson by name. He's the quintessential JR "measurables" guy, a label you stuck on Engram, which was, again, incorrect due to his college production. You said nothing, initially, about Engram's blocking. Your suggestion was that JR drafted him simply because he was fast.
If I'd wanted to compare Engram to Robinson I would have. I didn't. Regardless of his production in college, I still considered Engram a "measurables" player because he couldn't block. I think it's possible to be productive in college and still be a "measurables" player. You apparently do not, which is fine. As I said, I respect your opinion. But the discussion has become too testy for me, so I will leave the last word to you.
Just admit that you fucked up and move on. I'll still love you.
The other way to look at it, if he really doesn't fit what Shurmur and Gettleman will run, is that late flash was enough to re-establish his trade value and this is the high point to trade him. Personally, I like him and would like him to be here. The Giants are going to be looking at very few big plays beyond whatever highlight reel plays Saquon will break off. Engram is one of the few threats the Giants now have down the field.
Quote:
late last year. I wish they would keep him and think it would be a mistake to trade him. Not to mention, it creates another unnecessary hole that will have to be filled.
The other way to look at it, if he really doesn't fit what Shurmur and Gettleman will run, is that late flash was enough to re-establish his trade value and this is the high point to trade him. Personally, I like him and would like him to be here. The Giants are going to be looking at very few big plays beyond whatever highlight reel plays Saquon will break off. Engram is one of the few threats the Giants now have down the field.
Has to be same person as onetimeasshat, no?
C’mon Gidie, don’t just throw a hand grenade into the room and leave.
C’mon Gidie, don’t just throw a hand grenade into the room and leave.
Agreed.
Quote:
No.. a rookie heir apparent at qb should start when he is ready. In most cases that is not week 1. They usually need time to catch up to the speed of the game. Very few rookie qbs are ready week 1. But if we draft Jones andhe ready week 4, then yes he must start then.
Still don't agree but I hear you - fair enough.
Investing a top ten pick in a QB should completely change the dynamic of a team's plan for the year (unless the QB in place is still relatively young and very established).
The goal should be finding the fastest way to get the QB into as many live games as possible, with a minimum of eight as the starter. Reps/experience are the foundation to determining if the pick can be successful or not. Otherwise, it's a wasted a contract year.
We are in an age where these QBs have been exposed to so many high level camps, coaching, and the latest advancements (techniques and training) that they are more ready than ever to hit the ground running. Like you said, and I agree, the biggest adjustment is the speed of the game.
you don't want your guy to get hurt because he can't process the game. that is really all you wait for. i agree that it might now be a smaller window than ever before but most qbs need 2 to 6 games to catch up to the game.
Good times~
BPA as this thing unfolds, keeping all picks!
I like Boylhart as much or more than the next guy - been following him for 15+ years. He is HORRIBLE at QBs. He's fantastic at OL. Not to say that he's never right about QBs but every year he loves QBs that turn our horrible. It is his weakest position to evaluate by far. And for the record, I like Jones.
This.
Quote:
If we're taking a QB at #6 he should be starting from the outset.
This is 100% true.
Alas, Jones is the wrong idea in so many ways. And it gives me even more concern that Gettleman does not know how to evaluate the QB position.
Wow everyone! We've got an expert talent evaluator here on QB talent. Right here on BBI. More knowledgeable than Pat Shurmur himself. Maybe you should take over for Sy on the draft preview posts...at least the QB breakdowns.
Agreed.
Same lol
Agreed. What would be the actual benefit of letting him sit a full year?
Quote:
film I've seen on Jones, he appears to be a very smart, dink-and-dunk QB with an average arm, decent mobility. Personally, I don't see top 10 talent there.
This.
Agreed. I see his ceiling as an Alex Smith.
When I watch his highlights I see a good prospect.
April 23, 2005: Ted Thompson makes the call on Aaron Rodgers
What NFL scouts told the Journal Sentinel's Bob McGinn before the draft about quarterback Aaron Rodgers:
Marc Ross, Buffalo: "He's a little short. The thing you worry about is those (Jeff) Tedford guys. They don't do anything for a couple years and then they have a good year or two. Who of his quarterbacks has done what they're supposed to do? None of them. Is he just working magic with great college quarterbacks or just manufacturing guys?"
AFC scout: "I like him. He's a very talented guy. A lot of quarterbacks that were system people have not done very well. That puts up a red flag. Not that he is one of them. He could be an exception. But I can't get it out of my craw."
Rich Snead, Tennessee: "I like him. I just don't know if he's maxed out. He's more accurate than (Kyle) Boller but probably not as athletic. He's a better player than Akili Smith. He's more athletic than (Trent) Dilfer was. He's a little more mobile than Joey Harrington. He had to go to a JC because no one would recruit him because they said he was too small. He's been busting his (expletive) his whole life to get to this point. I just don't know how much more he has to give."
NFC scout: "(Alex) Smith is the better athlete."
AFC scout: "I think he has some upside although there are some things that are just ordinary about him."
Jerry Angelo, Chicago: "I'd give Rodgers the edge (over Smith) just because he was easier to evaluate. And there's a little more arm. But the edge is negligible."
NFC scout: "I think he has a good chance of being a bust. Just like every other Tedford-coached quarterback. Thing I struggle with him is he gets sacked a lot. He doesn't have great ability to change the release of the football. He's mechanically very rigid. Brett Favre can change his release point and find different windows. There will be more growing pains with Alex Smith but in the end he has a much better chance to be much better."
NFC scout: "The guys that Tedford has had, what have they developed into? They're too well-schooled. So mechanical. So robotic. I don't know if they become good pro players. I think Rodgers is in that same mold."
AFC scout: "I don't like him. He's a clone of Harrington and Boller. They all throw the same way. What have those guys done? Nothing. If you take him in the second round, fine. Heady guy. They do a marvelous job of coaching quarterbacks there. I don't think he's as good as the top quarterbacks coming out last year."
AFC scout: "I don't think he's in the class of the quarterbacks that came out last year. Strong arm. Pretty good athlete. Still has some holes in his game."
Bill Polian, Indianapolis: "I see a guy who has good arm strength. I see some athletic ability. I see a guy who was pretty good with a good team. I see a guy who's in a pretty efficient offense. Am I certain that he's going to come in and lead my team to the Promised Land? I can't say that. I'm not even sure I can say that about Alex Smith."
AFC scout: "He's a system quarterback. 3-, 5-, 7-step guy. Can't create on his own. Panics under pressure. Gets flustered easy. I don't think there's a quarterback in the draft worthy of a first-round pick. I'm dead serious. None of them are worth it."
NFC scout: "He fit right into the Cal system. He probably executed that as well as anybody. He doesn't have as strong an arm as Boller but can make the same reads and play the scheme as well as Boller did.
Link - ( New Window )
It's just a matter of how comfortable you feel with associated flaw.
I'm sure if the Giants draft Jones at #6 the media will say it was a reach/poor pick, but if the Pats make a trade up into the top 10 to take him the media will say that Little Bill is a genius.
It's just a matter of how comfortable you feel with associated flaw.
I agree with all of that, actually.
I wouldn't say, however, I'm looking for a unicorn. I'm analyzing the skills/situations/comps, and then trying to assess the proper value.
I'll say this - next year's class is very fascinating to me. And it's less about Tua and Fromm and more about Herbert and Eason. I think each of them are more talented than Tua and Fromm and have considerably more upside. I'll be watching each carefully this year, especially Eason, who I think could be the prize of 2020.
When I watch his highlights I see a good prospect.
I agree, if you told me Jones is Alex Smith, that's actually not too bad. It's the Ryan Tannehill or Christian Ponder stuff that makes we worried.
3 WR set of Brown or Butler, Tate and Shep? Spread out and run the ball with Barkley with an improved OL and play action off that? Wow.
The rest not so much, Fromm's OC is James Coley who was and is a great recruiter/salesman but a shitty OC/Playcaller/developer of talent.
One more thought on Jones, since I know that's what you're waiting for, he is just 21 and comes from a fairly athletic family. There is a very good chance, with an NFL nutritional plan and development staff, he'll continue to develop physically including his arm strength. Duke's support staff was more BB oriented IMO.
If we're truly building this team around Barkley, someone with Jones's traits makes sense.
Me also
Hi Beez.