DG spinning on certain positions

that I feel like the Giants have been spinning their wheels in the mud for the last 2 years.

I think this explains why I feel that way.

I understand that you always bring in players and create competition so that you get better. But it has to be done everywhere, not just specific position groups.

example. Nothing you wrote above supports your point because you are listing things as 1 for 1's without context. OBJ was a problem for the Giants and ownership that even giving him his money didn't fix. They had an opportunity to move him and they did. Tate was added to fill in the spot but we also got a CB (via draft) and a starting Guard. BTW- i hate dead money examples, means nothing. The cap is the cap period.

The oline signings have had mixed results but only from the context of long term play and growth. Nobody cut or not resigned has proven to have been better options.

Positions improved:

OL- though still needs work
DL- 3-4 type guys
CB- tons of youth here
QB- we have our guy
RB- depth needed but superstar onboard

Areas to improve

LB
S
WR
TE- depth if EE stays or two way starter if not.

The WR position has been hit by a series of issues:
Losing Tate to suspension
Losing Coleman and now Shepard to injuries
Combine that with Barkley and Engrams injuries

The Offense has yet to see all their pieces on the field.

And although playing, the OL has regressed and my feeling is much of that too is driven by injuries....

All 3 phases of the defense has been address and still being tinkered..in a major way..with the addition of D.Bucanoun and now William

When you get rid of a player at a position you need to replace that player. He obviously didn't think the players that we had on the team were the right fit for one reason or another so he tried to upgrade. This is a really weird gripe.

we all like to play GM and have our own opinions based on what we see on the field but we need to remember the beneath.

Football is a highly complex game with a wide variety of different asks for each player.

The coaching and evaluation staff see these players in training, in camp, in meetings as well as games. They know them intimately and have a rock solid idea of who can do what and what they bring to the organization.

In light of that it is hard to second guess but let me ask...from that list above who do you really want back at their current level of remuneration?

Has DG made mistakes? Sure. This is an absolute dumpster fire to sort out though as Reese missed on way too many draft picks. We need to stay the course, let DG keep piling good drafts on top of each other whilst clearing the dead money and soon enough this team is going to be good.

I can tell you what he is going to do though and it is much the same as above. Bolster the lines and bring in tough, competitive players at skill positions.

Is the talent any better than when DG got here? or has he juggled the roster to stay in place? You'd think it would have to be better, since he came in in the middle of a 3-13 season, but it is worth remembering that team had been 11-5 a year earlier, but MacAdoo lost the team. Instead of bringing in good coaches to deal with the talent, DG got rid of the talent and brought in new mediocre coaches and players who can tolerate bad coaching. In fact we have no more talent on the team than we did when DG got here. It's younger, which gives me hope for the future, but it isn't better, and the team is poorly coached.

Start with the talent: QB: younger, and I think DJ will eventually be better than Manning, but I am not sure he is yet, RB: major improvement. WR: major drop off. TE, same. OL, maybe a slight improvement, but not much. Big problem is C where Richburg and Jones were both much better than Halapio, who is totally terrible. DL: about the same. LB is still a mess. CB: Baker is better than Apple, but we still only have 2 decent CB. S: Collins and Adams were much better than Peppers and Bethea (without even being very good)

And the coaching is putrid. Every game we give up 1 or 2 long TD's because of confusion in the secondary. And how many times on Sunday did a pass rusher come straight up the middle without anyone even attempting to block him? And why didn't Barkley realize that was a lateral and go for the ball until after he saw Kennard do so? There was no whistle. These are all the results of poor coaching.

Look at all of the first rounders San Francisco has invested there in recent years. You win games by controlling the Line of Scrimmage and DG is trying to get to that point.

to improve it is what I want him to do.

I honestly believe if this was some young, new GM and not senile old Dave Gettleman, some of you guys would be applauding the approach to admit mistakes, cutting bait, making trades, and constantly churning the roster to find the right mix.

many have gone from armchair GM's to armchair Cap-ologists.

In comment 14652129 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

to improve it is what I want him to do. I honestly believe if this was some young, new GM and not senile old Dave Gettleman, some of you guys would be applauding the approach to admit mistakes, cutting bait, making trades, and constantly churning the roster to find the right mix.

I agree completely with this. I’ve been critical of Gettleman and he’s been far from perfect, but he deserves credit:

-Took some serious balls to draft Jones at 6. BBI favorite Riddick stated he would have drafted Haskins.

-Let Collins walk and now he’s saddled with WSH - we’ll get the comp pick this year. BBI favorite Riddick said he would have signed him long term.

-Golden contract was very good - much cheaper and more production than Vernon.

We can do a lot worse than Gettleman. The Beckham trade looks good as well at this point. Also, who exactly do all these guys want to hire? Is Joe Douglas going to be some amazing GM?

My issue lies mostly with Shurmur.

.

People are going to overlook the fact that the team is now just plug and praying their way to upgrades, picking up and dropping in rapid succession anyone they can get their hands on to see if they can get marginal improvement.

Instead, some see this as a good thing, and entirely the result of coaching. Oddly enough, some of the same folks who thought that other coaches in the past, particularly Coughlin, bore none of the blame.

It was, is, and will continue to be an organizational failure from top to bottom until Mara does something about it. We can wait for the next crop of coaches to come in so there'll be someone new to blame, though.

In comment 14652123 English Alaister said:

Quote:

we all like to play GM and have our own opinions based on what we see on the field but we need to remember the beneath. Football is a highly complex game with a wide variety of different asks for each player. The coaching and evaluation staff see these players in training, in camp, in meetings as well as games. They know them intimately and have a rock solid idea of who can do what and what they bring to the organization. In light of that it is hard to second guess but let me ask...from that list above who do you really want back at their current level of remuneration? Has DG made mistakes? Sure. This is an absolute dumpster fire to sort out though as Reese missed on way too many draft picks. We need to stay the course, let DG keep piling good drafts on top of each other whilst clearing the dead money and soon enough this team is going to be good. I can tell you what he is going to do though and it is much the same as above. Bolster the lines and bring in tough, competitive players at skill positions.

What an on point post. Well done.

Quote:

I can tell you what he is going to do though and it is much the same as above. Bolster the lines and bring in tough, competitive players at skill positions.

...he can start any time now. Since if that was his position coming in - the DL has actually been worse since he arrived, and the OL is not any better despite having spent a ton of resources there.

Replacing players with new players, still having to spend money but getting the same result......losing.

It feels like DG is just spinning his wheels because we aren’t winning. Their are factors for this, like a young QB, many rookies starting, poor coaching and a few really bad players at key positions, like FS, OC.

One thing I will say, Solder is the biggest issue with this team. DG said he would fix the O Line, signing Solder, drafting Hernandez, trading for Zeitler and then signing Remmers. Halapio is below average, and mainly because of his brain it seems. He is not seeing potential blitzers, missing line calls. I think this effective the rest of the line

and they're actually worse than before and the coach he hired is one of the worst HCs in NFL history. The game has passed the Giants by. Not just the GM the entire organization. This pattern of the season being over before Halloween will continue until the Maras step back and find a football person to run the entire operation the way their father was forced to with George Young.

Steve Tisch our nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

The point is needs to start getting some of these high resource moves right. This move effectively benches BJ Hill, a top 70 pick 20 games in.

You add in this latest move and *if* it works he's spent: 2 3rds, a 4th, a first, and a big time contract to get to a 3-4 dline -- and that's considering he inherited Tomlinson who's having a sneaky good season.

It's great to churn the bottom of the roster at low cost -- it's alarming when you have to churn the top.

In comment 14652130 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

many have gone from armchair GM's to armchair Cap-ologists.

Which is silly because all you really have to be is an amateur NFL standings reader to have a valid complaint.

In comment 14652167 christian said:

Quote:

The point is needs to start getting some of these high resource moves right. This move effectively benches BJ Hill, a top 70 pick 20 games in. You add in this latest move and *if* it works he's spent: 2 3rds, a 4th, a first, and a big time contract to get to a 3-4 dline -- and that's considering he inherited Tomlinson who's having a sneaky good season. It's great to churn the bottom of the roster at low cost -- it's alarming when you have to churn the top.

And moreso when that churn is continuous. That's something that we saw out of Reese later in his tenure as well. Bodies moving in and out, trying desperately to find someone who might work.

No, you don't want to keep an underperforming player on the roster. The point is that if it's taking you 5 different bodies to find someone serviceable, you're not doing a good enough job.

As a third round pick so far is a hit. As a third round pick, what are the expectations? If he's a starter that is bonus, but if he's solid depth that's ok too.

is that when they let go of a player at a certain position, they replace him with another player at that position. What do you think they should do? Just eliminate that position?

In comment 14652175 crick n NC said:

Quote:

As a third round pick so far is a hit. As a third round pick, what are the expectations? If he's a starter that is bonus, but if he's solid depth that's ok too.

Crick I respectfully disagree -- BJ Hill is having a very tough season. His pass rush numbers are basically zero and his snap counts have been curiously low the last 2 weeks.

He was the 69th pick in the draft and showed some glimpses of being a nifty pass rusher. There's nothing good about him going to the shelf.

If we're getting to the point where only 1st and 2nd rounders are expected to crack the starting lineup, that feels like another GM we recently had.

The trajectory is not career backup/STs.

This is what you're pondering at 4 in the morning? :)

I get the general point you're trying to make; it's one thing to start churning through Reese's players - you'd expect a new GM to do this and start cutting bait on guys he doesn't feel fit his vision/plan, identifying players who can be part of a new foundation, etc.

But, then he starts churning through his own guys; which seems fine on the surface until you start to see all of the wasted cap dollars and dead money that get left behind as a footprint.

On one hand, it's good that he's identifying his own mistakes and not doubling-down on them, which almost always exacerbates the issue. On the other, you'd like him to make more roster moves that 'stick' and actually start to show up on the field and in the win column.

Gettleman is a mixed bag so far for me. I don't think he's a disaster - he's drafted some pretty promising (and in Barkley's case, excellent) players. I am sold on all of these guys being part of the solution...

Saquon Barkley
Will Hernandez
Daniel Jones
Dexter Lawrence
DeAndre Baker
Darius Slayton

These players are all capable of helping, have flashed, look like pieces we can work with, or have been playing since last year...

BJ Hill
Zo Carter
Ryan Connelly
Oshane Ximines
Corey Ballentine

Incomplete...

RJ McIntosh
Julian Love
Asafo-Adjei

Wasted...

Kyle Lauletta

I think for 2 drafts, that's a good yield. Lauletta is the only guy you can really just say "that's a total waste pick that we'll get zero value from"

Guys like George, Chris Slayton, McIntosh... probably won't pan out. But, late round picks... they'll need at least some time to gauge.

My biggest worries with Gettleman are...

1. Cap management
2. Free agency

These tie in together hand-in-hand. If Gettleman turns around and goes on a FA spending spree to save jobs in 2020; it's just going to repeat the 2016 error. We'll probably see a competitive team in the very short-term, and then we'll run into major cap issues and start to struggle again. We cannot have that happen.

In comment 14652189 christian said:

Quote:

In comment 14652175 crick n NC said: Quote: As a third round pick so far is a hit. As a third round pick, what are the expectations? If he's a starter that is bonus, but if he's solid depth that's ok too. Crick I respectfully disagree -- BJ Hill is having a very tough season. His pass rush numbers are basically zero and his snap counts have been curiously low the last 2 weeks. He was the 69th pick in the draft and showed some glimpses of being a nifty pass rusher. There's nothing good about him going to the shelf. If we're getting to the point where only 1st and 2nd rounders are expected to crack the starting lineup, that feels like another GM we recently had.

Hi Christian, I am satisfied if Hill becomes solid depth. It all comes down to what our expectations are for a third round pick.

Also, this move "effectively benching" him means we're giving up on him?

Go back and look at Justin Tuck's (3rd round) first couple of seasons. He only saw spot duty but was still able to develop coming off the bench. Am I comparing Tuck to BJ Hill? No. But who knows what we have yet?

In comment 14652194 UberAlias said:

Quote:

The trajectory is not career backup/STs.

I'd say third round picks have a good chance of going either way. It's interesting because I see the term "backup" and wonder if that is used in a negative manner vs the term "depth". Depth is important in football, I would say especially for the dl.

Is a third round pick is being released a couple of years in? That is a miss to me. I expect Hill to contribute to the team. But, we should also remember, while Hill has struggled, I don't believe he is defined yet.

the disappointment over the W-L record gets the focus, what Gettleman is doing is focusing on the trenches to get a dominant group.

I don't see it as spinning as much as he's trying to put together the pieces that will carry out the formula of winning that battle at the LOS. If he's creating churn to get to a core group of 4 strong DL players - it could be very good for us - and it is a similar formula leading to success around the NFL.

I'm hoping that in the offseason, he uses the same type of churn that he has at OG to solidify the Tackles and Center positions.

And while many here don't like to have patience, I think he's trying to do that and build a contender without having to go on a huge spending spree. The majority of the contracts he's given so far are short-term hits. I'd expect that to continue.

I trust DG to build this roster with good talented players. It’s Shurmur who needs to actually show that he can coach a professional game of football in a smart way. Or else nothing that DG does will matter. He’s been that bad.

In comment 14652213 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

the disappointment over the W-L record gets the focus, what Gettleman is doing is focusing on the trenches to get a dominant group. I don't see it as spinning as much as he's trying to put together the pieces that will carry out the formula of winning that battle at the LOS. If he's creating churn to get to a core group of 4 strong DL players - it could be very good for us - and it is a similar formula leading to success around the NFL. I'm hoping that in the offseason, he uses the same type of churn that he has at OG to solidify the Tackles and Center positions. And while many here don't like to have patience, I think he's trying to do that and build a contender without having to go on a huge spending spree. The majority of the contracts he's given so far are short-term hits. I'd expect that to continue.

Good post

isn’t brought up that often, DG has said multiple times, on record, even when he was hired, that he is going to “build” a championship caliber team the right way, and that he knows how to do it, and what that type of roster looks like. He’s said it probably 5-10 times. People keep forgetting that he’s only been the GM of this team for 1.5 seasons! San Francisco was averaging 4-5 wins per season for 4 years before they got to this point. Hopefully our turnaround happens quicker, but these things take time. The wildcard is Shurmur.

In comment 14652207 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

Also, this move "effectively benching" him means we're giving up on him? Go back and look at Justin Tuck's (3rd round) first couple of seasons. He only saw spot duty but was still able to develop coming off the bench. Am I comparing Tuck to BJ Hill? No. But who knows what we have yet?

Who said give up? He's just being benched, I presume he's not being cut.

He just hasn't performed in a way that gives the GM the confidence to not replace the bulk of his playing time.

That doesn't reflect well on him. Coming out of last season he was heralded as a bright spot, and has been mentioned quote frequently as evidence of Gettleman's quality draft in 2018.

Having to replace his snaps because he's not productive isn't a good thing, right? Wouldn't it be better if he had grown in an upward trajectory and built off last year?

in the 'pieces you can work with' category.

Quote:

BJ Hill Zo Carter Ryan Connelly Oshane Ximines Corey Ballentine

BJ Hill and Will Hernandez are both pretty visibly regressing this year. Coaching? Or did they somehow overperform last season?

Carter's firmly in the 'one day I hope to be depth' category. He'll have a play here or two and then vanish. He's a liability when he does, because the team has absolutely no pass rush. He's not like Dave Tollefson hiding out on a team with Strahan, Osi and Tuck.

Ximines? See above, even worse.

Ballentine's been part of an awful, up and down secondary.

The bigger problem is the guys that he's "hit" on - Barkley, Jones, Lawrence and Hernandez - aren't all gimmes either, and they were drafted 2nd overall, 6th overall, 17th overall and 34th overall.

These are the same picks were Reese would hit too, until the very end. And without picking 2nd or 6th overall.

And that's without getting at the wasted draft picks. Two 4ths, one for Ogletree and one for Lauletta. A 3rd and a 5th for Leonard Williams.

Has Gettleman been a "catastrophe" - no. I don't know if we're supposed to be happy about that. The idea was to improve from the last regime - and I don't see anything about his performance that suggests that he has. In fact, I see a pattern of consistency between the two.

The objective was to try to turn into one of those organizations that extracted value from all their picks and FA money. The Steelers and Patriots would be ideal to model after. They both have failures - any team does - but they consistently get performance out of most of their resources. The Giants continue to remain at the point where either they overpaid in FA or drafted very high to get performance out of someone, otherwise they aspire to hopefully be 'solid depth'.

absolutely love the Williams grade. Gettleman has a good record of identifying DL. We are taking a chances on a former top 10 pick who in the right system can be really really good. And he’s been good with the Jets! This is a move that Reese doesn’t make, or really never made. It should be a breath of fresh air that Gettleman is actually trying to improve the roster in creative ways more than just banking on mid round draft picks, which Reese was literally terrible at.

In comment 14652213 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

the disappointment over the W-L record gets the focus, what Gettleman is doing is focusing on the trenches to get a dominant group. I don't see it as spinning as much as he's trying to put together the pieces that will carry out the formula of winning that battle at the LOS. If he's creating churn to get to a core group of 4 strong DL players - it could be very good for us - and it is a similar formula leading to success around the NFL. I'm hoping that in the offseason, he uses the same type of churn that he has at OG to solidify the Tackles and Center positions. And while many here don't like to have patience, I think he's trying to do that and build a contender without having to go on a huge spending spree. The majority of the contracts he's given so far are short-term hits. I'd expect that to continue.

This presumes this player is in fact signed to a short-term, low risk contract. Do your feelings change if he bolts in free agency or commands a large contract?

He’s been solid. He’s a second round LG in his second year playing next to a struggling LT right now. He’ll be fine.

in 2030...

DG is essentially building this team from scratch. It’s like an expansion franchise. The few good players were moved for a decent return and the rest of the roster has to be built from ground up. We needed 4/5 OLs and 4/5 DBs and 6/7 front 7 players pulse a franchise QB. DG is a problem because he hasn’t gotten that done in a year and a half?

In comment 14652224 ryanmkeane said:

Quote:

absolutely love the Williams grade. Gettleman has a good record of identifying DL. We are taking a chances on a former top 10 pick who in the right system can be really really good. And he’s been good with the Jets! This is a move that Reese doesn’t make, or really never made. It should be a breath of fresh air that Gettleman is actually trying to improve the roster in creative ways more than just banking on mid round draft picks, which Reese was literally terrible at.

Where did Gettleman get that great track record from? Reese built the DL that won two championships - and kept a pipeline of DTs going from one to the next as he lost guys to FA.

One thing is for sure - that rebuilt OL needs another rebuilding.

Welcome to today’s nfl, free agency, and the salary cap. You are going to have turnovers galore.

In his 1.5/years here, DG has done a remarkable job remolding our team from pathetic to hopeful. I know you are probably saying, but we are still 2-6.....but let’s see why we are 2-6:

1. Injuries to key offensive players: Shepard, Tate, Barkley, Engram were all out for 2 or more weeks

2. OL disappointments: Solder in particular has not played according to salary

3. Secondary has had zone issues and apparently is not getting improved. I call this a COACHING ISSUE (Bettcher and secondary coach are not doing their job). In addition, Clearly HALEY and BETHEA should be replaced but are not.

Conclusion:
BEFORE this year, we had no secondary....but now we have many young players who we hope get better to be ready for 2020.
BEFORE this year we had no DL, but now, we have 5 guys who can control the LOS.
BEFORE this year we had no QB of the future....now we have Danny Dimes who although not perfect now, will grow into a very solid qb for many years.

DG has done his job, but may have one big decision yet to make....fire Shurmur and Bettcher and the secondary and OL coaches. Keep the DL and ST coaches for sure.

In comment 14652223 jcn56 said:

Quote:

in the 'pieces you can work with' category. Quote: BJ Hill Zo Carter Ryan Connelly Oshane Ximines Corey Ballentine BJ Hill and Will Hernandez are both pretty visibly regressing this year. Coaching? Or did they somehow overperform last season? Carter's firmly in the 'one day I hope to be depth' category. He'll have a play here or two and then vanish. He's a liability when he does, because the team has absolutely no pass rush. He's not like Dave Tollefson hiding out on a team with Strahan, Osi and Tuck. Ximines? See above, even worse. Ballentine's been part of an awful, up and down secondary. The bigger problem is the guys that he's "hit" on - Barkley, Jones, Lawrence and Hernandez - aren't all gimmes either, and they were drafted 2nd overall, 6th overall, 17th overall and 34th overall. These are the same picks were Reese would hit too, until the very end. And without picking 2nd or 6th overall. And that's without getting at the wasted draft picks. Two 4ths, one for Ogletree and one for Lauletta. A 3rd and a 5th for Leonard Williams. Has Gettleman been a "catastrophe" - no. I don't know if we're supposed to be happy about that. The idea was to improve from the last regime - and I don't see anything about his performance that suggests that he has. In fact, I see a pattern of consistency between the two. The objective was to try to turn into one of those organizations that extracted value from all their picks and FA money. The Steelers and Patriots would be ideal to model after. They both have failures - any team does - but they consistently get performance out of most of their resources. The Giants continue to remain at the point where either they overpaid in FA or drafted very high to get performance out of someone, otherwise they aspire to hopefully be 'solid depth'.

How soon do you expect to see a full return on players like these?

Ballentine has 'been part of an awful up and down secondary' - does that mean he, himself can't develop into a solid CB? Seems like lazy logic where you're just lumping him in with other guys. He's a 6th round pick. We've got to give him a little time here.

Players like Ximines are literally a half season into their careers. You're probably not getting consistent production at this point.

Again, those players are guys I think have flashed a bit or can be worked with. They're not guys I am looking at as foundational pieces right now. It's really not that generous to have them in that group.

I'm not seeing the same thing you are with Hernandez. Hill has been disappointing, I don't think Hernandez is in that same area.

Remember Hernandez is sandwiched between an underperforming Nate Solder and Jon Halapio. I don't think he's playing poorly at all. He will be the starting LG here for a long time; I'm not concerned with that pick not working out.

In comment 14652223 jcn56 said:

Quote:

in the 'pieces you can work with' category. Quote: BJ Hill Zo Carter Ryan Connelly Oshane Ximines Corey Ballentine BJ Hill and Will Hernandez are both pretty visibly regressing this year. Coaching? Or did they somehow overperform last season? Carter's firmly in the 'one day I hope to be depth' category. He'll have a play here or two and then vanish. He's a liability when he does, because the team has absolutely no pass rush. He's not like Dave Tollefson hiding out on a team with Strahan, Osi and Tuck. Ximines? See above, even worse. Ballentine's been part of an awful, up and down secondary. The bigger problem is the guys that he's "hit" on - Barkley, Jones, Lawrence and Hernandez - aren't all gimmes either, and they were drafted 2nd overall, 6th overall, 17th overall and 34th overall. These are the same picks were Reese would hit too, until the very end. And without picking 2nd or 6th overall. And that's without getting at the wasted draft picks. Two 4ths, one for Ogletree and one for Lauletta. A 3rd and a 5th for Leonard Williams. Has Gettleman been a "catastrophe" - no. I don't know if we're supposed to be happy about that. The idea was to improve from the last regime - and I don't see anything about his performance that suggests that he has. In fact, I see a pattern of consistency between the two. The objective was to try to turn into one of those organizations that extracted value from all their picks and FA money. The Steelers and Patriots would be ideal to model after. They both have failures - any team does - but they consistently get performance out of most of their resources. The Giants continue to remain at the point where either they overpaid in FA or drafted very high to get performance out of someone, otherwise they aspire to hopefully be 'solid depth'.

Wait, so Will Hernandez has started every game of his not even 2 full year career so far and has played ok (at his worst) to very good (at his best) and it's now "generous" to include him as a solid piece of the team moving forward?

Man, the things having an agenda will make you say!

Where he was playing next to the same guys?

Guys like Ballantine and Ximines - no, I'm not unreasonably expecting them to step in and start with no growing pains.

What I'm expecting is to see something resembling some talent shine through from time to time, to give some hope that these players are worth the investment of time.

This D has been terrible. Part of it is resource allocation - they don't have much, the offense was the primary recipient of the higher draft picks and FA dollars. Part of it is coaching, I'm sure Bettcher could do more even with what he's been given.

At the end of the day though - Ballentine looks like your average 6th round pick, and that's not something you're looking forward to building around.

This moves means two things to me 1) a top 70 draft pick who showed glimpses last year has taken a step back 2) Gettleman intends on spending big money to retain Williams.

I hope Williams is dynamite and earns a big contract.

'You're changing the narrative'

'You hate Gettleman'

'You have an agenda'

Here's my agenda, plain and simple - I'd like to have a watchable Giants team again. Not a SB champion - though that would be nice. Not even a playoff team - although that's not a lot to ask.

I'd like a team that can go out and compete against the dregs of the NFL, like the Cards and the Lions. That's my agenda, as unreasonable as it may sound.

In comment 14652250 jcn56 said:

Quote:

'You're changing the narrative' 'You hate Gettleman' 'You have an agenda' Here's my agenda, plain and simple - I'd like to have a watchable Giants team again. Not a SB champion - though that would be nice. Not even a playoff team - although that's not a lot to ask. I'd like a team that can go out and compete against the dregs of the NFL, like the Cards and the Lions. That's my agenda, as unreasonable as it may sound.

What does that have to do with your asinine comments about Hernandez?

In comment 14652250 jcn56 said:

Quote:

'You're changing the narrative' 'You hate Gettleman' 'You have an agenda' Here's my agenda, plain and simple - I'd like to have a watchable Giants team again. Not a SB champion - though that would be nice. Not even a playoff team - although that's not a lot to ask. I'd like a team that can go out and compete against the dregs of the NFL, like the Cards and the Lions. That's my agenda, as unreasonable as it may sound.

I don't necessarily think you have an agenda. I think that Like most fans (me included) we probably don't know as much as we think. I think we tend to think in absolutes regarding our opinions with little room to Include alternate information contrary to what our opinions are.

In comment 14652250 jcn56 said:

Quote:

'You're changing the narrative' 'You hate Gettleman' 'You have an agenda' Here's my agenda, plain and simple - I'd like to have a watchable Giants team again. Not a SB champion - though that would be nice. Not even a playoff team - although that's not a lot to ask. I'd like a team that can go out and compete against the dregs of the NFL, like the Cards and the Lions. That's my agenda, as unreasonable as it may sound.

The unreasonable part is trashing every move the team is making and acting as if the team is years away from competing and voicing it daily.

I mean, the frustration over losing even trickles down to panning good moves:

Quote:

The bigger problem is the guys that he's "hit" on - Barkley, Jones, Lawrence and Hernandez - aren't all gimmes either, and they were drafted 2nd overall, 6th overall, 17th overall and 34th overall.

All of those players look pretty damn good so far. While not "gimmes", they will all likely be solid starters and core contributors.

I get the frustration, but each day, it is a full on assault that DG isn't qualified to make moves and that the team is endlessly stuck in neutral and the only thing that will seemingly stop the barrage is to get wins.

So basically, the song and dance will keep going until 2020 at the earliest.

We ask for better players. We draft very good players and we just traded for a very good player and somehow even those moves are spun as being aimless and not knowing what to do.

are seeing with Hernandez. He's been problematic on the O-Line. He was a high second round pick, I've been disappointed with him so far. The line is not improved much at all after two years of drafting 2nd and 6th overall. Good news is, they will be drafting around 6th or 7th again next year too.

In comment 14652247 jcn56 said:

Quote:

Where he was playing next to the same guys? Guys like Ballantine and Ximines - no, I'm not unreasonably expecting them to step in and start with no growing pains. What I'm expecting is to see something resembling some talent shine through from time to time, to give some hope that these players are worth the investment of time. This D has been terrible. Part of it is resource allocation - they don't have much, the offense was the primary recipient of the higher draft picks and FA dollars. Part of it is coaching, I'm sure Bettcher could do more even with what he's been given. At the end of the day though - Ballentine looks like your average 6th round pick, and that's not something you're looking forward to building around.

Solder picked up later the 2018 season - which coincided with Hernandez having his feet wet and having experience. I don't think Hernandez has really 'regressed' at all - I think you're kind of reaching there.

Who said anything about 'building around' Corey Ballentine? That's another reach. No one said that. If he can contribute @ CB as a 6th round pick, that's a big win though.

I think some of these guys have flashed here and there - it seems like you don't. That's fine. But we knew some of these players were raw and would need development - that's typically the case with mid-late round picks.

In comment 14652275 RollBlue said:

Quote:

are seeing with Hernandez. He's been problematic on the O-Line. He was a high second round pick, I've been disappointed with him so far. The line is not improved much at all after two years of drafting 2nd and 6th overall. Good news is, they will be drafting around 6th or 7th again next year too.

We didn't draft offensive linemen 2nd or 6th overall - not sure what your point is there.

The guards are the least of our offensive line issues. It's both tackles and the center.

how would you know how Ballentine looks??

He's had 10 snaps on D all season and has been primarily a ST-only player.

It might be fair to ask why we haven't seen him and Love more on D, but to say he looks like your average 6th round pick is extrapolating a lot from those limited snaps.

In comment 14652287 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

how would you know how Ballentine looks?? He's had 10 snaps on D all season and has been primarily a ST-only player. It might be fair to ask why we haven't seen him and Love more on D, but to say he looks like your average 6th round pick is extrapolating a lot from those limited snaps.

I wasn't the one who listed him as a 'piece you could work with'.

Let's face it - everyone adds some bias. You think I'm overly negative? Fine.

I think you're beyond the pale rosy and optimistic. You see some damn fine pieces? Fantastic.

At the end of the day - the record is what matters. And it aligns more closely to what I'm seeing than what you are.

you act like you're the only one that can see the record and that the rest of us are happy.

Are daily complaints about the GM going to translate into wins?

In comment 14652300 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

you act like you're the only one that can see the record and that the rest of us are happy. Are daily complaints about the GM going to translate into wins?

No, but rosy affirmations will - thanks Stuart Smalley!

Did I hit the wrong website, I thought we were here to talk about this train wreck?

Detroit

Quote:

Kevin Zeitler and Will Hernandez were good in pass protection for the most part, but they got minimal-to-no push in the running game.

Arizona

Quote:

The play inside wasn’t much better, but they had better moments here and there. Will Hernandez and Jon Halapio both allowed a pressure and Hernandez was flagged for a hold.

New England

Quote:

Will Hernandez allowed a pressure and was flagged for a hold. One of the sacks could have been attributed to him as well but Jones should have gotten rid of the ball.

Minnesota

Quote:

Will Hernandez allowed 2 pressures and a sack as well.

Washington

Quote:

Will Hernandez and Jon Halapio tied for the worst grades along the OL in this one. Hernandez allowed 2 pressures and a TFL while Halapio allowed 2 pressures. Their poor performance wasn’t felt as badly because of Jones’ mobility but the communication issues and lack of lateral adjustment is something teams like MIN and NE can eat up. They need to be better, plain and simple.

You have to go all the way back to Tampa to find At giving Hernandez a positive review.

FMiC -- I believe that's what you see. I see equal amounts of defense and applause.

There are a number of posters on this very thread who spent the offseason championing quick turnarounds, why not us, Manning gives the Giants the best chance to win, and that Gettleman's draft last year netted uncommon amount of starters.

Is it really out of this world to list Corey Ballentine as a piece the Giants can work with?

Saying they can work with him implies that there's talent there, not that he's a lock to be a starter or foundational piece or anything else. All it means is what it says... he's a player they can work with and hopefully get something out of.

Even if he became a viable ST player, it's still a decent win for a 6th round pick.

If I had listed him as a foundational player, I could see taking exception to that - but I put him in a group with inconsistent, unproven players. If it makes you feel better, you can move him down into the group with McIntosh, Chris Slayton and George - but he's actually active on Sundays and those guys aren't, so I didn't feel like he belonged there.

Is any of this really that bad?

Detroit:
Kevin Zeitler and Will Hernandez were good in pass protection for the most part, but they got minimal-to-no push in the running game.

Arizona:
The play inside wasn’t much better, but they had better moments here and there. Will Hernandez and Jon Halapio both allowed a pressure and Hernandez was flagged for a hold.

New England:
Will Hernandez allowed a pressure and was flagged for a hold. One of the sacks could have been attributed to him as well but Jones should have gotten rid of the ball.

Allowing a pressure is a huge deal? A holding penalty? He also notes that Jones should have gotten rid of the ball in the NE blurb.

I expect him to allow a QB pressure or get flagged for holding sometimes... most guards do.

He's got work to do, but I'm fine with him holding down the LG spot for the long-haul; he'll look better when we upgrade LT/OC.

a guy who people say is a virtual lock for the HoF when he retires, and you rebuild an offensive line...

...you should be able to run the damn ball.

Well, yeah - except for the part where the line isn't rebuilt yet.

There are 3 spots that still need replacements and upgrades.

The Giants are actually 11th in the NFL in YPC. (4.7)

So, it's not like we're not having any luck running the ball or are just getting driven backwards on every other attempt; I'd argue we just gave up on it too quickly in a bunch of our games.

In comment 14652364 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

Well, yeah - except for the part where the line isn't rebuilt yet. There are 3 spots that still need replacements and upgrades.

LOL - 3? I get Halapio - but what was the point of signing Remmers if he wasn't supposed to be strategic?

And I'm guessing Solder is #3? Then that was one hell of a rebuild he's got going on there.

In comment 14652376 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

The Giants are actually 11th in the NFL in YPC. (4.7) So, it's not like we're not having any luck running the ball or are just getting driven backwards on every other attempt; I'd argue we just gave up on it too quickly in a bunch of our games.

They can't run it on a consistent basis. That's why Shurmur has given up on it early, because it's disruptive to an offense.

And that's not to bail Shurmur out, his offense for the resources it has been given is terrible. But let's not act like these guys are a bunch of road graders, they can't open holes for shit.

There is a lot of 1, 3, -1, 2, 46 to the Giants running game.

In comment 14652364 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

Well, yeah - except for the part where the line isn't rebuilt yet. There are 3 spots that still need replacements and upgrades.

If Gettleman is giving up 3rd, potentially 4th, and big contracts -- maybe OL should have been the target?

No one available, maybe use that 3rd on or to pursue an OL in the draft, then?

In comment 14652378 jcn56 said:

Quote:

In comment 14652364 arcarsenal said: Quote: Well, yeah - except for the part where the line isn't rebuilt yet. There are 3 spots that still need replacements and upgrades. LOL - 3? I get Halapio - but what was the point of signing Remmers if he wasn't supposed to be strategic? And I'm guessing Solder is #3? Then that was one hell of a rebuild he's got going on there.

Remmers was always a 1 year stopgap. What did you think he was supposed to be? A long term solution?

In comment 14652403 christian said:

Quote:

In comment 14652364 arcarsenal said: Quote: Well, yeah - except for the part where the line isn't rebuilt yet. There are 3 spots that still need replacements and upgrades. If Gettleman is giving up 3rd, potentially 4th, and big contracts -- maybe OL should have been the target? No one available, maybe use that 3rd on or to pursue an OL in the draft, then?

Or failing that, on a pass rusher, not a guy who has been more of interior/run stopper to date.

Now you get into the conundrum - there was no pass rusher on the market right now to make the same deal. So here's where you break from your routine and instead wait out a better resource.

In comment 14652389 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

There is a lot of 1, 3, -1, 2, 46 to the Giants running game.

Is there really? This seems more assumptive than factual.

I'm not sure Hernandez allowing "two pressures" is a bad game. Is it a great game? No. But Sy makes it sound like giving up 2 pressures in a game is a shitty game.

In comment 14652403 christian said:

Quote:

In comment 14652364 arcarsenal said: Quote: Well, yeah - except for the part where the line isn't rebuilt yet. There are 3 spots that still need replacements and upgrades. If Gettleman is giving up 3rd, potentially 4th, and big contracts -- maybe OL should have been the target? No one available, maybe use that 3rd on or to pursue an OL in the draft, then?

I'm not a fan of the Leonard Williams trade. My point is... the line isn't rebuilt yet. Whether it should have been by now, whether we agree with how Gettleman is approaching it.... those are different discussions.

In comment 14652407 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

Remmers was always a 1 year stopgap. What did you think he was supposed to be? A long term solution?

Yes - although his contract was limited, similar to Golden I thought the point was to identify players who were strategic to the roster on shorter term, 'prove it' contracts.

What is the point of rebuilding with disposable parts?

In comment 14652113 jvm52106 said:

Quote:

BTW- i hate dead money examples, means nothing. The cap is the cap period.

This is a bit of an ignorant take. Dead money matters. That's less money that you can pay players who actually play for you, which, on the whole, generally means less talent on your roster for that year.

I don't know how anyone can say dead money means nothing unless you want to just hang a sign around your neck that says "I know nothing about the salary cap."

Maybe you can lend the sign to Kevin Abrams during business hours.

In comment 14652130 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

many have gone from armchair GM's to armchair Cap-ologists.

Whatever you say, Mr. 10-6.

The next critical thing you say about this franchise will be the first. And believe it or not, they are indeed deserving of criticism.

In comment 14652421 jcn56 said:

Quote:

In comment 14652407 arcarsenal said: Quote: Remmers was always a 1 year stopgap. What did you think he was supposed to be? A long term solution? Yes - although his contract was limited, similar to Golden I thought the point was to identify players who were strategic to the roster on shorter term, 'prove it' contracts. What is the point of rebuilding with disposable parts?

Well, you weren't paying attention then - no one ever looked at Mike Remmers as a long-term solution. This was always a bridge player and a stopgap signing. Most people knew that from the start.

The point of signing Mike Remmers is to attempt to stabilize the line in the short term enough to protect the rookie QB. You're not finding long-term solutions everywhere in free agency. This is what teams do - they give players short-term deals and hope they can hold serve until they're able to draft a better, younger replacement. This is what we're doing with Mike Remmers.

Not sure what the expectation is here - we had more holes than we had draft picks. Some spots needed to be filled this way in the interim.

then you're never moving forward, always just rebuilding.

Remmers was a journeyman and had injury issues - this was pointed out pretty clearly by those who objected to the signing in the first place.

If he was signed for this season only - and they didn't have someone credible behind him on the depth chart to take over for him - what exactly were they doing? Kicking the can til next year?

And that's just Remmers - you're not touching the fact that in that rebuild rebuild, you're also replacing the guy who they made the second highest LT in the game. But I guess they had to make do there too, right?

At some point, it's worth mentioning to Giants fans who may have missed that other teams also have to deal with the same limited pool of talent.

you can't have a future solution for every position on your team every single year. If you could, there would be no salary cap and every GM would be like 80% on draft hits. It just doesn't happen. There are going to be positions that aren't $$$ allocated, and you have to improvise, get creative, sign some good short term deals for a decent player. That's what Remmers was. We didn't draft a right tackle because the value wasn't there and we went heavy DB. I'm sure RT will be in the mix for the draft and FA next season.

If you don't think signing short-term stopgap players is part of rebuilding or NFL roster management, I'm not sure what else to tell you - you're just not paying attention. Every team does this - including NE.

Quote:

If he was signed for this season only - and they didn't have someone credible behind him on the depth chart to take over for him - what exactly were they doing? Kicking the can til next year?

Yes! This is exactly what they're doing. They didn't have a long term RT on the roster, and didn't have enough draft picks to address everything in one draft. What do teams do in these scenarios? They look for a veteran with experience to play there while they scout and seek a long-term answer.

Not sure what the issue is with the Remmers signing - it carries no long-term risk, it adds zero dead money to our future salary cap. He's here because we have a rookie QB that we're trying to develop. I don't even think Remmers is playing well, but the internal alternatives were almost certain to be worse.

You're allowing your pessimism to cloud your logic here and are just in "everything sucks so nothing is the right move" mode. It's hard to argue with that mentality.

And no, Solder and Remmers are not comparable. Solder was made the highest paid tackle in the sport - that's a bad signing. Remmers carries no risk beyond this year, will not leave us will dead money, and can easily be moved on from when a replacement is drafted or acquired this offseason. You're comparing apples to oranges - the only commonality between Solder and Remmers is the position they play.

I'm not a fan of Remmers, but the signing itself was sound. There are a lot of things we can get on Gettleman for - I really don't think this is one of them.

In comment 14652468 jcn56 said:

Quote:

then you're never moving forward, always just rebuilding. Remmers was a journeyman and had injury issues - this was pointed out pretty clearly by those who objected to the signing in the first place. If he was signed for this season only - and they didn't have someone credible behind him on the depth chart to take over for him - what exactly were they doing? Kicking the can til next year? And that's just Remmers - you're not touching the fact that in that rebuild rebuild, you're also replacing the guy who they made the second highest LT in the game. But I guess they had to make do there too, right? At some point, it's worth mentioning to Giants fans who may have missed that other teams also have to deal with the same limited pool of talent.

Wow...you are clueless as to how a franchise is run.

Maybe sit the next few plays out

In comment 14652548 Giants in 07 said:

Quote:

Wow...you are clueless as to how a franchise is run. Maybe sit the next few plays out

Maybe in between blubbering on social media you can fill us in there, Einstein, since you know better.

In comment 14652256 crick n NC said:

Quote:

In comment 14652250 jcn56 said: Quote: 'You're changing the narrative' 'You hate Gettleman' 'You have an agenda' Here's my agenda, plain and simple - I'd like to have a watchable Giants team again. Not a SB champion - though that would be nice. Not even a playoff team - although that's not a lot to ask. I'd like a team that can go out and compete against the dregs of the NFL, like the Cards and the Lions. That's my agenda, as unreasonable as it may sound. I don't necessarily think you have an agenda. I think that Like most fans (me included) we probably don't know as much as we think. I think we tend to think in absolutes regarding our opinions with little room to Include alternate information contrary to what our opinions are.

Wow, you sir are way too rational for BBI.

In comment 14652127 Mike in Boston said:
[quote. These are all the results of poor coaching. [/quote]

Not sure about that. Sometimes players just mess up. Too easy to blame coaching

You really believe, Barkley does know a backwards pass is a free ball. That was just a lazy play by him.

Guys missing blocking assignments. You really believe they aren’t coached in those assignments; I don’t believe that

I think the game is too fast some of these guys.

You might be right, the coaching might be bad, but we don’t know that, and your examples don’t definitively demonstrate it is coaching.

In comment 14652244 Chris684 said:

Quote:

In comment 14652223 jcn56 said: Quote: in the 'pieces you can work with' category. Quote: BJ Hill Zo Carter Ryan Connelly Oshane Ximines Corey Ballentine BJ Hill and Will Hernandez are both pretty visibly regressing this year. Coaching? Or did they somehow overperform last season? Carter's firmly in the 'one day I hope to be depth' category. He'll have a play here or two and then vanish. He's a liability when he does, because the team has absolutely no pass rush. He's not like Dave Tollefson hiding out on a team with Strahan, Osi and Tuck. Ximines? See above, even worse. Ballentine's been part of an awful, up and down secondary. The bigger problem is the guys that he's "hit" on - Barkley, Jones, Lawrence and Hernandez - aren't all gimmes either, and they were drafted 2nd overall, 6th overall, 17th overall and 34th overall. These are the same picks were Reese would hit too, until the very end. And without picking 2nd or 6th overall. And that's without getting at the wasted draft picks. Two 4ths, one for Ogletree and one for Lauletta. A 3rd and a 5th for Leonard Williams. Has Gettleman been a "catastrophe" - no. I don't know if we're supposed to be happy about that. The idea was to improve from the last regime - and I don't see anything about his performance that suggests that he has. In fact, I see a pattern of consistency between the two. The objective was to try to turn into one of those organizations that extracted value from all their picks and FA money. The Steelers and Patriots would be ideal to model after. They both have failures - any team does - but they consistently get performance out of most of their resources. The Giants continue to remain at the point where either they overpaid in FA or drafted very high to get performance out of someone, otherwise they aspire to hopefully be 'solid depth'. Wait, so Will Hernandez has started every game of his not even 2 full year career so far and has played ok (at his worst) to very good (at his best) and it's now "generous" to include him as a solid piece of the team moving forward? Man, the things having an agenda will make you say!

Is it an agenda to be distrustful of an organization that has sucked out loud for years?

It's such a douche-y take to assign an agenda to anyone who doesn't just drop to their knees and suspend their gag reflex when discussing this team.

yes, every team has turnover. yes, it is hard to maintain a solid core team.

The problem as I see it is that DG has completely turned over the team, phase one is complete, and now most of the team needs turning over again.

It's great that DG admits mistakes and moves on, but he makes too many of them. No one hits them all, but he's hitting too few to build a core. Too much resource is being spent to replace the mistakes, and the net gain is minimal.

Two off seasons in, and there's just as many, or more, holes as when he began.

Some of you must have really good eyesight if you can see a hopeful future building.

In comment 14652123 English Alaister said:

Quote:

we all like to play GM and have our own opinions based on what we see on the field but we need to remember the beneath. Football is a highly complex game with a wide variety of different asks for each player. The coaching and evaluation staff see these players in training, in camp, in meetings as well as games. They know them intimately and have a rock solid idea of who can do what and what they bring to the organization. In light of that it is hard to second guess but let me ask...from that list above who do you really want back at their current level of remuneration? Has DG made mistakes? Sure. This is an absolute dumpster fire to sort out though as Reese missed on way too many draft picks. We need to stay the course, let DG keep piling good drafts on top of each other whilst clearing the dead money and soon enough this team is going to be good. I can tell you what he is going to do though and it is much the same as above. Bolster the lines and bring in tough, competitive players at skill positions.

This is nothing more than "In DG we trust."

So far, "piling up good draft after good draft" has resulted in 2-6 and a chip shot FG from 1-7. So far, Jones has been what his critics said: meh arm talent, some good games, some bad games, ball security and pocket awareness issues. The jury is still deliberating.

DG has a novel approach of turning a roster into an expansion team roster and then trying to build it back up and then handing it over to a HC who has lost more than 2 of every three games over his career. I think it's an asinine way to go about things (what if George Young had gotten rid of Carson, Martin, Van Pelt et al and then handed the team over to J D Roberts or John North) when he came in and started all over again), but that's what we are doing. I think DG shows a lot of activity. Whether it is beneficial or constructive activity is an open question, and he's made a enough mistakes to call the question.

In comment 14652583 jcn56 said:

Quote:

In comment 14652548 Giants in 07 said: Quote: Wow...you are clueless as to how a franchise is run. Maybe sit the next few plays out Maybe in between blubbering on social media you can fill us in there, Einstein, since you know better.

Good one! I too usually bring up events from 10 years ago to support my arguments..

Too early to tell. Pretty much every year, since time began, BBI raves about how good the draft was, until a couple of years go by and we bitch about what a dud is was.
the class of 2018 hasn't exactly jumped up and taken the world by storm. SB has shown to be a very good RB, but otherwise everyone is trending average or below. I'm not going to label it a bust, but neither am I going to anoint it the kind of draft that really kick starts a solid rebuild. Until the draft produces, it doesn't matter how much potential you see.

and correct me if I'm wrong.... People harp so much on the allocation of resources, both picks and money...

But then sometimes don't bat an eye or even applaud the forward thinking of something like Arizona trading a 3rd round pick to move up for Rosen only to trade him away a year later and use the first overall pick on Murray. There are even some on the board that would have been, or sh-t would be for all I know, fine with doing the same thing here next year had Jones struggled or not looked all that great, or we had a shot at Tua or something.

It's like there's a standard that the Giants are judged on that is above and beyond the standard that other teams are judged on.

And yeah, I know... "look at the record". Okay. Other teams that have been lauded this offseason/season....
The Browns, The 49er's, the Jets, etc... all teams that are (or were) supposedly doing things the right way...
They've all been through a tough transition as well.

In comment 14652524 ryanmkeane said:

Quote:

you can't have a future solution for every position on your team every single year. If you could, there would be no salary cap and every GM would be like 80% on draft hits.

Based on what I read in this thread there is a solution for every position...they come from and #1 and #2 picks and presumably Free Agent signings, since expectations for #3 picks and later are for depth.

I just wonder if players will be retiring before all 22 of them can play together...

In comment 14652713 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

and correct me if I'm wrong.... People harp so much on the allocation of resources, both picks and money... But then sometimes don't bat an eye or even applaud the forward thinking of something like Arizona trading a 3rd round pick to move up for Rosen only to trade him away a year later and use the first overall pick on Murray. There are even some on the board that would have been, or sh-t would be for all I know, fine with doing the same thing here next year had Jones struggled or not looked all that great, or we had a shot at Tua or something. It's like there's a standard that the Giants are judged on that is above and beyond the standard that other teams are judged on. And yeah, I know... "look at the record". Okay. Other teams that have been lauded this offseason/season.... The Browns, The 49er's, the Jets, etc... all teams that are (or were) supposedly doing things the right way... They've all been through a tough transition as well.

You talk about people over-complicating things let me make this real simple for you.

It's much better to have young cost effective resources then burn through resources that get you cost effective resources (like draft picks) to acquire non-cost effective resources.

It's why the Jets who also are rebuilding wants to dump a player like this for picks. When you need to turn a team long term you do it with draft picks.

In comment 14652376 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

The Giants are actually 11th in the NFL in YPC. (4.7) So, it's not like we're not having any luck running the ball or are just getting driven backwards on every other attempt; I'd argue we just gave up on it too quickly in a bunch of our games.

We fall behind fast, it is our SOP>

Don't let the pursuit of Better be the enemy of Good.

The idea being is that if you have an outdated but functional bathroom but your kitchen is going to burn the house down if you try to cook anything, don't waste your time upgrading the bathroom first. Fix the kitchen.

The D-Line while not perfect was good enough for now, the OLine is on fire.

When he could have resigned Brown, Brown was good enough for now, OC is on fire, RT is on fire, LT was starting to spark.

DG is letting Better be the enemy of Good. In doing so, he is now churning the top of the roster instead of the bottom, wasting resources that are desperately needed elsewhere.

He has now built a DL with the singular focus of being a dominant run stopping unit. There is no Donald or Cox in the group. So,, while some may be able to collapse the pocket, pass rush is not the strength of any of these guys. In the mean time, the defense will still get torched by receivers running free before these guys even engage the OL. What good is it to have one unit so dominant at stopping the run, but you can't stop the most basic passing plays.

While that is going on, he spent the #6 pick in the draft on a guy that is hoped will be the Franchise QB of the next 15 years. THe single most important thing that the team needs to do is to protect this asset. That means building the OL.

OL is not like other position groups. First there are 5 of them, more players than any other group. Second, they take longer to develop, the Air Raid system many college teams are using doesn't get these guys trained well for the NFL. As such they are hard to evaluate and have a high miss rate. There is a scarcity of OL around the league. Decent OL rarely if ever hit the FA market. Looking for OL in FA is not a good option. OL needs to have a pipeline of developing players, and be built primarily through the draft.

DG has found 2 young guards, but he churned through several players at RG one them a gift who was good enough for now. In the mean time, he has payed almost no attention to RT and OC, and signed what amounts to a 2 year stop gap at LT for a record setting price. There is no pipeline. He a 2nd rounder and a 7th rounder in the draft. The team needs 2 OTs and OC. Its OK to kick the can down the road with guys like Solder and Remmers if you have young guys in the wings.

The OL is on fire, and has been for a decade. Neither Reese nor DG seem to have any clue what to do about it. So they both let Better at other less meaningful position groups be the enemy of Good.

In comment 14652713 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

and correct me if I'm wrong.... People harp so much on the allocation of resources, both picks and money... But then sometimes don't bat an eye or even applaud the forward thinking of something like Arizona trading a 3rd round pick to move up for Rosen only to trade him away a year later and use the first overall pick on Murray. There are even some on the board that would have been, or sh-t would be for all I know, fine with doing the same thing here next year had Jones struggled or not looked all that great, or we had a shot at Tua or something. It's like there's a standard that the Giants are judged on that is above and beyond the standard that other teams are judged on. And yeah, I know... "look at the record". Okay. Other teams that have been lauded this offseason/season.... The Browns, The 49er's, the Jets, etc... all teams that are (or were) supposedly doing things the right way... They've all been through a tough transition as well.

Great, we're a better operation than the Cardinals. Do we get a trophy for that?

That plus a more enjoyable pre-game show experience for you must be all you need to be satisfied.

Maybe some Giants fans are indeed guilty of holding them to a higher standard. Or maybe it just feels that way because of how easily you are able to see the optimistic view in everything they do.

I applaud your ability to be that sort of fan - I say that sincerely because it's probably more enjoyable than being annoyed at the way they're operating over the past half decade or so, but I don't think it's fair for you act all high and mighty about the fact that the Giants, as an an organization, do warrant some criticism of late, and that it doesn't make anyone a less loyal fan for being annoyed with them and/or starting to get impatient for when they can see some results for this supposed turnaround.

Whether you see the glass half full or half empty, we can all agree that we'd like it to be completely full sometime soon, can't we?

And don't mistake my view on seeing the positives in what is happening as meaning I don't see the negatives.

Paying attention to the positives is my coping mechanism for dealing with the downfall of this franchise since 2011.

Because like I've said a couple times recently, when I stop seeing the positives, then I no longer have a reason to watch. The Giants, or any football in general. Right now, the Giants are all I watch, so I'm halfway there.

In comment 14652123 English Alaister said:

Quote:

we all like to play GM and have our own opinions based on what we see on the field but we need to remember the beneath. Football is a highly complex game with a wide variety of different asks for each player. The coaching and evaluation staff see these players in training, in camp, in meetings as well as games. They know them intimately and have a rock solid idea of who can do what and what they bring to the organization. In light of that it is hard to second guess but let me ask...from that list above who do you really want back at their current level of remuneration? Has DG made mistakes? Sure. This is an absolute dumpster fire to sort out though as Reese missed on way too many draft picks. We need to stay the course, let DG keep piling good drafts on top of each other whilst clearing the dead money and soon enough this team is going to be good. I can tell you what he is going to do though and it is much the same as above. Bolster the lines and bring in tough, competitive players at skill positions.

Dammit. I hate it when a Brit has to school Americans about American football!

In comment 14652123 English Alaister said:

Quote:

we all like to play GM and have our own opinions based on what we see on the field but we need to remember the beneath. Football is a highly complex game with a wide variety of different asks for each player. The coaching and evaluation staff see these players in training, in camp, in meetings as well as games. They know them intimately and have a rock solid idea of who can do what and what they bring to the organization. In light of that it is hard to second guess but let me ask...from that list above who do you really want back at their current level of remuneration? Has DG made mistakes? Sure. This is an absolute dumpster fire to sort out though as Reese missed on way too many draft picks. We need to stay the course, let DG keep piling good drafts on top of each other whilst clearing the dead money and soon enough this team is going to be good. I can tell you what he is going to do though and it is much the same as above. Bolster the lines and bring in tough, competitive players at skill positions.

As I said in the op. The moves taken in isolation aren't necessarily bad (some are, some are not). The problem is that he is no longer fixing Reese's messes. He is re-fixing his own. And, in some cases he is re-fixing things that were really broken (could be better but it wasn't broken) while other things are completely shattered.

And the reality he has bolstered the DL. The OL is not markedly better than it was in 2017, and there is no pipeline of up and coming players for the OL. So he is not "bolstering the lines", he is only bolstering run stuffing DL.

The pathway to building a winning team starts with the OL. Everything flows from there. The QB is the most prized resource, it needs protection. Run the ball, control the clock, limit the exposure of the defense. Build a dynamic passing game that allows you to grab an early lead and force the opposition to be 1 dimensional. Easier to play defense against a 1 dimensional offense. You can take many different strategies to building a winning team once you have an OL and a QB. OK he got a QB, where is the OL?

In comment 14653306 mrvax said:

Quote:

In comment 14652123 English Alaister said: Quote: we all like to play GM and have our own opinions based on what we see on the field but we need to remember the beneath. Football is a highly complex game with a wide variety of different asks for each player. The coaching and evaluation staff see these players in training, in camp, in meetings as well as games. They know them intimately and have a rock solid idea of who can do what and what they bring to the organization. In light of that it is hard to second guess but let me ask...from that list above who do you really want back at their current level of remuneration? Has DG made mistakes? Sure. This is an absolute dumpster fire to sort out though as Reese missed on way too many draft picks. We need to stay the course, let DG keep piling good drafts on top of each other whilst clearing the dead money and soon enough this team is going to be good. I can tell you what he is going to do though and it is much the same as above. Bolster the lines and bring in tough, competitive players at skill positions. Dammit. I hate it when a Brit has to school Americans about American football!

So much for being taken to school!

the Giants have spent a 1st and 3rd round pick on the defensive front and their rushing yards per game allowed by year

2016: 2
2017: 26

DG hired

2018: 21
2019: 22

I think this is the point. And the larger point is if you are going to talk this big game about building through the trenches you should be able to follow through on that without a desperation play when you are 2-6

In comment 14653501 NoGainDayne said:

Quote:

the Giants have spent a 1st and 3rd round pick on the defensive front and their rushing yards per game allowed by year 2016: 2 2017: 26 DG hired 2018: 21 2019: 22 I think this is the point. And the larger point is if you are going to talk this big game about building through the trenches you should be able to follow through on that without a desperation play when you are 2-6

To be fair, you need LBers to as well as DL to stuff the run...

DG is still churning the LBs... So far he has spent 2 thirds, 1 fourth (trade for tree), 1 fifth. Two bad contracts (inherited tree's) and paid for Martin. All that and the LBers are still terrible. The only good move he has made (Golden) is a 1yr deal who will likely walk in FA.

By the time he is done churning LBers, he will be just about ready to return to the DL...

the other hog mollie staple. He made an LT the highest paid player in the league, used a second rounder on a G, traded a player and ate $8M in dead money to get another G. And again stated this as an area he was going to improve. How about sack % rank by year?

2016: 3
2017: 12

DG Hired

2018: 20
2019: 18

So like are we giving credit to people that just bombastically talk about building through the trenches and don't follow through or do we actually want to build through the trenches for real?



NFL Team QB sack % - ( New Window )

In comment 14653520 NoGainDayne said:

Quote:

the other hog mollie staple. He made an LT the highest paid player in the league, used a second rounder on a G, traded a player and ate $8M in dead money to get another G. And again stated this as an area he was going to improve. How about sack % rank by year? 2016: 3 2017: 12 DG Hired 2018: 20 2019: 18 So like are we giving credit to people that just bombastically talk about building through the trenches and don't follow through or do we actually want to build through the trenches for real? NFL Team QB sack % - ( New Window )

Nice post...
As I said, the line is not markedly improved. Apparently its worse than when the tackles pots were manned by the likes of Flowers and Hart!

can we stop it with the hyperbole?

Solder is the highest paid player in the league?? What the fuck. He wasn't even the highest paid player in the league when he signed the contract!

But then again, you appear to be insinuating the OL was good in 2016 and 2017, so you are back to the usual pointless posts.

clearly I meant highest paid T in the league.

Totally lose the meaning in the post because of your little technicality right?

Give me a break.

In comment 14653528 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

can we stop it with the hyperbole? Solder is the highest paid player in the league?? What the fuck. He wasn't even the highest paid player in the league when he signed the contract! But then again, you appear to be insinuating the OL was good in 2016 and 2017, so you are back to the usual pointless posts.

Holy shit they are posting out sack percentage numbers as proof of anything. Newsflash - Eli may be immobile but he got rid of the ball lightning fast, while on the other hand DJ holds the ball an eternity.

I'm a big believer in using analytics to help you make decisions, but when people that say they work in the field can't even recognize the basic context of why that stat may be, I lose faith in the guys running analytics departments.

In comment 14653528 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

can we stop it with the hyperbole? Solder is the highest paid player in the league?? What the fuck. He wasn't even the highest paid player in the league when he signed the contract! But then again, you appear to be insinuating the OL was good in 2016 and 2017, so you are back to the usual pointless posts.

Stop being a schmuck you know what he meant and so does everybody else.
He was the highest paid OL at the time.

And nobody is insinuating that the OL was good in 2016 or 17.. . But for all the talk from DG, has it really improved that much? Or at least improved enough to make a difference?

Ponderous!

That may fudge the numbers a little bit right there. Stop using stats to make arguments if you are going to ignore the whole context of the stats.

the previous two years. He's called a control in this situation and that is actually sound analysis.

But yeah. Let's have the people that don't grasp these simple concepts in numerical analysis call out the people that are in the field. That's a good use of everyone's time...

the point is to stop your QB from getting sacked. This regime isn't doing that when it was a point of emphasis and significant resources were spent.

We signed a big ticket T and G going into 2018 and invested a 2nd round pick and with the same QB went from 12 to 20 in sack rate. You don't need to be a data scientist to call that a shit job.

In comment 14653528 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

can we stop it with the hyperbole? Solder is the highest paid player in the league?? What the fuck. He wasn't even the highest paid player in the league when he signed the contract! But then again, you appear to be insinuating the OL was good in 2016 and 2017, so you are back to the usual pointless posts.

Well, looks like Gettleman should have just stopped trying to make a good deal for this team.

In comment 14653537 .McL. said:

Quote:

And nobody is insinuating that the OL was good in 2016 or 17.. . But for all the talk from DG, has it really improved that much? Or at least improved enough to make a difference? Ponderous!

What is the most important position on an Oline in the NFL? Had DG offered Solder 1-2 million less to come to the Giants, would he have done it? Should he have just kept Flowers there?

In comment 14653550 mrvax said:

Quote:

In comment 14653528 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: can we stop it with the hyperbole? Solder is the highest paid player in the league?? What the fuck. He wasn't even the highest paid player in the league when he signed the contract! But then again, you appear to be insinuating the OL was good in 2016 and 2017, so you are back to the usual pointless posts. Well, looks like Gettleman should have just stopped trying to make a good deal for this team.

I honestly don't know what you are trying to say here. Please explain.

In comment 14653537 .McL. said:

Quote:

In comment 14653528 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: can we stop it with the hyperbole? Solder is the highest paid player in the league?? What the fuck. He wasn't even the highest paid player in the league when he signed the contract! But then again, you appear to be insinuating the OL was good in 2016 and 2017, so you are back to the usual pointless posts. Stop being a schmuck you know what he meant and so does everybody else. He was the highest paid OL at the time. And nobody is insinuating that the OL was good in 2016 or 17.. . But for all the talk from DG, has it really improved that much? Or at least improved enough to make a difference? Ponderous!

Stop being a schmuck??

Let's see, the condescending fuck posts about making a player the highest paid guy in the league and then foists sack % numbers as an indicator of how the OL was performing pre- and post-Gettleman? And I'm the one twisting things.

Just another case of the Captain Analytics having no fucking clue the context of a stat. And I'm the schmuck.

Got it.

In comment 14653556 mrvax said:

Quote:

In comment 14653537 .McL. said: Quote: And nobody is insinuating that the OL was good in 2016 or 17.. . But for all the talk from DG, has it really improved that much? Or at least improved enough to make a difference? Ponderous! What is the most important position on an Oline in the NFL? Had DG offered Solder 1-2 million less to come to the Giants, would he have done it? Should he have just kept Flowers there?

How about using some of the resources he had on hand to trade for a young LT. THe Pats let Solder walk, and did just that.
How about NOT drafting Barkley, making some trades and targeting a bunch a of really good OL guys in 2018. For all its pomp about QBs, that draft had a crapload of really good OL guys. He spent just 1 second in that draft when it was an excellent opportunity to cluster draft at a position group that was beyond being in dire need.

If you are suggesting that DG has not had any other choices or opportunities to address the OL, then you should go back to the 80s smoke some dope and work on VMS, I'm sure you will be happy. Yes I am old enough to remember the VAX.

Nobody is foisting anything. This is your problem. For all your claims to be a numbers person or even a good analyzer of information you routinely just throw out whatever evidence is provided to be replaced by limited or flimsy logic of your own.

You aren't even making a point for the OL improving here just trying to say that are metric isn't any good.

What is your evidence that it's improved? Do they all hold hands at lunch? Does DG like the cut of their jib?

In comment 14653561 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

In comment 14653537 .McL. said: Quote: In comment 14653528 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: can we stop it with the hyperbole? Solder is the highest paid player in the league?? What the fuck. He wasn't even the highest paid player in the league when he signed the contract! But then again, you appear to be insinuating the OL was good in 2016 and 2017, so you are back to the usual pointless posts. Stop being a schmuck you know what he meant and so does everybody else. He was the highest paid OL at the time. And nobody is insinuating that the OL was good in 2016 or 17.. . But for all the talk from DG, has it really improved that much? Or at least improved enough to make a difference? Ponderous! Stop being a schmuck?? Let's see, the condescending fuck posts about making a player the highest paid guy in the league and then foists sack % numbers as an indicator of how the OL was performing pre- and post-Gettleman? And I'm the one twisting things. Just another case of the Captain Analytics having no fucking clue the context of a stat. And I'm the schmuck. Got it.

First off, everbody knew what he meant and you start in the the Hyberbole crap all the while twisting the clear intent of the poster. The only one using hyperbole and foul language was you.
Second, just because you don't like the stats, doesn't make them irrelevent.

At the end of the day, has the OL gotten better enough to make a difference. The answer is clearly NO. And that is the point that NGD is making.

Stay on point, stop twisting things, stop being an obtuse schmuck.

you always this fucking dense??

Quote:

You aren't even making a point for the OL improving here just trying to say that are metric isn't any good. What is your evidence that it's improved? Do they all hold hands at lunch? Does DG like the cut of their jib?

I'm not trying to say the OL is improved. I'm saying that your stat about sack % is pointless, that you misspoke about Solder being the highest paid player, and you consistently misrepresent the context of stats. Despite being a self-proclaimed expert on analytics.

My post had nothing to do with the OL - It was pointing out that yet again - you are full of shit.

condescending is YOU FMiC.

But that is par for the course.

In comment 14653585 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

you always this fucking dense?? Quote: You aren't even making a point for the OL improving here just trying to say that are metric isn't any good. What is your evidence that it's improved? Do they all hold hands at lunch? Does DG like the cut of their jib? I'm not trying to say the OL is improved. I'm saying that your stat about sack % is pointless, that you misspoke about Solder being the highest paid player, and you consistently misrepresent the context of stats. Despite being a self-proclaimed expert on analytics. My post had nothing to do with the OL - It was pointing out that yet again - you are full of shit.

Is really necessary to use hyberbole and foul language to point out an honest mistake.

You are still being a schmuck, you just can't help yourself.

discuss the state of the team, in particular the OL, then stop millering the thread.

yep. Staying on point is posting a terrible stat?

You aren't taking him to task because it supports your view.

So now staying on point means agreeing with a terrible take? Awesome.

Maybe I'll just completely ignore the point English Alaister made. That is your version of staying on point, I presume.

Please enlighten us.

this wasn't condescending at all:

Quote:

So much for being taken to school!

But hey - I used foul languange!!

In comment 14653595 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

yep. Staying on point is posting a terrible stat? You aren't taking him to task because it supports your view. So now staying on point means agreeing with a terrible take? Awesome. Maybe I'll just completely ignore the point English Alaister made. That is your version of staying on point, I presume.

If you don't like his take, provide some evidence to support yours...

Oh yeah that's right. you don't believe in evidence.
We the proletariat shmucks are completely incapable of viewing and interpreting any evidence relating to football. We just can't possible know enough.

I guess we should all just accept your shilling for the current FO as gospel. I mean it came down from on high, from you right.

[\eye roll]

just continue making great points about the OL!

In comment 14653600 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

this wasn't condescending at all: Quote: So much for being taken to school! But hey - I used foul languange!!

Nice cherry picking...

And this take that I replied wasn't condescending?
In comment 14653306 mrvax said:

Quote:

Dammit. I hate it when a Brit has to school Americans about American football!

In comment 14653565 .McL. said:

Quote:

How about using some of the resources he had on hand to trade for a young LT. THe Pats let Solder walk, and did just that. How about NOT drafting Barkley, making some trades and targeting a bunch a of really good OL guys in 2018. For all its pomp about QBs, that draft had a crapload of really good OL guys. He spent just 1 second in that draft when it was an excellent opportunity to cluster draft at a position group that was beyond being in dire need. If you are suggesting that DG has not had any other choices or opportunities to address the OL, then you should go back to the 80s smoke some dope and work on VMS, I'm sure you will be happy. Yes I am old enough to remember the VAX.

Not knowing just how the draft would work out, the FA period being a month or more earlier, DG got a veteran plug and play LT. Or so we all thought. No one knew that Solder's play would decline so fast that it is very weird. Or that he has an undisclosed injury. I can fault DG for some moves but the Solder acquisition isn't one of them.

In comment 14653612 mrvax said:

Quote:

In comment 14653565 .McL. said: Quote: How about using some of the resources he had on hand to trade for a young LT. THe Pats let Solder walk, and did just that. How about NOT drafting Barkley, making some trades and targeting a bunch a of really good OL guys in 2018. For all its pomp about QBs, that draft had a crapload of really good OL guys. He spent just 1 second in that draft when it was an excellent opportunity to cluster draft at a position group that was beyond being in dire need. If you are suggesting that DG has not had any other choices or opportunities to address the OL, then you should go back to the 80s smoke some dope and work on VMS, I'm sure you will be happy. Yes I am old enough to remember the VAX. Not knowing just how the draft would work out, the FA period being a month or more earlier, DG got a veteran plug and play LT. Or so we all thought. No one knew that Solder's play would decline so fast that it is very weird. Or that he has an undisclosed injury. I can fault DG for some moves but the Solder acquisition isn't one of them.

He was 31 y/o for the 2018 season...
Is it really so hard to anticipate a decline in a OL over 30.
In fact there were plenty of reports out of NE that his play was already in decline.
So yeah, nobody could have forseen this....

Solder got paid so much because of the timing of his FA. Very few OL on the market that year with teams in desperate needs of one. Perfect storm. I wish Bill B was running our franchise and we landed Brown instead but so does every other team in football.

In comment 14653620 Thegratefulhead said:

Quote:

Solder got paid so much because of the timing of his FA. Very few OL on the market that year with teams in desperate needs of one. Perfect storm. I wish Bill B was running our franchise and we landed Brown instead but so does every other team in football.

Very few starter level LT on the market any year. It's a hard position to fill.

In comment 14653606 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

just continue making great points about the OL!

We are still waiting on your momentous insight, backed by tons of numerical, analytical, and video evidence...

Tick, tick, tick...

Oh yeah... That's what I've done over the past year and a half...
Go figure.

In comment 14653623 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

In comment 14653620 Thegratefulhead said: Quote: Solder got paid so much because of the timing of his FA. Very few OL on the market that year with teams in desperate needs of one. Perfect storm. I wish Bill B was running our franchise and we landed Brown instead but so does every other team in football. Very few starter level LT on the market any year. It's a hard position to fill.

Excellent point...
Which is why the position really needs to be filled by continually drafting players and building a pipeline.

In comment 14653628 .McL. said:

Quote:

In comment 14653623 Britt in VA said: Quote: In comment 14653620 Thegratefulhead said: Quote: Solder got paid so much because of the timing of his FA. Very few OL on the market that year with teams in desperate needs of one. Perfect storm. I wish Bill B was running our franchise and we landed Brown instead but so does every other team in football. Very few starter level LT on the market any year. It's a hard position to fill. Excellent point... Which is why the position really needs to be filled by continually drafting players and building a pipeline.

Well, in fairness to Dave Gettleman, he didn't have the pipeline. The cupboard was bare. Ereck Flowers and nothing else. That's what he arrived to.

In comment 14653625 .McL. said:

Quote:

In comment 14653606 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: just continue making great points about the OL! We are still waiting on your momentous insight, backed by tons of numerical, analytical, and video evidence... Tick, tick, tick... Oh yeah... That's what I've done over the past year and a half... Go figure.

You don't get it. Providing a ridiculous opinion, backed up with specious facts isn't any better.

You have such momentous insight that I'm supposedly the only condesceding person on this thread, all while you dismissed EA's post by being condescending. Just another example of terrible self-awareness

Add hypocritical to your "data based" analyses and we're all good!

It doesn't take momentous insight to say that much of what you post is bullshit. The bar isn't that high taht you need to see a pie chart there, Ace

In comment 14653630 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

In comment 14653628 .McL. said: Quote: In comment 14653623 Britt in VA said: Quote: In comment 14653620 Thegratefulhead said: Quote: Solder got paid so much because of the timing of his FA. Very few OL on the market that year with teams in desperate needs of one. Perfect storm. I wish Bill B was running our franchise and we landed Brown instead but so does every other team in football. Very few starter level LT on the market any year. It's a hard position to fill. Excellent point... Which is why the position really needs to be filled by continually drafting players and building a pipeline. Well, in fairness to Dave Gettleman, he didn't have the pipeline. The cupboard was bare. Ereck Flowers and nothing else. That's what he arrived to.

Wholeheartedly agree...

But that doesn't explain why after 2 years, there is still no hint of a pipeline.

first move DG makes, sign Solder. Then, draft Barkley #2 overall. Then... 34th pick, G Will Hernandez.

That seems like a plan when you look back at it, as a first couple of moves, doesn't it?

that outside QB, the OL is the hardest position group to fill, and LT the hardest position in the group... A corollary to this is, it will also take the longest to flesh out.

It is also of paramount importance, ESPECIALLY, when you are trying to bring along a rookie QB. So, it has to be the #1 priority (possibly #2 after the QB) to get it going.

Neglecting it the way it has been, is, IMO, is gross misconduct.

In comment 14653620 Thegratefulhead said:

Quote:

Solder got paid so much because of the timing of his FA. Very few OL on the market that year with teams in desperate needs of one. Perfect storm. I wish Bill B was running our franchise and we landed Brown instead but so does every other team in football.

I remember Beatty had the Giants over a barrel in his contract year too.

it takes time to do so, more than two drafts, unless every position you're going to take is O-line, and we all know this team had way more holes than just the o-line.

If Gettleman deserves criticism for anything, it's that perhaps he thought we were closer to competeing with some stop gaps.

On the other side of the token, he deserves credit for realizing quickly that it wasn't happening and cut bait.

In comment 14653635 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

first move DG makes, sign Solder. Then, draft Barkley #2 overall. Then... 34th pick, G Will Hernandez. That seems like a plan when you look back at it, as a first couple of moves, doesn't it?

Well, it's "A" plan...

As I have said, I don't believe drafting a RB that high is ever a good use of resources. Improving the RB position is a case of allowing Better to be the enemy of Good. You can man the RB position with good enough, while you attend to the fact that the house is burning down on the OL.

I wanted to trade down and target OL in that draft. Consider this plan...

Trade down from #2, and maneuver in that draft so that you can target McGlinchey and Ragnow, or possibly even Nelson if you are willing to give up some extra capital. Assume that the team still drafts Hernandez.

That would mean that the left side of the line would be McGlinchey, Hernandez & Ragnow. The team would still have stuck, and most likely gotten Brown on waivers anyway, resign Brown, and trade Vernon for a good RT.

Granted, the Giants wouldn't have Barkley, but they would have a young and far superior OL, which would be far more impactful for the offense in general, and far more helpful for developing DJ.

In comment 14653646 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

it takes time to do so, more than two drafts, unless every position you're going to take is O-line, and we all know this team had way more holes than just the o-line. If Gettleman deserves criticism for anything, it's that perhaps he thought we were closer to competeing with some stop gaps. On the other side of the token, he deserves credit for realizing quickly that it wasn't happening and cut bait.

Sure a pipeline takes more than 2 drafts...
Let me know when it starts to be built!

In the mean time, our #6 pick franchise QB is getting killed out there.

In comment 14653639 .McL. said:

Quote:

that outside QB, the OL is the hardest position group to fill, and LT the hardest position in the group... A corollary to this is, it will also take the longest to flesh out. It is also of paramount importance, ESPECIALLY, when you are trying to bring along a rookie QB. So, it has to be the #1 priority (possibly #2 after the QB) to get it going. Neglecting it the way it has been, is, IMO, is gross misconduct.

Solder was 30 when he signed with the Giants. Many Oline guys are good into their 30's. Unless they are battling injuries. I suppose you might expect some small decline in play from when he was 29 to 30. In any case, had Solder played at a reasonable expectation of approximately the same level he did NE,I don't think anyone would be complaining.

In comment 14653646 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

it takes time to do so, more than two drafts, unless every position you're going to take is O-line, and we all know this team had way more holes than just the o-line. If Gettleman deserves criticism for anything, it's that perhaps he thought we were closer to competeing with some stop gaps. On the other side of the token, he deserves credit for realizing quickly that it wasn't happening and cut bait.

Exactly, and you can't just blindly take lineman if the value doesn't line up. There are people here that actually believe DG is passing on what he believes are competent lineman for players he thinks are of equal value at other positions. Does anyone with a sane mind actually think DG would operate like that based on how much he values line play?

This next draft is OT heavy and I fully expect him to leave with at least two and one in the first three rounds most likely.

a. you have to have a willing trade partner, and b. the value must be good enough to go through with it.

Considering what we know happened in trade downs (Jet's receive 3 2nd rounders to move from 6 to 3, and Cardinals trades a single 3rd to move from 15 to 10), coupled with trade downs that were floated that were never made, is it safe to assume that maybe the value wasn't good enough to pass on Barkley, or a Darnold even for that matter if you believed that was the guy?

Personally, I would not have wanted them to trade out of #2 overall UNLESS another first rounder was involved, either a team with two firsts, or trade down and get their first the following year. If that's not available, I'm taking Barkley/Darnold.

He paid too much for Solder but I will not kill him for swinging. I would have been more upset if left the bat his shoulder. People would have gone crazy if Solder signed anywhere else after Norwell signed. He missed.

For me this is a round about way for many of you to continue to complain about the DG hire.

Mara sinned by signing a familiar face that he was comfortable with.

DG then sinned by drafting Barkley at 2.

Do they need to go to confession before you forgive or are we going to micro analyze every single action they take?

1.5 years is not enough time on which to judge a GM that took over a team with an aging veteran fan beloved QB, terrible cap and a depleted roster.

CTFD

Calm the Fuck Down.

In comment 14653667 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

a. you have to have a willing trade partner, and b. the value must be good enough to go through with it. Considering what we know happened in trade downs (Jet's receive 3 2nd rounders to move from 6 to 3, and Cardinals trades a single 3rd to move from 15 to 10), coupled with trade downs that were floated that were never made, is it safe to assume that maybe the value wasn't good enough to pass on Barkley, or a Darnold even for that matter if you believed that was the guy? Personally, I would not have wanted them to trade out of #2 overall UNLESS another first rounder was involved, either a team with two firsts, or trade down and get their first the following year. If that's not available, I'm taking Barkley/Darnold.

Absolutely, had to get get at least 2 1sts probably more... If you look at the trade value charts, the #2 pick is worth about the #8 and #12 picks combined... There would be no way to get that in 1 trade, what's more is that given the clamor over all the QBs, Barkley and Chubb, I think more that that could have been gotten. DG is simply lying about the donuts and hotdogs. It has been reported that there were credible offers, he just didn't want to pursue it. He fixated on Barkley.

But given the value of the #2 pick it should have been more than enough to get McGlinchey and Ragnow. If you told me today that I could trade Barkley for those 2 right now straight up, I would take it. And the fact is you could have gotten more, McGlinchey went 9th I think and Ragnow something like 20th. Today, I doubt the 9ers would trade McGlinchey straight up for Barkley. What does that tell you about the value that DG got out of that pick?

The value I think we got out of the pick was the offensive rookie of the year who had 2000 yards from scrimmage, 91 catches, and 15 TD's.

To me, that sounds like a starting RB and starting WR rolled into one for a rookie.

That and the fact it's only been done 3 times in NFL History.

Seems like pretty good value. Now put a good team around him and maximize that value.

Luckily, Saquon's career didn't end after one season and we still have a couple of years to work with to do all that.

In comment 14653660 mrvax said:

Quote:

In comment 14653639 .McL. said: Quote: that outside QB, the OL is the hardest position group to fill, and LT the hardest position in the group... A corollary to this is, it will also take the longest to flesh out. It is also of paramount importance, ESPECIALLY, when you are trying to bring along a rookie QB. So, it has to be the #1 priority (possibly #2 after the QB) to get it going. Neglecting it the way it has been, is, IMO, is gross misconduct. Solder was 30 when he signed with the Giants. Many Oline guys are good into their 30's. Unless they are battling injuries. I suppose you might expect some small decline in play from when he was 29 to 30. In any case, had Solder played at a reasonable expectation of approximately the same level he did NE,I don't think anyone would be complaining.

Most OL don't last much beyond 30... The Whitworths are the exception.
Look at the Giants line from SB 42... None lasted beyond the age of 33, but they were pretty much toast by 30 or 31. Snee was pretty much done at 29 but he tried to keep coming back from his injuries. It didn't work well...

gave up the #3 overall and three 2nd round picks.

Worth it? Good value? Or jury still out?

In comment 14653682 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

The value I think we got out of the pick was the offensive rookie of the year who had 2000 yards from scrimmage, 91 catches, and 15 TD's. To me, that sounds like a starting RB and starting WR rolled into one for a rookie. That and the fact it's only been done 3 times in NFL History. Seems like pretty good value. Now put a good team around him and maximize that value. Luckily, Saquon's career didn't end after one season and we still have a couple of years to work with to do all that.

Let me put it to you this way...

Lets say the Giants didn't draft Barkley but got McGlinchey and Ragnow instead. Forget even whatever else they may have been able to get....

Which do you think sets the team up for more success going forward? A line of

McGlinchey, Hernandex, Ragnow, Brown, (either draft pick from 2019 or yount RT in trade for Vernon)
with Gallman and A 3rd from 2018 (instead of Hill since he is heading for the bench)

Or what we have now, with Barkley?

I would take the line above without Barkley in heartbeat.

Barkley is exciting, he make great highlight real runs. BUt how much has he really changed the Giants offense. Does it look like an offense that is functioning well to you?

In comment 14653686 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

gave up the #3 overall and three 2nd round picks. Worth it? Good value? Or jury still out?

What does that have to do witht he price of tea in China...
Personally I never liked Darnold.

Why don't you ask about what the Colts got out of it...

They pretty much did the type of thing I am talking about. They pretty much retooled their OL.

two seasons of hindsight.

1. We don't know if we even had a trade partner.
2. We don't know if that trade partner even had an offer that could have gotten us those guys (what if the first rounder was the following year?)
3. You don't trust Gettleman to make the pick at 2 but you do trust him to make it later and then an additional first?
4. We don't even know how we had those guys scouted....

There are just too many damn variables.

And finally, how many drafts can you go back and say coulda, shoulda, woulda... Would you rather have Odell or Aaron Donald?

This is what we've done. It's not indefensible. Despite it not being your plan, it does show logic. It is what it is.

in the 2018 NFL Draft.

The Saints traded a 2019 1st round pick to the Packers to move from 27 to 14. That's it.

I most likely would have sign Solder too, figuring he'd be decent while he was 30, 31 & 32. Baing injury, I'd have expected a slight decline in line with other lineman his age. I would have tried to get some good kids in the pipeline.

Then under the belief I was OK with the LT spot (for a little while) I probably would have snagged Barkley too unless I believed I had a good chance to get a great deal like McGlinchey and Ragnow.

Instead, DG landed a possible HOF RB and picked a good guard prospect in the 2nd round. The whole thing fell apart because Solder suddenly fell apart.

and not what a team requiring a full-blown restructuring, like the Giants, needed to do with its available resources.

If you want to argue he didn't realize that the Giants really needed a full-blown restructuring then the argument pivots a bit but still winds up with the same overall theme...

In comment 14653698 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

two seasons of hindsight. 1. We don't know if we even had a trade partner. 2. We don't know if that trade partner even had an offer that could have gotten us those guys (what if the first rounder was the following year?) 3. You don't trust Gettleman to make the pick at 2 but you do trust him to make it later and then an additional first? 4. We don't even know how we had those guys scouted.... There are just too many damn variables. And finally, how many drafts can you go back and say coulda, shoulda, woulda... Would you rather have Odell or Aaron Donald? This is what we've done. It's not indefensible. Despite it not being your plan, it does show logic. It is what it is.

You are saying that I am proposing this with hidsight. but I proposed it BEFORE the 2018 draft.

And yes trading down take balls. Its a risk. With risk, there is more reward.

In comment 14653720 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

and not what a team requiring a full-blown restructuring, like the Giants, needed to do with its available resources. If you want to argue he didn't realize that the Giants really needed a full-blown restructuring then the argument pivots a bit but still winds up with the same overall theme...

Yes, if you argue that he didn't realize the full blown restructure was needed, its a bit different.
But then you have to question his ability to asses the team in general...
I think many fans realized the team needs to be restructured by mid 2017...

In comment 14653720 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

and not what a team requiring a full-blown restructuring, like the Giants, needed to do with its available resources. If you want to argue he didn't realize that the Giants really needed a full-blown restructuring then the argument pivots a bit but still winds up with the same overall theme...

Regardless of whether it was a full blown restructure, a stop gap, or anything in between he needed a LT in all scenarios.

https://corner.bigblueinteractive.com/index.php?mode=2&thread=565946&show_all=1

In comment 14653722 .McL. said:

Quote:

In comment 14653698 Britt in VA said: Quote: two seasons of hindsight. 1. We don't know if we even had a trade partner. 2. We don't know if that trade partner even had an offer that could have gotten us those guys (what if the first rounder was the following year?) 3. You don't trust Gettleman to make the pick at 2 but you do trust him to make it later and then an additional first? 4. We don't even know how we had those guys scouted.... There are just too many damn variables. And finally, how many drafts can you go back and say coulda, shoulda, woulda... Would you rather have Odell or Aaron Donald? This is what we've done. It's not indefensible. Despite it not being your plan, it does show logic. It is what it is. You are saying that I am proposing this with hidsight. but I proposed it BEFORE the 2018 draft. And yes trading down take balls. Its a risk. With risk, there is more reward.

And again, I say to you, it takes two to tango. We don't know if we had a dance partner.

Every, Single, Year that I've been coming here since 2003, no matter where we pick, there are posters who are adamant that the best thing to do is trade down.

Now, guess how many times since 2003 we've actually traded down?

In comment 14653730 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

Every, Single, Year that I've been coming here since 2003, no matter where we pick, there are posters who are adamant that the best thing to do is trade down. Now, guess how many times since 2003 we've actually traded down?

ZERO!!! And I have a problem with that!

But 2018 SCREAMED trade down.

in either 2005 or 2006.

We dropped from like 24th to 30th or something...

But the point remains.... Not trading down did not prevent us from building a damn good roster between 2004-2011.

In comment 14653736 .McL. said:

Quote:

But 2018 SCREAMED trade down.

If you believe that, then why would anybody want a trade up?

trading down and/or up to between 35 - 45 range will on average produce the best results.

That has to tempered with scouting and the available players. Its not always right.

team sucks.
I'm thinking can't get worse by trying something different.

The year to trade down was the Barkley pick. If we didn't like the QBs, as alleged, a plethora of quality picks would have been better than a great RB with a shitty line.

In comment 14653739 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

In comment 14653736 .McL. said: Quote: But 2018 SCREAMED trade down. If you believe that, then why would anybody want a trade up?

It screamed trade down for the Giants...

If a team really wanted a QB, Darnold or Chubb given the state they were in, they might decide its best to trade up.

and they only wanted to go to 3. We don't know if they contacted us or not. And even if they did, would you have traded from 2 to 6 for no future first round pick?

In comment 14653730 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

Every, Single, Year that I've been coming here since 2003, no matter where we pick, there are posters who are adamant that the best thing to do is trade down. Now, guess how many times since 2003 we've actually traded down?

Well its an option. And we aren't fielding calls in the GM's office, we are on a fan board trying to guess at what is a better alternative. Fans will clearly gravitate to the road not taken especially when the road taken seems to have gotten us lost...

:-)

and we asked for a 1st rounder. And the Colts didn't. So they just decided to go to three instead and take their chances.

Who knows?

What I do know, is that no first round pick was surrendered to trade up in the Top 15 picks.

The Saints traded from 27 to 14 for a future first rounder. That's it.

If the Giants had a functioning OL, I would be heavily in favor of trading up for Chase Young if possible.

It always depends on the teams involved and their particular state.

As this team stands right now, they need to go all in on the OL still..

No mental gymnastics or wild scenarios for the Giants to draft Nelson and Smith in the 1st and 2nd in 2018.

In comment 14653745 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

and they only wanted to go to 3. We don't know if they contacted us or not. And even if they did, would you have traded from 2 to 6 for no future first round pick?

Garafolo and a few other have reported that there were several credible offers. Eventually DG finally admitted this fact. Do you really believe for 1 second that there was no market for that pick in that draft... If so, I have a bridge to sell you.

Bottom line, he didn't try. He wasn't interested. He was fixated on Barkley.

In comment 14653735 .McL. said:

Quote:

In comment 14653730 Britt in VA said: Quote: Every, Single, Year that I've been coming here since 2003, no matter where we pick, there are posters who are adamant that the best thing to do is trade down. Now, guess how many times since 2003 we've actually traded down? ZERO!!! And I have a problem with that!

Didn't we trade down in 2006?

In comment 14653758 Klaatu said:

Quote:

In comment 14653735 .McL. said: Quote: In comment 14653730 Britt in VA said: Quote: Every, Single, Year that I've been coming here since 2003, no matter where we pick, there are posters who are adamant that the best thing to do is trade down. Now, guess how many times since 2003 we've actually traded down? ZERO!!! And I have a problem with that! Didn't we trade down in 2006?

Yeah, Britt reminded me of the Kiwanuka draft...
I forgot about that move.

ever.

I wonder what we would have thought of it, had we traded down and took say Nelson and whatever RB you thought was good in the 2nd, but in OUR scenario... the results didn't push the needle much because the team sucked. Meanwhile, Barkley went to the Colts or similar and was rookie of the year.... Are you saying there is NO WAY you'd be criticizing DG based on those results, and wondering what Barkley would have done with us instead?

even though our record sucked for the second year in a row?

A bad one can set your franchise back years and average ones are going to get overpaid for their services due to their rarity and the consequences of having a bad one

He was talked about & there were quite a few people who wanted him here.

I’d argue Dorsey has done a far worse job.

face, but the truth is we just don't know if it was an option or not.

In comment 14653774 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

face, but the truth is we just don't know if it was an option or not.

DG admitted it...
It was reported that there were several...

https://www.sny.tv/giants/news/gettleman-admits-he-received-one-very-reasonable-offer-for-no-2-pick/274562184

In comment 14653765 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

ever. I wonder what we would have thought of it, had we traded down and took say Nelson and whatever RB you thought was good in the 2nd, but in OUR scenario... the results didn't push the needle much because the team sucked. Meanwhile, Barkley went to the Colts or similar and was rookie of the year.... Are you saying there is NO WAY you'd be criticizing DG based on those results, and wondering what Barkley would have done with us instead?

Are you saying you are actually looking for an answer to that question that you would believe?

move on...

In comment 14653777 .McL. said:

Quote:

In comment 14653774 Britt in VA said: Quote: face, but the truth is we just don't know if it was an option or not. DG admitted it... It was reported that there were several... https://www.sny.tv/giants/news/gettleman-admits-he-received-one-very-reasonable-offer-for-no-2-pick/274562184

One reasonable offer.

What if it was out of the top 10? What if it was out of reach of a Nelson? Take that chance?

In comment 14653765 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

ever. I wonder what we would have thought of it, had we traded down and took say Nelson and whatever RB you thought was good in the 2nd, but in OUR scenario... the results didn't push the needle much because the team sucked. Meanwhile, Barkley went to the Colts or similar and was rookie of the year.... Are you saying there is NO WAY you'd be criticizing DG based on those results, and wondering what Barkley would have done with us instead?

If DG had used the value from the #2 pick in 2018 to retool the OL, the Giants would still suck right now, but at least there would be light at the end of the tunnel.

I really couldn't care less if SB went somewhere else and was league MVP...

Just like I didn't cared about APeterson or LdT doing there thing in Minn, or SD...

In comment 14653783 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

In comment 14653777 .McL. said: Quote: In comment 14653774 Britt in VA said: Quote: face, but the truth is we just don't know if it was an option or not. DG admitted it... It was reported that there were several... https://www.sny.tv/giants/news/gettleman-admits-he-received-one-very-reasonable-offer-for-no-2-pick/274562184 One reasonable offer. What if it was out of the top 10? What if it was out of reach of a Nelson? Take that chance?

C'mon Britt... Stop moving the goalposts, you said there was nothing. Now we know that was AT LEAST one. Garafolo reported several and I believe he was the one to originally force DG into the admission.

The simple fact is there was a market. DG didn't try to develop it.

In comment 14653783 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

In comment 14653777 .McL. said: Quote: In comment 14653774 Britt in VA said: Quote: face, but the truth is we just don't know if it was an option or not. DG admitted it... It was reported that there were several... https://www.sny.tv/giants/news/gettleman-admits-he-received-one-very-reasonable-offer-for-no-2-pick/274562184 One reasonable offer. What if it was out of the top 10? What if it was out of reach of a Nelson? Take that chance?

As you said, we will never know. In the meanwhile, we know where this team is though now...

I could see the logic in that. I wanted Saquon, but could have lived with Nelson or somebody else.

It's some of you that can't seem to accept any alternative?

I feel like I've been pretty open to multiple scenarios, but you guys seem really dug in on one.

In comment 14653773 Sean said:

Quote:

He was talked about & there were quite a few people who wanted him here. I’d argue Dorsey has done a far worse job.

I've been very critical of the way he ultimately put that team together. It had disaster written all over it, and I do think Dave Gettleman is doing a better job than John Dorsey is - for whatever that's worth, as it's really not saying that much.

Freddie Kitchens sucks. People think Pat Shurmur is clueless? Watch that guy coach his team for a few quarters.

Nelson was only 1 of my possible 3 targets... And beyond that, there were other targets that turned pretty good.

I also said to position themselves to get 2 of them would have required more than one trade.


Our GM would have had to work for his pay!

Imagine that.

In comment 14653790 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

I could see the logic in that. I wanted Saquon, but could have lived with Nelson or somebody else. It's some of you that can't seem to accept any alternative? I feel like I've been pretty open to multiple scenarios, but you guys seem really dug in on one.

I am dug in on the fact that Barkley was the wrong pick for this team in 2018. The team had/has way too many needs for a pick like that.

Once we move off the Barkley pick, there are lots of scenarios that I would have been satisfied with. Barkley didn't provide enough value for that pick.

And that's not to say that Barkley isn't a great player. He just can't help the Giants enough.

In comment 14653792 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

In comment 14653773 Sean said: Quote: He was talked about & there were quite a few people who wanted him here. I’d argue Dorsey has done a far worse job. I've been very critical of the way he ultimately put that team together. It had disaster written all over it, and I do think Dave Gettleman is doing a better job than John Dorsey is - for whatever that's worth, as it's really not saying that much. Freddie Kitchens sucks. People think Pat Shurmur is clueless? Watch that guy coach his team for a few quarters.

Yeah Kitchens is awful.

THat team has some talent on it. But Dorsey brought in a few too many personalities. It would take a Parcells or a Belichick to coach that team.

so second guessing is one of the only things to do.

I wanted Eli out of there going back to before the 2017 draft, so when we got the #2 pick in 2018 I wanted a QB particularly since there were plenty to go around. I don't watch enough college ball to have strong opinions on candidates.

But using your favorite word conviction, I was fine if our GM/Scouts were not keen on any of those 2018 QBs. But my view was they sure as shit should get the hell out of that #2 spot and gather as much draft collateral they could because we have a whole lot to fix...

In comment 14653774 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

face, but the truth is we just don't know if it was an option or not.

One thing I thought of, could be crazy but just maybe. NFL teams are here to make money. As much as possible and they are willing to go to great lengths to do it.

What if Mara/Tisch decided to go the money route. They heavily scouted Barkley and said to each other, "This kid could make us a lot of $." Eli getting old, they needed a new face of the franchise, a guy who could be that for 5+ years. Fans love their running backs especially good ones.

Barkley has tremendous talent, is a good looking young man, well spoken and is the perfect replacement for old Eli. Want to sell more seats? The Amazing Barkley. Wannt to sell more jerseys? Barkley. Tickets and media events? Barkley.

Barkley may have made the NY Giants a lot more $ than any other player they could have drafted, IMO.

Crazy thought?

"I am not arguing against any of these moves in isolation, what I am struggling with is seeing how they fit together as a coherent strategy to continually move the team forward making efficient use of draft and cap resources."

Efficient use of resources. Coherent Strategy.

I cant name a turnaround where these concepts applied.

I cant remember companies in 4th place in a 6 company competition that are able to stay coherent or efficient

What can they do? The ones who make it are opportunistic and flexible

Does any of that apply to the NYG at this time? I don't know. I do know that when you are bad, coherent and efficient are found after and if they reach some plateau where the good moves retroactively look more planful then they were.

What I see is a general plan with deviations to take risky opportunities.

You know who else does coherent zig zag but off a much better foundation? The Patriots.

I also challenge the idea that "efficient" selections exist in a human endeavor with an average draft success rate of 33% and an average playing time of 4 years and an injury rate of over 80% per person over a season.


The average play in the NFl includes 12 of 22 people who go through the personal skeletal jolt equivalent of a car crash of 35mph. How many plays per game? How many games per year?

Name the efficiency and coherence of collecting humans who engage in 100 or more 35mph crashes per year over 4 years?

Now lets think about how efficiency over time applies in a game heavily tilted to the 50th percentile each and every year?

imo, its not a sport that easily takes on the same characteristics and rules of thumb expectations that apply in other endeavors

Just sayin'.

In comment 14653814 mrvax said:

Quote:

In comment 14653774 Britt in VA said: Quote: face, but the truth is we just don't know if it was an option or not. One thing I thought of, could be crazy but just maybe. NFL teams are here to make money. As much as possible and they are willing to go to great lengths to do it. What if Mara/Tisch decided to go the money route. They heavily scouted Barkley and said to each other, "This kid could make us a lot of $." Eli getting old, they needed a new face of the franchise, a guy who could be that for 5+ years. Fans love their running backs especially good ones. Barkley has tremendous talent, is a good looking young man, well spoken and is the perfect replacement for old Eli. Want to sell more seats? The Amazing Barkley. Wannt to sell more jerseys? Barkley. Tickets and media events? Barkley. Barkley may have made the NY Giants a lot more $ than any other player they could have drafted, IMO. Crazy thought?

Actually not a crazy thought at all.

I have had the same one and proposed it myself...

Hey mrvax. Hope you are well

In comment 14653826 .McL. said:

Quote:

Actually not a crazy thought at all. I have had the same one and proposed it myself...

When you were a developer did you often think outside the box?

When 32 other teams with a cap shed and zig and zag...the pool of talent is always on the move with high velocities towards or away from their personal price performance "efficiency"

with all of the risks and opportunities that affords any GM

I just don't think its a sport or league that lends itself to efficiency.

I think we drive ourselves nuts trying to find or apply more efficiency then is reasonable ever going to be there

In comment 14653822 Bill2 said:

Quote:

I also challenge the idea that "efficient" selections exist in a human endeavor with an average draft success rate of 33% and an average playing time of 4 years and an injury rate of over 80% per person over a season. The average play in the NFl includes 12 of 22 people who go through the personal skeletal jolt equivalent of a car crash of 35mph. How many plays per game? How many games per year? Name the efficiency and coherence of collecting humans who engage in 100 or more 35mph crashes per year over 4 years? Now lets think about how efficiency over time applies in a game heavily tilted to the 50th percentile each and every year? imo, its not a sport that easily takes on the same characteristics and rules of thumb expectations that apply in other endeavors

What you are saying would be true if we had no prior information on the players to be "collected".

Efficiency is defined by getting as much value as possible from the resources you have at hand.

Defining value is what scouting is all about. And part of scouting is understanding the players health and ability to absorb those 35 mph crashes without injury.

If you are doing a good job scouting (i.e. defining value) figuring out how to be efficient isn't very hard.

In comment 14653815 Bill2 said:

Quote:

"I am not arguing against any of these moves in isolation, what I am struggling with is seeing how they fit together as a coherent strategy to continually move the team forward making efficient use of draft and cap resources." Efficient use of resources. Coherent Strategy. I cant name a turnaround where these concepts applied. I cant remember companies in 4th place in a 6 company competition that are able to stay coherent or efficient What can they do? The ones who make it are opportunistic and flexible Does any of that apply to the NYG at this time? I don't know. I do know that when you are bad, coherent and efficient are found after and if they reach some plateau where the good moves retroactively look more planful then they were. What I see is a general plan with deviations to take risky opportunities. You know who else does coherent zig zag but off a much better foundation? The Patriots.

To take the point about Coherent Strategy to the extreme. It makes no sense to use all your draft picks and FA dollars on DL. That just doesn't make sense, you need other players with other skills.

Yes, you have to be opportunistic and flexible. But you have to have an end goal in mind... Most of the time, opportunity doesn't just rear up and say here I am. If you have something in mind and you are working towards that end, you find and dig out the opportunities. Occasionally, something unexpected pops up, and you need to be able to pivot.

The point being made here about the 2018 draft, is that the #2 pick presented a plethora of opportunities, yet only 1 was option given serious consideration. There was no work or effort in trying to develop others.

In comment 14653839 Bill2 said:

Quote:

When 32 other teams with a cap shed and zig and zag...the pool of talent is always on the move with high velocities towards or away from their personal price performance "efficiency" with all of the risks and opportunities that affords any GM I just don't think its a sport or league that lends itself to efficiency. I think we drive ourselves nuts trying to find or apply more efficiency then is reasonable ever going to be there

On this we will have to agree to disagree.


The Patriots have been the very definition of efficiency in the NFL. Other teams have had long successful runs. Those that stay at or near the top for long periods aren't there just by luck. They have people who understand how the manage the complex scenario you lat out better than others.

The whole goal of building a successful front office is identifying those people who are able to manage the field better and empowering them to do so.

and have been teams in the past who have been able to sustain success over long periods of time is not just a statistical aberration.

They had people who played the chess game better.

Does anybody really think that DG is playing 3 dimensional chess while other GMs are still playing checkers?

DG seems much more like a common checkers player. I want one of the GMs that is playing at least 3 dimensional chess.

In comment 14653832 mrvax said:

Quote:

In comment 14653826 .McL. said: Quote: Actually not a crazy thought at all. I have had the same one and proposed it myself... When you were a developer did you often think outside the box?

Yes... I was always an out of the box thinker. Sometimes to a fault.

Which is why my old boss was always telling me "Don't let Better be the enemy of Good"

I think you've done a really good job here stating your case and I agree with everything you have said. IMO, Gettleman has been a disaster and the team has not improved under his watch. It appears everyone here agrees that Shurmur is an inept coach but many refuse to blame the guy who hired him. I am one of the few here who don't agree that Gettleman's two drafts have been so wonderful. It is WAY too early to really give an honest grade but except for Barkley, the jury is out on EVERYONE else. It's great to be so optimistic but I can't fathom why after watching this team play week after week. I wish I could share some of the pollyanna views that some have here.

In comment 14653864 .McL. said:

Quote:

Yes... I was always an out of the box thinker. Sometimes to a fault. Which is why my old boss was always telling me "Don't let Better be the enemy of Good"

LOL. I was pretty good at out-of-box solutions. My motto: "Aim for perfection but settle for mediocrity". That used to piss people off until I told them I was just kidding.

the halfway point of 17 in a 32 team array is 80 and 78

41% of the 32 teams have a negative record over ten years

only 24 of 32 teams won more than 55% of the time

only four teams of 32 have a 60th percentile winning record

Only two teams won more than 66% of the time

The difference between the 2nd best team winning percentage of 67% and the top team was at 79%.

In sum, if you take out the Patriots, 19 of 31 the teams in the NFL had a ten year winning percentage under 50%

I don't see an efficient industry or how "coherence" ( decisions lead to results more often than not) applies.

Its not, but the results look more like a sport designed by casino operators to take in betting than an industry where efficient decisions work very often.

its a game

humans are notoriously bad at judging other humans.

witness a 50% divorce rate

efficient industries are places where efficient financial, technical, operational and asset allocations mix with the inefficiency of human capital decisions.


why do the VC's specializing in human capital based businesses have 3x the number of portfolio companies than VC/PE specializing in broader industry categories?

Answer: Need more chances to reach the same ROIC

humans are notoriously bad at judging other humans.

witness a 50% divorce rate

efficient industries are places where efficient financial, technical, operational and asset allocations mix with the inefficiency of human capital decisions.


why do the VC's specializing in human capital based businesses have 3x the number of portfolio companies than VC/PE specializing in broader industry categories?

Answer: Need more chances to reach the same ROIC

"the halfway point of 17 in a 32 team array is 80 and 78"?

had a record of .500 or worse over a ten year span.

Could be wrong.

In comment 14653917 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

had a record of .500 or worse over a ten year span. Could be wrong.

Thanks, 78-80 wins total.

In comment 14653897 Bill2 said:

Quote:

the halfway point of 17 in a 32 team array is 80 and 78 41% of the 32 teams have a negative record over ten years only 24 of 32 teams won more than 55% of the time only four teams of 32 have a 60th percentile winning record Only two teams won more than 66% of the time The difference between the 2nd best team winning percentage of 67% and the top team was at 79%. In sum, if you take out the Patriots, 19 of 31 the teams in the NFL had a ten year winning percentage under 50% I don't see an efficient industry or how "coherence" ( decisions lead to results more often than not) applies. Its not, but the results look more like a sport designed by casino operators to take in betting than an industry where efficient decisions work very often. its a game

In any 10 year period, you willd a few teams that sustain success. Usually those teams have stable FO.
in the 60s it was the Packers,
70s it was the Steelers and the Cowboys
in the 80s the 9ers and to a lesser extent the Redskins and Giants
90s early was still 9ers, then Cowboys
Since 2000 its the Pats.

In all of these casesthose teams sustained succes with their FO/HC combinations. Once that chain was broken, the success was lost.

I will say it again, the statistical success of certain individuals is not merely the product of chance. Chance plays a role, but superior minds tilt the playing field in their direction.

We see it all the time. There are people we meet when they are young, who we know will have success in life. There are people who simply have "IT". Whatever "IT" is.

The fact that high achievers so often share many of the same mental and personality traits is not a statistical aberration. These are dependent variables. Success as a football team is most highly correlated with excellent GMs and HCs. It's not random.

The percentages don't favor the individual entity in investment.

So ask yourself this, do the Giants resemble the entities who have beat the curve, straddled the curve, or drowned under the curve.

The NFL isn't a business that distributes success evenly over a period of time, and there are limited advantages.

Playing in the capital of the world is one of those advantages.

So with the minor advantage they do have, are they exploiting it? In other words, if as fans we rooting for a dog, performance proportionate to a dog would be expected.

If we are rooting for something north of a dog -- shouldn't we expect something better?

In comment 14653950 christian said:

Quote:

The percentages don't favor the individual entity in investment. So ask yourself this, do the Giants resemble the entities who have beat the curve, straddled the curve, or drowned under the curve. The NFL isn't a business that distributes success evenly over a period of time, and there are limited advantages. Playing in the capital of the world is one of those advantages. So with the minor advantage they do have, are they exploiting it? In other words, if as fans we rooting for a dog, performance proportionate to a dog would be expected. If we are rooting for something north of a dog -- shouldn't we expect something better?

Depends on which ten year period you look at?

I do know the giants have won a Super Bowl every decade for the past 40 years. That’s pretty efficient.

Then all of football is just s machine producing static, and we are all rooting for the noise in the machine.

I think that is a pretty hard sell. Especially when certain individuals can sustain being the noise over an extended period. ANd in many cases repeat that success.

Parcells built the Giants up, then he build the Pats up a bit, then the Jets then the Cowboys. Everywhere he went the tide rose. That can't be lucky noise.

Or could be confirmation bias for some of those.

GreenBays first era was based on great execution of a simple playbook...and the cash winds that followed behind their unique ownership model.

Ditto the financial advantage the Rooneys got from the Pittsburgh land deal, stadium and parking deal

Ditto the cash flow available post DeBartolo's deals with Willie Brown that allowed a pre cap talent advantage.

The Dallas team also had deep pockets and a great ownership funding.

Id be careful pre cap era. I think you will find a significant correlation with the Stadium deals and or ownership construct and winning.

That's what Ron Wolf found in his massive study in the years of Green Bays second ascendancy

In comment 14653797 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

so second guessing is one of the only things to do. I wanted Eli out of there going back to before the 2017 draft, so when we got the #2 pick in 2018 I wanted a QB particularly since there were plenty to go around. I don't watch enough college ball to have strong opinions on candidates. But using your favorite word conviction, I was fine if our GM/Scouts were not keen on any of those 2018 QBs. But my view was they sure as shit should get the hell out of that #2 spot and gather as much draft collateral they could because we have a whole lot to fix...

no response from defenders?

In comment 14654011 Bill2 said:

Quote:

Or could be confirmation bias for some of those. GreenBays first era was based on great execution of a simple playbook...and the cash winds that followed behind their unique ownership model. Ditto the financial advantage the Rooneys got from the Pittsburgh land deal, stadium and parking deal Ditto the cash flow available post DeBartolo's deals with Willie Brown that allowed a pre cap talent advantage. The Dallas team also had deep pockets and a great ownership funding. Id be careful pre cap era. I think you will find a significant correlation with the Stadium deals and or ownership construct and winning. That's what Ron Wolf found in his massive study in the years of Green Bays second ascendancy

That doesn't account for Parcells and Belichick

In comment 14654011 Bill2 said:

Quote:

Or could be confirmation bias for some of those. GreenBays first era was based on great execution of a simple playbook...and the cash winds that followed behind their unique ownership model. Ditto the financial advantage the Rooneys got from the Pittsburgh land deal, stadium and parking deal Ditto the cash flow available post DeBartolo's deals with Willie Brown that allowed a pre cap talent advantage. The Dallas team also had deep pockets and a great ownership funding. Id be careful pre cap era. I think you will find a significant correlation with the Stadium deals and or ownership construct and winning. That's what Ron Wolf found in his massive study in the years of Green Bays second ascendancy

I was not aware of that study... The same Ron Wolf that insisted on trading for Favre despite the known hip issue? That was a ballsy move.

In comment 14653975 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

In comment 14653950 christian said: Quote: The percentages don't favor the individual entity in investment. So ask yourself this, do the Giants resemble the entities who have beat the curve, straddled the curve, or drowned under the curve. The NFL isn't a business that distributes success evenly over a period of time, and there are limited advantages. Playing in the capital of the world is one of those advantages. So with the minor advantage they do have, are they exploiting it? In other words, if as fans we rooting for a dog, performance proportionate to a dog would be expected. If we are rooting for something north of a dog -- shouldn't we expect something better? Depends on which ten year period you look at? I do know the giants have won a Super Bowl every decade for the past 40 years. That’s pretty efficient.

Great. So just to give the Giants the benefit of the era. Let's start the clock in 2012.

Would you agree the Giants should be competing for a championship within 2 seasons?

Would be reasonable.

In comment 14654055 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

Would be reasonable.

Great... I guess I'll watch curling on my Sundays for the next 10 years.

Because at the average rate of good luck for any given team, that is the soonest that the Giants could possibly rise up to be the noise in the machine.

If the team isn't quite there yet, I guess I can go back to curling...

im not wishing to be argumentative.

I do think its useful to consider that what we are watching is designed/grafted on top to insure the core sport now has the probabilities of a game of chance. Hence its popularity

In addition, its a human selection based enterprise.

What is the failure rate of new hires over the first 4 years of employment? 50%

What percent of new hires are considered an unequivocal success after 18 months? 19%

Fans want to see design. Humans do.

One of the great human fears is uncertainty. So we see greater design than there really is in much of our "thinking"

Are their Patriot outliers? Yes. But the lack of efficiency and coherence is a dominant feature of the NFL

This is seen in the correlation between winning seasons and injury rate that year. In other words chance is one major ( not the only) factor in the sports outcomes

is there design that leads to winning? Absolutely

Can you Gm the game better than others? Absolutely

Is efficiency a feature of the game? I submit the answer is often less than we would like.

Is it easy or common to be a better than average GM for very long? Data says no

In comment 14654114 Bill2 said:

Quote:

Is efficiency a feature of the game? I submit the answer is often less than we would like.

The fact that most are unable to achieve a small iota above the average with regards to efficiency is what has led to parity for most of the teams muddling around in the middle. A small iota below results in forever struggling franchises like Cleveland, and a small iota above delivers the Pats. Lord know little Bill makes his own set of mistakes.

In a game of such complexity and so many decisions, being just 1% better than the rest will return a dominant long term result.

I look at football as a microcosm of the financial industry where players are the assets.

millions of dollars are spent to find the most efficient ways of building a portfolio while at the same time taking advantage of inefficiencies in the market.

The companies that do this well succeed. The ones that don't fail. The market is brutally efficient at weeding out the less efficient.

extra efficiency is through analytics.

They have computer models and simulations for just about every scenario

In comment 14653631 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

In comment 14653625 .McL. said: Quote: In comment 14653606 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: just continue making great points about the OL! We are still waiting on your momentous insight, backed by tons of numerical, analytical, and video evidence... Tick, tick, tick... Oh yeah... That's what I've done over the past year and a half... Go figure. You don't get it. Providing a ridiculous opinion, backed up with specious facts isn't any better. You have such momentous insight that I'm supposedly the only condesceding person on this thread, all while you dismissed EA's post by being condescending. Just another example of terrible self-awareness Add hypocritical to your "data based" analyses and we're all good! It doesn't take momentous insight to say that much of what you post is bullshit. The bar isn't that high taht you need to see a pie chart there, Ace

And yet, here we are...
Still waiting for you post anything evidence, anything at all that backs up YOUR opinions, and refutes mine, christian, Terps, bw, NGD, Googs, GD and a host of other people.

Your opinions (when you actually voice one) I might add, are becoming more and more the minority here.

The vast majority of the time you just attack others with no other purpose than to try to assert some sort school child level superiority bullshit.

I know you have been on this from the early days in the 90s, so I know you are not the child you act as. So please, grow up, act your age.

In comment 14653462 .McL. said:

Quote:

In comment 14652123 English Alaister said: Quote: we all like to play GM and have our own opinions based on what we see on the field but we need to remember the beneath. Football is a highly complex game with a wide variety of different asks for each player. The coaching and evaluation staff see these players in training, in camp, in meetings as well as games. They know them intimately and have a rock solid idea of who can do what and what they bring to the organization. In light of that it is hard to second guess but let me ask...from that list above who do you really want back at their current level of remuneration? Has DG made mistakes? Sure. This is an absolute dumpster fire to sort out though as Reese missed on way too many draft picks. We need to stay the course, let DG keep piling good drafts on top of each other whilst clearing the dead money and soon enough this team is going to be good. I can tell you what he is going to do though and it is much the same as above. Bolster the lines and bring in tough, competitive players at skill positions. As I said in the op. The moves taken in isolation aren't necessarily bad (some are, some are not). The problem is that he is no longer fixing Reese's messes. He is re-fixing his own. And, in some cases he is re-fixing things that were really broken (could be better but it wasn't broken) while other things are completely shattered. And the reality he has bolstered the DL. The OL is not markedly better than it was in 2017, and there is no pipeline of up and coming players for the OL. So he is not "bolstering the lines", he is only bolstering run stuffing DL. The pathway to building a winning team starts with the OL. Everything flows from there. The QB is the most prized resource, it needs protection. Run the ball, control the clock, limit the exposure of the defense. Build a dynamic passing game that allows you to grab an early lead and force the opposition to be 1 dimensional. Easier to play defense against a 1 dimensional offense. You can take many different strategies to building a winning team once you have an OL and a QB. OK he got a QB, where is the OL?

FYI - here is my reply to EA...
Not a hint of condescension.

So keep twisting the fact.

To further make the point about how you twist, take things out of context, shout foul language and attempt to bully.

ere is an edited down (to save space) version of the thread:

Quote:

McL (the Op): ... The reason I focus on this play is because of the play of Halapio and what I keep saying about him, and why I don't think he is a starting center. My contention is that he does a poor job of reading the defense, calling the right protections , and putting himself in the right position to affect a play. And although he only played in 2 games last year, plus some time in the preseason, what we see on this play is on many many plays in his short tenure. ... BigBlueShock : You do realize That he was new to the center position, right? Apparently patience is not your strong suit. Let’s judge a guy playing a brand new position, an extremely difficult position, based on a few plays in all of two games... FFS man McL: I do realize he is new to the position... You do realize that maybe, just maybe its not a great idea to throw a guy with no experience out there at center, which is by far the most complex position on the line. You want to experiment with him at center... fine, let him backup for a year or two. But to just throw him out there when he has no clue what he is doing, and especialy to leave yourself no other viable alternative, is just asinine. And now we are a year later and he has all of 2 games under his belt. I doubt much has changed yet. And yet again we are counting on him to man the position. Personally I am not a big fan of Pulley either, but he is lightyears ahead of Halapio. HomerJones45 : Halapio is 27, been kicking around for 5 season now and has been with 4 different teams. One would think he would have picked up a few things along the way. The OP is pointing out his miscues reading defensese, not center technique. Halapio must have the learning curve of a stump. McL: The problems with Halapio at center are manifest, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see them. You just have to watch. I think the Giants are blinded by hope rather than reality. Perhaps Halapio is great in the film room and diagramming... Perhaps the Giants are hoping that that intelligence will translate to the field. But, I have my doubts that he has the mental faculty to play the position. Its not just smarts, its being able to process quickly when the bullets are flying. Its the same reason why most QBs fail in the NFL. The problems him at center, IMO, are too frequent and too egregious. McL (in response to HomerJones immediately after I posted the above): Thank you! To add to your point that he is 27, by the time he learns to play the position, he will be done.

A few bits of important context:
First and foremost, I recognized a pattern in his play where he was repeatedly making mental mistakes, I posted numerous examples of it. After 8 more games, virtually the entire board now sees and recognizes the same pattern. I just recognized earlier and posted about it. Let me make this clear, the pattern I described is absolutely accurate to this day. There has been evidence on the field with players showing their frustration with Halapio. So there is not no question as to where the fault lays.

I was fine with him staying as a backup while he learned. Which, by extension implies that I think it is possible he does have the mental ability and he can learn and get better...

I saw HomerJones' post before I wrote mine where I DOUBTED him... I immediately responded to his post intending to acknowledge that it was part of the context of my post.

Center is the second most complex position on the field after QB. It requires many of the same mental abilities.

Finally, when considering all the context, age, times cut, inexperience etc, I said I DOUBTED that he had the mental faculty. I went on to clarify that its not raw intelligence, its processing speed. It is something we often talk about with regards to QBs. We have have all talked about QB's mental ability to read and react under fire. Its seem that you are willing to accept talk about this mental ability in the context of a QB, but inexplicably not in the context of a center.

Conclusion:
I made a correct observation about a pattern in Halapio's play, a pattern that has continued.

The extrapolation I made about DOUBTING his mental ability for the job logically flows based on age, history and experience, that if he had the ability, he likely would have hung on elsewhere. It is a doubt, not an assertion as you make it seem.

None of what I said was hyperbolic, illogical or arrogant.

You, on the other hand, constantly twist what people say, take it out of context, use hyperbole, and shout with foul language all in an attempt to bully people. As you have continually done in this case.

man·i·fest
/ˈmanəˌfest/
adjective: manifest

clear or obvious to the eye or mind.

I posted numerous examples of the pattern, which you stubbornly refused to view. So you chose to pass judgement on me, by remaining willfully ignorant of the evidence.

Talk about arrogance.
Talk about being a hypocrit..

I make an honest attempt to provide backing evidence for the things I post.

And the more evidence I post, the most exception you take to my posts.

My only conclusion is that you feel threatened by my posts with opinions and evidence that contradicts your general staked out position. So instead of debating the facts, you attack the messenger.

Any good curling matchups on Sunday?

two items:

1) McL: Yes, and one aspect of the financial industry as it used to be practiced was understanding the different dynamics that most drive results and competitive advantage per type of industry.

2) I was not aware of fric and frac around McL's posts. I don't have a horse in whatever that is about ( for I like several posters mentioned in my friend FMIC's post) but I do find McL to be a poster who refrains from personal attacks or derision and does try to support his thoughts.

I see a tendency to hope for/stretch for more order and causality than I can see in a sport with a minefield of too many variables for good analysis that's organized by the NFL into a casino game with very few opportunities for all but a few card counters after they have a top 10% QB.

But that's a debate between us. I don't see any bad faith and I do see insights generated by McL's perspective.

Thankfully, what I don't see is the tendency to magical thinking and unknowable assertions nor similarities to so many posters that are seldom right but never in doubt.

imo, lets slide back to discussion or just let this discussion peter out as all threads do

In comment 14654133 .McL. said:

Quote:

In comment 14654114 Bill2 said: Quote: Is efficiency a feature of the game? I submit the answer is often less than we would like. The fact that most are unable to achieve a small iota above the average with regards to efficiency is what has led to parity for most of the teams muddling around in the middle. A small iota below results in forever struggling franchises like Cleveland, and a small iota above delivers the Pats. Lord know little Bill makes his own set of mistakes. In a game of such complexity and so many decisions, being just 1% better than the rest will return a dominant long term result.

Well no shit. You think it's some big revelation that there's a correlation between sustaining some success in the NFL to having a great GM/HC combination?

You said earlier....

Quote:

In any 10 year period, you willd a few teams that sustain success. Usually those teams have stable FO. in the 60s it was the Packers, 70s it was the Steelers and the Cowboys in the 80s the 9ers and to a lesser extent the Redskins and Giants 90s early was still 9ers, then Cowboys Since 2000 its the Pats. In all of these casesthose teams sustained succes with their FO/HC combinations. Once that chain was broken, the success was lost.

I'd add the mid 2000's Giants and Steelers to that list along with the Pats. Were they other worldly? No, but 5 Superbowl appearances and 4 Championships between the two in less than a 10 year span indicates sustained success.

Now that we've said that, what happened to every team on that list after the human element kicked in? Guys got old, retired, injured, GM's and HC's got old, retired... Every single team on that list fell right back to average.

The Patriots don't have some magic formula. They have Bill Belichick, and just like every other team, they will fall back to average when he ages out of the game.

Be fortunate that the Giants appeared on that list you wrote of the guys that were 1% better, twice.

Most teams in the NFL don't sniff that rarefied air.

One thing you number crunchers just can't wrap your head around is patience. Nothing lasts forever, and the good teams rise and fall, ebb and flow, in and out of consistent success. The Giants have been down before, but they'll be back.

And if you can't wait for that, then there's always curling.

before you write the book on Gettleman... Remember, both Bill Parcells and Tom Coughlin were both almost fired for their personalities before each's golden era actually began. Good thing the team stayed the course in both instances.

The landscape of the NFL would be much different had Parcells been fired from the Giants after that first or second season and went back to selling insurance.

In comment 14654013 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

In comment 14653797 Jimmy Googs said: Quote: so second guessing is one of the only things to do. I wanted Eli out of there going back to before the 2017 draft, so when we got the #2 pick in 2018 I wanted a QB particularly since there were plenty to go around. I don't watch enough college ball to have strong opinions on candidates. But using your favorite word conviction, I was fine if our GM/Scouts were not keen on any of those 2018 QBs. But my view was they sure as shit should get the hell out of that #2 spot and gather as much draft collateral they could because we have a whole lot to fix... no response from defenders?

I'll respond, although I don't think I consider myself a defender by your definition, but I am unsure what your definition is.

Your post is reasonable and not projecting opinion as fact, so I don't have a problem with it. I generally don't have problems with posts that communicate their opinions in a day with some humility, although I don't care for your "no responses from defenders" quote, which I find a bit smug.

There being a lack of conviction about the 2018 QBs. Given the four players’ generally very bad 2019, that’s an interesting reminder that some saw this coming.

The exception is Josh Allen, who is making progress. And it’s interesting that Allen was the one who really impressed teams in terms of emotional makeup and mental ability.

In comment 14654249 cosmicj said:

Quote:

There being a lack of conviction about the 2018 QBs. Given the four players’ generally very bad 2019, that’s an interesting reminder that some saw this coming. The exception is Josh Allen, who is making progress. And it’s interesting that Allen was the one who really impressed teams in terms of emotional makeup and mental ability.

Cosmic, to be fair I believe either Britt or Googs used the term earlier in the thread although I resurrected it with my quote or googs' post.

Lol, McL made 9 consecutive posts in this thread without a response.

Take a breath, bud...

Conviction is a word I had been using in regards to QB's, because Dave Gettleman used it several times leading up to and after the 2018 draft, as well as the 2019 draft, in regards to his philosophy on QB's.

.

In comment 14654204 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

Any good curling matchups on Sunday?

LOL

In comment 14654218 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

In comment 14654133 .McL. said: I'd add the mid 2000's Giants and Steelers to that list along with the Pats. Were they other worldly? No, but 5 Superbowl appearances and 4 Championships between the two in less than a 10 year span indicates sustained success. Now that we've said that, what happened to every team on that list after the human element kicked in? Guys got old, retired, injured, GM's and HC's got old, retired... Every single team on that list fell right back to average. The Patriots don't have some magic formula. They have Bill Belichick, and just like every other team, they will fall back to average when he ages out of the game. Be fortunate that the Giants appeared on that list you wrote of the guys that were 1% better, twice. Most teams in the NFL don't sniff that rarefied air. One thing you number crunchers just can't wrap your head around is patience. Nothing lasts forever, and the good teams rise and fall, ebb and flow, in and out of consistent success. The Giants have been down before, but they'll be back. And if you can't wait for that, then there's always curling.

Actually I agree with you here 100%... And I do recognize the rise and fall. In fact I was considering a similar post, but I was already on too much of a roll last night! ;)
One additional condition of the rise and fall, is that some GM or HC has a single genius idea that pushes them to the top for a while, until all the other teams realize what the idea was and copy it.

Between the moving on in its various forms, that has clearly defined the rises and falls of most teams, and eventually the Pats as well. However, having a franchise QB is also a determinant in those rises and falls.

In that regard, the early returns for this regime look positive and DG deserves credit for that.

On a side note Britt, you have been defending your optimistic position pretty vigorously. I have always found you to be a nice guy and I fear that the incessant pessimism from a group of us, is perhaps weighing on you a bit. And I wanted to apologize for that. It doesn't change my opinion of where the Giants are going int he short term, but I do believe that we there will come a day where the Giants have that 1% advantage... And in the meantime I can watch curling, the Americans are getting better!

In comment 14654249 cosmicj said:

Quote:

There being a lack of conviction about the 2018 QBs. Given the four players’ generally very bad 2019, that’s an interesting reminder that some saw this coming. The exception is Josh Allen, who is making progress. And it’s interesting that Allen was the one who really impressed teams in terms of emotional makeup and mental ability.

Personally I wasn't enamored then or now with any of the 2018 QBs. That said, I am surprised that at the moment Josh Allen is playing the best of the bunch. I did not expect that.

In comment 14654266 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

.

Yeah well, sorry to drag you all into the food fight with that other poster.

If there was a way I could have addressed it with him personally, I would have.

I did wait until the day was over for most! ;)

In comment 14654216 Bill2 said:

Quote:

two items: 1) McL: Yes, and one aspect of the financial industry as it used to be practiced was understanding the different dynamics that most drive results and competitive advantage per type of industry. 2) I was not aware of fric and frac around McL's posts. I don't have a horse in whatever that is about ( for I like several posters mentioned in my friend FMIC's post) but I do find McL to be a poster who refrains from personal attacks or derision and does try to support his thoughts. I see a tendency to hope for/stretch for more order and causality than I can see in a sport with a minefield of too many variables for good analysis that's organized by the NFL into a casino game with very few opportunities for all but a few card counters after they have a top 10% QB. But that's a debate between us. I don't see any bad faith and I do see insights generated by McL's perspective. Thankfully, what I don't see is the tendency to magical thinking and unknowable assertions nor similarities to so many posters that are seldom right but never in doubt. imo, lets slide back to discussion or just let this discussion peter out as all threads do

As I said in my response to Britt, I agree that team fortunes often rise and fall based on the career of a special QB.

Came in handy whenever the phone rang.

In comment 14654776 Klaatu said:

Quote:

Came in handy whenever the phone rang.

Begs the question then... Why is she your ex?

:P

What else is there to talk about when the team is sh-tty.

.

In comment 14654249 cosmicj said:

Quote:

There being a lack of conviction about the 2018 QBs. Given the four players’ generally very bad 2019, that’s an interesting reminder that some saw this coming. The exception is Josh Allen, who is making progress. And it’s interesting that Allen was the one who really impressed teams in terms of emotional makeup and mental ability.

Don't forget Lamar Jackson - we passed on him at 2 and then didn't make a minor trade up to get him at the bottom of the first round (not an unusual move...we just did it for DeAndre Baker). Jackson's outperformed the other 4 by a lot, and is in serious MVP consideration this year...I've seen him as high as 3rd behind Rodgers and Wilson at +600.

In comment 14654842 Go Terps said:

Quote:

In comment 14654249 cosmicj said: Quote: There being a lack of conviction about the 2018 QBs. Given the four players’ generally very bad 2019, that’s an interesting reminder that some saw this coming. The exception is Josh Allen, who is making progress. And it’s interesting that Allen was the one who really impressed teams in terms of emotional makeup and mental ability. Don't forget Lamar Jackson - we passed on him at 2 and then didn't make a minor trade up to get him at the bottom of the first round (not an unusual move...we just did it for DeAndre Baker). Jackson's outperformed the other 4 by a lot, and is in serious MVP consideration this year...I've seen him as high as 3rd behind Rodgers and Wilson at +600.

LJ is an interesting case. He is a QB/RB hybrid like none we've seen before, not even Vick. Kudos to the Ravens for building an offense around his unique skills. And his impact is near MVP level at this point.

He isn't the passer that other QBs in the league are but he is effective because defenders are so worried about him turning a scramble into a long run they pull of their coverage responsibilities and LJ has an easier throw. Its working for now. Players like him have not been able to sustain success for long. Lets see how this goes longer term.