Imagine if they had taken Nelson and Ramczyk instead of SB and EE .
Both those guys have talent but it is largely wasted because of poor OL
And this is not Tuesday Morning quarterbacking. Everyone tabbed Nelson as a perennial pro bowler. Ramczyk May have exceeded expectations but most had him pegged as a solid player.
Instead we have turned into the Redskins, getting skill players before we have the guys who can block for them
In theory, he might be great but if the OL is so bad that can’t open holes, what does it matter?
Now Booger is right that coaching staff needs to get Saquon
In space as they did on the pass play. And Tiki is right that Saquon has to
Learn to take the short gains and not try to break every play
But RB have short shelf
Lives and Giants are wasting Saquons prime because they put the cart before the horse
Whoever is evaluating these players didn't do a good job and our coaches also failed in developing a lineman.
Eventually these picks and FA signings need to work out and we can't just stop tying to upgrade other positions while we wait.
2nd RD - Snee
FA - 3rd - McKenzie
5th - Deihl
UDFA - Suebert
UDFA - O'hara
They drafted Pugh, Richburg & Flowers (2-1's and a 2nd)
Pugh when healthy can play. Richburgh is playing well in SF. Flowers is playing fine in Was
Do people remember that Joeckel, Cooper, Warmack & Fluker were all OL drafted in top 11 who failed
For every J. Matthews you get G. Robinson For every Bitonio you get Sua Filo, Kouandjio, Mewhart,
For every Scherff you get Flowers, Ogbuhei, Humphries
Think about how lucky Dallas has actually been - they got 3 1st rd OL who all panned out plus a FA that only wanted to sign there
The Giants problem is since Deihl, they have developed nothing, nada, zilch as far as OL drafted middle, late & UDFA
Jones and Barkley don't even have a chance on most plays.
But since they almost never trade back when they are drafting that high (how many years has it been now?), they want to stick with the philosophy of "don't get cute," despite have limited resources in terms of draft picks to restock the roster.
The constant harping on drsfting positions is tiresome.The draft is for building a talent pool by selecting the best players.
FA is for filling holes.
The problem is that they chose the wrong players in FA and the previous regime left them no OL talent.
The Flowers selection is a perfect example of why your proposal is horse shit.
Gettleman has a different approach, and is more likely to draft OLs high, but he still isn't likely to reach for OLs if higher-rated players are available. (you can argue the D is STILL a bigger need).
What needs to happens is for OL value to meet need when they pick in the first 3 rounds.
The Giants simply don't know how to evaluate OLs anymore. Same with LBs and safeties.
I agree, they don't know how to evaluate OL.
I don't think they trust themselves to do it anymore. I mean they drafted Henandez and GAA in the last 2 years. That's it...
I pointed out a few days ago, the last decent OL player they drafted and developed was Chris Snee. They have gone 15 drafts since then and the best they have to show for it is Will Beatty and and Will Hernandez.
Consider just how inept you have to be to achieve such a poor record in drafting OL.
Now consider this... The Giants have not changed their scouting department during that whole time.
You are a good poster, but what the hell does this mean?
You can't be seriously suggesting that this team has bee doing right with how they have addressed the position.
Yes. Was Barkley "clearly" the best player in the draft? It is a valid argument that Nelson was.
At least Beckham plays a premium position. Zack Martin isn't better than Quentin Nelson, and RB is not a premium position.
The NY Giants have no clue how to find good O-lineman using any of these avenues.
The problem isn't that good lineman don't exist, its our management just don't know what they are doing...
2nd RD - Snee
FA - 3rd - McKenzie
5th - Deihl
UDFA - Suebert
UDFA - O'hara
They drafted Pugh, Richburg & Flowers (2-1's and a 2nd)
Pugh when healthy can play. Richburgh is playing well in SF. Flowers is playing fine in Was
Do people remember that Joeckel, Cooper, Warmack & Fluker were all OL drafted in top 11 who failed
For every J. Matthews you get G. Robinson For every Bitonio you get Sua Filo, Kouandjio, Mewhart,
For every Scherff you get Flowers, Ogbuhei, Humphries
Think about how lucky Dallas has actually been - they got 3 1st rd OL who all panned out plus a FA that only wanted to sign there
The Giants problem is since Deihl, they have developed nothing, nada, zilch as far as OL drafted middle, late & UDFA
So what does this mean?
That they should just not bother trying?
What does missing on players have to do with it going forward.
You just keep going and say, oh well the OL sucks but we spent 2 firsts and a second... Good enough.
That isn't how it works. You have to keep bringing in players until you have it fixed.
Although, the team needs to seriously consider just how bad it's scouting dept. has been in this regard.
Quote:
is probably the most boring debate here.
You are a good poster, but what the hell does this mean?
You can't be seriously suggesting that this team has bee doing right with how they have addressed the position.
They've infused plenty of resources into the OL, but their choices and decisions have proven well below average. It's clear they've failed on this front, Reese's regime in particular.
Drafting on OL no matter what, in lieu of what are likely more talented players with higher NFL upside, is short-sighted and frankly it's silly. And yet, predictably after watching the Cowboys OL chew up our under-talented front seven, the threads magically reappear yet again.
Quote:
In comment 14665455 JonC said:
Quote:
is probably the most boring debate here.
You are a good poster, but what the hell does this mean?
You can't be seriously suggesting that this team has bee doing right with how they have addressed the position.
They've infused plenty of resources into the OL, but their choices and decisions have proven well below average. It's clear they've failed on this front, Reese's regime in particular.
Drafting on OL no matter what, in lieu of what are likely more talented players with higher NFL upside, is short-sighted and frankly it's silly. And yet, predictably after watching the Cowboys OL chew up our under-talented front seven, the threads magically reappear yet again.
The problem is that you simply cannot address the position in FA anymore. Decent OL guys aren't there to be had. The O'Hara's and McKenzies get signed before they hit FA. And high in the draft, the grades on players are more distinct, so yeah, you don't want to be reaching for OL guys. However, there are times where a trade is the right thing. Also once you get to the 3rd round or so, you get more and more players with similar grades. There has to be OL players that grade out good enough for the pick. The Giants just haven't been picking them. In the last 4 drafts they have taken 1 in the second, 1 in the 6th, and 1 in the 7th.
3 players, that's it... All the while, everybody has known that the OL sucked and the cupboard was bear.
You can't possibly condone the lack of attention that this position has gotten.
If Giants cut Solder and he goes back to NE,!he will suddenly look good again
Sure, but in the last 4 years they've barely brought in anybody in lower rounds.
Whenever they have a highly touted prospect, just take that guy and call it a day. I mean, I know there is more to it than that but it's really not as hard as we're making it out to be.
The Giants do not do any of the above well and haven’t for a while now creating one of the biggest causes for the teams decline no matter who is quarterbacking or coaching or playing RB.
^^^THIS^^^^
Quote:
they have invested two first round picks, two second round picks, traded for a starting OG, and spent many millions of dollars on free agent OL. They should have a top flight OL. They have addressed the problem over and over, but they keep picking the wrong guys. That's on the scouting. This idea that they have ignored the OL is infuriatingly wrong...
^^^THIS^^^^
Agree with this, but the coaching has to be held accountable too. And not just on the OL. Does anybody ever improve after the Giants "coach them up"? As I see it, a good coach is a teacher who adapts scheme to the personnel.I don't see that anywhere. The only sector that has improved post Reese regime is ST under McGaughey. Bettcher gets 5 young strong DLs and plays TWO against one of the best OLs and RBs in the league? Sickening. Draft Baker who is known as a strong press corner and drop in 10 yds off the line on 3rd and 8? THe two OTs stink, but do they give them any help? A TE or WR chip? ANything?
Richburg probably being the least of the reaches at 43.
we picked pugh before literally 7 pro-bowl players, the next tackle taken was about 24 spots after, probably where a guy with pugh's talent should've been taken.
we don't scout the position well at all.
The Giants do not do any of the above well and haven’t for a while now creating one of the biggest causes for the teams decline no matter who is quarterbacking or coaching or playing RB.
I have seen that point all along. I'm not even suggesting that every high pick has to be OL, but the Giants don't even pick guys in lower rounds.
In those past 6 years touted above, they have drafted 2 in the 6th and 2 in the 7th. Nothing in round 3 through 5 (which is where you will get most of those pipeline guys). They drafted 8 players with 49 picks.
2 each in rounds 1, 2, 6 and 7. That represents an average/balanced investment over 8 pick. That represents about 14% of their total draft capital for a position group that represents 23% of the players on the field. What's more is that it is a position that requires more drafting than other positions because good players are hard to find and don't become available in FA anymore. So a team probably be spending about 30% of their draft capital on the OL.
To achieve the prospect of hitting on some of those lower round picks, you actually have to pick them! You can say the Giants have invested in their OL, but the reality is, that their investment is less than half what it needs to be to achieve average success.
On top of that, they are shitty at scouting the position. Put together shitty coaching, shitty scouting, shitty free agency, and an investment of less than half what it should be, and you have the mess that is the Giant's OL.
The coaching and the scouting needs to be addressed for sure. But so does the lack of investment in the draft!
Even after the picks of Pugh, Richburg and Flowers. Just because you spent some high picks, doesn't mean you are done. If those players bust, you have to keep working on it. You have to keep investing. The Giants have virtually stopped investing...
We are aligned though that the Giants suck at scouting (and maybe even coaching o-lineman although we aren't really going to know that).
Forget drafting Pugh, Richburg and Flowers, they were old news that were known to be busts. He absolutely freaking knew it was a total dumpster fire. He came in touting his ability to find OL guys everywhere in the draft and as UDFAs. In 2 years (one of them being the best if not one of the best OL drafts in over a decade) he spent 1 2nd and 1 7th.
That means his investment went DOWN to about 8% of draft capital. WHEN HE FREAKING KNEW WHAT A DUMPSTER FIRE IT WAS. ANd knowing that, it would be logical to up the investment OVER the 30% average target to maybe 35 - 40% until you put the fire out. NO!!! HE INVESTED LESS, (ABOUT HALF) THAN AN ALREADY RIDICULOUSLY LOW INVESTMENT RATE!!!
So yeah, call me an OL or bust guy if you must. I don't see it that way.
We are aligned though that the Giants suck at scouting (and maybe even coaching o-lineman although we aren't really going to know that).
You agree that there are 5 OL starters out of 22 offensive and defensive players, right?
If so that is about 23% of the players on the field. Right?
And, you agree that of all positions outside of QB, OL has been the toughest position to get in FA, right?
SO the starting point, if all else were equal, OL should represent about 23% of your draft capital. But, OL are more difficult to find in FA, so you have to look for them in the draft more, which means over weighting the position in the draft. Can we agree then that something more than 23% of draft capital should be spent on the OL?
To fail over and over and over in scouting and not fixing it?
How does Mara evaluate himself? If this was a publicity owned company, he'ed be out as CEO
Quote:
player available regardless of position(QB the possible exception). Barkley was clearly the best player in the draft, not even close. So you pass him and take Nelson???
YES! Gettleman came in saying everything was about the lines then he grabbed the first shiny object he saw.
NO!
Multiple scouts and NFL front office people had Barkley with a perfect grade. One said he was one of two 9.0 grades he's EVER given (the first was Peyton Manning).
Nelson is an OG, and we got an OG in the 2nd, and have another good OG in Zeitler. OT is the problem.
Quote:
and some I do not, particularly around investment and where that should come from. I think plenty has been tried and invested...albeit poor results.
We are aligned though that the Giants suck at scouting (and maybe even coaching o-lineman although we aren't really going to know that).
You agree that there are 5 OL starters out of 22 offensive and defensive players, right?
If so that is about 23% of the players on the field. Right?
And, you agree that of all positions outside of QB, OL has been the toughest position to get in FA, right?
SO the starting point, if all else were equal, OL should represent about 23% of your draft capital. But, OL are more difficult to find in FA, so you have to look for them in the draft more, which means over weighting the position in the draft. Can we agree then that something more than 23% of draft capital should be spent on the OL?
Not all OL are the same. LT is the premium position on the OL. You have to weight your pcts by how much each position earns which is determined by the market/scarcity/athleticism. LT is second to QB, maybe third to QB/EDGE.
Quote:
In comment 14665693 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
and some I do not, particularly around investment and where that should come from. I think plenty has been tried and invested...albeit poor results.
We are aligned though that the Giants suck at scouting (and maybe even coaching o-lineman although we aren't really going to know that).
You agree that there are 5 OL starters out of 22 offensive and defensive players, right?
If so that is about 23% of the players on the field. Right?
And, you agree that of all positions outside of QB, OL has been the toughest position to get in FA, right?
SO the starting point, if all else were equal, OL should represent about 23% of your draft capital. But, OL are more difficult to find in FA, so you have to look for them in the draft more, which means over weighting the position in the draft. Can we agree then that something more than 23% of draft capital should be spent on the OL?
Not all OL are the same. LT is the premium position on the OL. You have to weight your pcts by how much each position earns which is determined by the market/scarcity/athleticism. LT is second to QB, maybe third to QB/EDGE.
Yes. OI agree...
I was just trying to keep the math simple...
If you add extra weight to LT, that just make the math even worse.
What I and some others have been saying for a while now is that when you don't have strong leadership and decision making frameworks at the top both of these things look bad and worse on some days.
I've been consistent saying DG is a top flight personnel guy but just one guy and his willingness to view himself as able to solve everything with his brilliant intellect is backwards when other teams have made significant investment in technology as well as wide and deep decision making processes.
When you have a plan and can guide towards good processes or at least are open enough to FIND good processes by trying new things you can improve holistically. We haven't even taken the first step of admitting we need a process overhaul. Until we do this is what we are going to see on the field.
I hate that it keeps going this way but it isn't something that now a growing number of posters should rightfully expect.
The scouts need to be replaced. More tech needs to be introduced into the scouting process.
More tech needs to be guiding their team building decisions as well...
Humans still need to step up to the plate and make the decisions. Tech can help, but you have to have the right decision makers in place. I don't think the Giants have that right now.
Oh, and I am certain that tech would have been red flagging the lack of investment in the OL.
People act like that is BB but he has plenty to do. He's not scouring every late round prospect or deciding how to allocate dollars for the bottom of the roster to maximize the chance of winning. That is very clearly aided by tech they've had in place for a while. And it limits their bottom consistently.
Quote:
and some I do not, particularly around investment and where that should come from. I think plenty has been tried and invested...albeit poor results.
We are aligned though that the Giants suck at scouting (and maybe even coaching o-lineman although we aren't really going to know that).
You agree that there are 5 OL starters out of 22 offensive and defensive players, right?
If so that is about 23% of the players on the field. Right?
And, you agree that of all positions outside of QB, OL has been the toughest position to get in FA, right?
SO the starting point, if all else were equal, OL should represent about 23% of your draft capital. But, OL are more difficult to find in FA, so you have to look for them in the draft more, which means over weighting the position in the draft. Can we agree then that something more than 23% of draft capital should be spent on the OL?
I get your math, its just that I do not subscribe to OL all coming from draft picks. Free agency is an avenue although I don't debate it is harder (not impossible) to find them there. And, I don't have the numbers but there is a lot of guys starting the in NFL that were undrafted free agents.
Quote:
In comment 14665693 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
and some I do not, particularly around investment and where that should come from. I think plenty has been tried and invested...albeit poor results.
We are aligned though that the Giants suck at scouting (and maybe even coaching o-lineman although we aren't really going to know that).
You agree that there are 5 OL starters out of 22 offensive and defensive players, right?
If so that is about 23% of the players on the field. Right?
And, you agree that of all positions outside of QB, OL has been the toughest position to get in FA, right?
SO the starting point, if all else were equal, OL should represent about 23% of your draft capital. But, OL are more difficult to find in FA, so you have to look for them in the draft more, which means over weighting the position in the draft. Can we agree then that something more than 23% of draft capital should be spent on the OL?
I get your math, its just that I do not subscribe to OL all coming from draft picks. Free agency is an avenue although I don't debate it is harder (not impossible) to find them there. And, I don't have the numbers but there is a lot of guys starting the in NFL that were undrafted free agents.
Sure, you can get lucky in UDFA, same as any other position. That comes out in the wash. And it's something you just cannot count on.
Regarding FA... In 2019 these are the only FA that were truly available that were of note:
OT Trent Brown
OT Ju'wuan James
OC Matt Paradis
OG Roger Saffold
The rest couldn't be considered more than journeymen stopgaps... That's it 4 guys. That is pretty slim pickings. TO be fair, free agency in general has become slim pickings.
That being the case, I don't think it is unreasonable to overweight the group from the base 23%. How much you over weight is debatable. At the very least then, I think its reasonable that the position group should get something north of 23% of all draft capital, but I won't quibble about the exact amount. Even at a baseline 23% which would just be be merited by 5 out 22 positions, the 14% the Giants investment is less than 2/3 of baseline. And the last 2 years it dropped to a little more than 1/3 of baseline.
To give an idea, the difference between 14% and 23% is 5 mid round players. Had the Giants invested in an additional 5 players from rounds 3 through 5 over the past 6 years, is it reasonable to conclude that they might be in a little better shape at the position? And that would be bringing the investment up to baseline, not to an overweighting (which would mean picking 2 or 3 more guys). Of course the Giants suck at picking the right ones and coaching them, so perhaps not...
Quote:
player available regardless of position(QB the possible exception). Barkley was clearly the best player in the draft, not even close. So you pass him and take Nelson???
Nelson made all pro his first year. Probably already the best guard in the league. He was the BPA.
The only argument against him is that you don’t take a guard that low but then the same is true of RB.
At this point I'd argue OG has more value than RB.
Seriously 3 lousy QBs...
DE Damontre Moore
QB Ryan Nassib
S Cooper Taylor
DT Jay Bromley
RB Andre Williams
S Nat Berhe
LB Devon Kennard
DE Owamagbe Odighizuwa
S Mykkele Thompson
S Darian Thompson
LB B.J. Goodson
RB Paul Perkins
QB Davis Webb
RB Wayne Gallman
DE Avery Moss
LB Lorenzo Carter
DT B.J. Hill
QB Kyle Lauletta
LB Oshane Ximines
CB Julian Love
LB Ryan Connelly
WR Darius Slayton
Even the last 2 years, are the Giants so dependent on any of those guys that they could not have fit in at least 2 or 3 OL guys just to get to baseline for those years?
LB, RB, and DT are positions that are pretty easy to decent stop gap players in FA.
Even more ridiculous is they don’t even seem to get lucky every now and then on a late pick or UDFA. I can’t even remember when we got lucky with a guy that wasn’t expected to do shit.
Just awful....football Gods getting even for 2007 and 2011 I guess
:-)
You mean Aaron Donald. He was my pick and hindsight is 20/20 but that's who I wanted them to pick at the time. As great as Zack Martin is, Donald was and is the best player in that draft.
However, OBJ is a HOF-level talent. I'm not going to criticize Reese for that pick, just because he became a prima Donna.
If Giants cut Solder and he goes back to NE,!he will suddenly look good again
To be fair he's the LT because Wynn is injured.
Pretty sure Ramcyz had little experience. We've seen many high grade tackles turn bust and picking him was quite a risk. In hindsight, I'd take him for sure.