DG not a popular man on this board. His first year free agent signings were poor and drafted players were looked at more favorably after year 1 than year 2. Last year's draft of Jones,Lawrence,Love, Slayton,Connelly looks good. Baker may or may not ultimately play well.Golden was an excellent signing.Vernon and Beckham trades good.
We need to consider
Year 1 he may not have had time to put scouts or assistants in place
Year 1 he was quite ill- receiving chemotherapy.
I do not know who they should replace him that will do better than he did last year.
He used two top-6 overall picks on a RB and QB and then picks only one OL in the top 3 rounds? Last year the draft was loaded with OL talent but he used 6 picks on DBs? And didn’t draft an OL until round 7? And then protects our prized rookies with trash like Halapio and Remmers? WTF!
The productivity of the picks beyond round 2 hasn't improved. They're on the field, they're just not very good.
Belichick has said it's a 4 round draft - the Giants need to start getting ROI on RD3 and 4.
The question is which is a better indicator of future performance.
The question is which is a better indicator of future performance.
That's an 'agree to disagree' point - believing that Leonard Williams is worthy of a contract in the 17M+ range, or that the Giants needed him badly enough to trade two picks to secure the rights to pay him that.
The team still doesn't have a single good edge rusher under contract next season, or an ILB worth anything.
He's had a lot of those later picks - and Slayton has definitely exceeded expectations, but beyond him?
Lauletta - gone
a 4th and a 6th - traded for Ogletree
a 3rd and a 4th/5th - traded for Williams
Ximines, Carter, Beal
Connelly looked like he had some promise, but got hurt before you could tell what you had.
Again - not materially different from Reese, who was typically picking much lower in these rounds.
Part of the weakness of the anti-Williams argument is the assumption that we could just as well spend the money elsewhere. My view is that we won’t be able to, on a player with comparable youth and talent.
Part of the weakness of the anti-Williams argument is the assumption that we could just as well spend the money elsewhere. My view is that we won’t be able to, on a player with comparable youth and talent.
Williams is not a pass rusher. But my problem with it is giving up an essentially late second round pick, who would be 4-5 younger and far cheaper, for a player who hasn't lived up to where he was drafted, and whose "best" years may be behind him.
There’s just way too much passion about this argument here these days.
There’s just way too much passion about this argument here these days.
Huh? Don't get your point.
Oh, and Williams has a grand total of 0 sacks this season
Part of the weakness of the anti-Williams argument is the assumption that we could just as well spend the money elsewhere. My view is that we won’t be able to, on a player with comparable youth and talent.
Okay, let me be clear on this because I really don’t like the LW trade. Spending money on DTs who aren’t the rare, two-way breed who can get sacks (e.g. Aaron Donald, Warren Sapp, etc) is a colossal waste of money in my eyes. And LW is nowhere in that vicinity. Through five seasons he’s averaging 3 sacks per year. He’s superfluous for us because he’s essentially doing what our other inside guys are already doing. He flashes at times - sure. But there is more JAG than star.
You can find inside gap stuffers. They are fairly plentiful. So why over spend? Just because we happen to have the money?
That’s a very strange strategy...
I'm ok with you saying it's unfair, but on which players?
Just saying 'they seem like they might be good someday' isn't really helping your case.
There’s just way too much passion about this argument here these days.
Really? I don't see anywhere that I said the 2019 draft picks were lousy just that 13 games is too small a sample to judge by and that the fact that they play alot for a lousy team does not prove they are as great as touted. For what it's worth, I think Jones is promising, Lawrence a keeper, Baker has been a major disappointment. With the exception of Slayton, the jury is still out on the others.
I'll use your lingo - he will be a force multiplier once we have other players on the front 7 who can play. I'm already lining up Chase Young along Lawrence and Tomlinson and some better LBs in general. Williams has the chance to be part of a dominant unit and is young enough to enter his prime as part of this crew.
I'll use your lingo - he will be a force multiplier once we have other players on the front 7 who can play. I'm already lining up Chase Young along Lawrence and Tomlinson and some better LBs in general. Williams has the chance to be part of a dominant unit and is young enough to enter his prime as part of this crew.
It just seems to me that is the Giants usual way of thinking, and it doesn't work:
Player X is a good but not great player, but he's solid, and if we pay him and prop him next to better players, maybe he'll be better.
That's what people seem to miss about the Williams criticism. He's not a bad player. But is he a very good one? To date, no. So why would you pay him like one? And why would you trade picks to pay him like one?
If he were an edge rusher, I could at least see the desperation angle; it would be wrong (see Solder, Nate), but at least the logic would be easier to digest. Given that you're adding him to a position that already had resources allocated to it (a 2nd in Tomlinson, a 1st in Lawrence), and you're woefully deficient at OLB - why do this?
As for the rookies - the people who speak in favor of them tend to have conflicting opinions. They think the coaching staff is as bad as it gets, but that the rookies show promise. Their play doesn't reflect that promise, otherwise they wouldn't be 2-12. And if you think it does, then doesn't the coaching staff get a pass for the number of positions where they have little to no veteran leadership on the field?
Quote:
Thanks - to me that's a serious counterargument to Williams. I don't agree with you because I have a higher opinion of Williams, who I think is an active, accomplished player who stays on the field and demands attention in the blocking scheme.
I'll use your lingo - he will be a force multiplier once we have other players on the front 7 who can play. I'm already lining up Chase Young along Lawrence and Tomlinson and some better LBs in general. Williams has the chance to be part of a dominant unit and is young enough to enter his prime as part of this crew.
It just seems to me that is the Giants usual way of thinking, and it doesn't work:
Player X is a good but not great player, but he's solid, and if we pay him and prop him next to better players, maybe he'll be better.
That's what people seem to miss about the Williams criticism. He's not a bad player. But is he a very good one? To date, no. So why would you pay him like one? And why would you trade picks to pay him like one?
If he were an edge rusher, I could at least see the desperation angle; it would be wrong (see Solder, Nate), but at least the logic would be easier to digest. Given that you're adding him to a position that already had resources allocated to it (a 2nd in Tomlinson, a 1st in Lawrence), and you're woefully deficient at OLB - why do this?
As for the rookies - the people who speak in favor of them tend to have conflicting opinions. They think the coaching staff is as bad as it gets, but that the rookies show promise. Their play doesn't reflect that promise, otherwise they wouldn't be 2-12. And if you think it does, then doesn't the coaching staff get a pass for the number of positions where they have little to no veteran leadership on the field?
Add to that that DG himself drafter Hill last year.. How many DTs/DE do we need who don't get sacks? and do we really need to use such high resources for non sacking DTs?
Also at this point last year Hill was looking good.. but where he at now? It feels like people simply want to justify DG staying here and they make up the optimism.. if the talent was actually good we won't be a 2 win team..
You literally posted that word for word a few days ago and it was just as full of shit then.
Solder was an awful move, and has significant cap ramifications. Ogletree was an awful move, and RD proceeded to make his cap situation worse so that he could make other bad free agent signings which have contributed to the highest dead money total in the league this season.
The jury's still out on how the Leonard Williams trade will play out, but it's not looking like he's going to emerge with a contract in hand before free agency, so we either traded for the right to tag, or traded just to prevent LW from getting tagged/signed elsewhere before free agency - neither of those two supposed benefits are worth the 65th or 66th pick in the draft PLUS another draft pick.
Those are just his FA/trade acquisitions. He also stuck with Eli at least a year too long, including a season where he had already spent the #6 pick in the draft on his future QB. He spent the #2 overall pick on a RB when his team was just beginning a rebuild, or should have been.
That last point dovetails right into the next one - he didn't seem to realize the 2018 season should have been a rebuilding year from the start, and wasted an entire offseason of what could have been rebuilding, and instead actually set the rebuild back another full year on top of that because he had to use 2019 to get out from under his bad FA signings in 2018.
He promised to build a team that could run the ball, stop the run, rush the passer. So far he's 1 for 3, and had to use four draft picks (Lawrence, Hilll, and two picks for Williams) plus the incumbent 2nd round DL (Tomlinson) in order to achieve the one successful part. How many draft picks will it take for him to get the other two facets to work, and will we just have to repeat the cycle for a DL rebuild by the time he completes all three the first time around?
The idea that RD's ONLY big mistake was hiring Shurmur is absolutely insane. And the people who criticize RD aren't "the haters" - they're the people with functional brains.
Part of the weakness of the anti-Williams argument is the assumption that we could just as well spend the money elsewhere. My view is that we won’t be able to, on a player with comparable youth and talent.
You don't HAVE to spend it if there aren't players worth spending it on. Overspending simply because the market sucks is not a reason to overspend.
You can roll your unused cap space forward and use it to lock up your own drafted players, assuming you ever get around to drafting players worth signing.
David Wilson RB, great guy, too small, lots of defensive ends with too skinny base lack of power, etc. It was a very consistent theme for years.
I think Jones was a Mara thing, possibly great long term but also - we had that strong indication that this year was shot ...at that moment .
Expect linebackers , safeties and offensive linesmen - rinse repeat
Williams is not a pass rusher. But my problem with it is giving up an essentially late second round pick, who would be 4-5 younger and far cheaper, for a player who hasn't lived up to where he was drafted, and whose "best" years may be behind him.
I'm not a big fan of the trade either, but people keep saying this crap and it annoys the piss out of me.
It isn't a "essentially late second round pick" it's a third round pick. It's not among the first 64 selections is it? Being early in the third doesn't mean you can bump it up a round to make your argument sound better.
You guys should be happy. Back to Giants football.
And admitting that I LOVED the betches one gapping 3/4 in concept , thinking that didn't have the right lbs for it yet. Also, didn't have a very deep defensive backs coaching staff list .
But now I'm trending towards a 4/2/5 which fields 3 big dts and one edge, two (2!) pass D lbs (draft) and 5 true defensive backs (draft FS).
Now, you may say then what the hell any good is a GM who at his heart *might* take issue with his owner if he doesn't make the key decisions? Well one might ask, and that is at the core of the Giants' problems.
And admitting that I LOVED the betches one gapping 3/4 in concept , thinking that didn't have the right lbs for it yet. Also, didn't have a very deep defensive backs coaching staff list .
But now I'm trending towards a 4/2/5 which fields 3 big dts and one edge, two (2!) pass D lbs (draft) and 5 true defensive backs (draft FS).
There's a major flaw in that reasoning, which is that Bettcher will have a chance to use any player they draft this offseason. There's a less than zero percent chance that he'll be back with the team next year.
You don't HAVE to spend it if there aren't players worth spending it on. Overspending simply because the market sucks is not a reason to overspend.
You can roll your unused cap space forward and use it to lock up your own drafted players, assuming you ever get around to drafting players worth signing.
Look at how there 49ers have been approaching this. They are building their talent through the draft and through trades. FA is a minor part of their effort.
Quote:
You don't HAVE to spend it if there aren't players worth spending it on. Overspending simply because the market sucks is not a reason to overspend.
You can roll your unused cap space forward and use it to lock up your own drafted players, assuming you ever get around to drafting players worth signing.
GD - I agree with you and think a rebuild demands rolling over cap capacity to help with future contracts. But the Giants can't roll over ALL their ample space - they need to spend some of it. Upcoming free agents in the 2020 offseason will be paid unreal amounts, so getting some free agents locked in through a trade is a good way to go.
Look at how there 49ers have been approaching this. They are building their talent through the draft and through trades. FA is a minor part of their effort.
I would agree with you if anything was actually locked in as it relates to Williams. Currently, they've only traded for the right to tag him and/or to prevent anyone else from tagging him. If they don't sign him before FA, they didn't really lock anything in via trade, depending on how you view the tag. With it starting at a minimum of $17M for LW, I'm not sure that's really saving any money vs. what the market would bear for LW in terms of AAV.
You guys should be happy. Back to Giants football.
I'll be happy when they get to a point where they're deploying a properly balanced roster with average to good players at most positions. Clustering a single position with good to above average players, and then not having anyone who can rush the passer or guard a TE is the best way to get to 2-14 quickly.
Aren't we all tired of "Giants football"?
He will get more time and a large say in picking the next head coach. But if that KPI hasn’t improved under a new coach then he won’t be long for his role.
The question is which is a better indicator of future performance.
Like the William's trade? Why? Give up a 3rd and 5th round picks for no sacks and no wins when you have to pay him anyway after the season. How about keep your picks and just pursue him in free agency? When a GM is getting outsmarted by the Jets, it's a problem.