Its sucks but they have so many holes they have to risk another bad pay performance overspend somewhere.
Its not going to happen by draft picks. We fool ourselves into thinking they are cheap. Yet their risk of failure in a time of need PLUS their development curves at some long learned positions ( QB/CB/DT/Center/OT) can skew the one derivative view of what's needed to build a team from the cellar
So there will be future performance to pay risks for a FA DL or a OL or a LB. After all, you don't want draft choices to learn on a team of perpetual losing.
Even a first round DT (which we cant afford) would have a 2 year development curve and an alternative opportunity cost. And having 2 good DTs next to Lawrence may well be an asymmetric unit. Neither of us is qualified to assess that possibility
I don't think the choices are so ridiculous as to be deserving of contempt. Seems a wide ( but no doubt very emotional) range of fan opinion will exist until it proves out on the field. My other guess is that the wait and see fans will just be mostly silent. Posting communities on the internet easily become echo chambers.
Williams is a good player but they pissed away too much to get a guy who would need a huge contract. It just didn’t make any sense to do it on this team that has massive holes at every unit.
DT was once of the areas where we didn't have a "massive hole". So bringing in LW was superfluous. We were out of the playoff hunt and we needed to be sellers not buyers. It's Bad Team 101.
I didn't like the deal, and if he either walks or we pay more than $12MAAV I'll like it even less...but the deal wasn't superfluous. Our run 'D' was struggling and improved significantly with his acquisition. Our pressure stats were bad and they improved as well. So there were legitimate reasons to trade for him. The problem was the compensation package for a rental in a losing season.
I didn't like the deal, and if he either walks or we pay more than $12MAAV I'll like it even less...but the deal wasn't superfluous. Our run 'D' was struggling and improved significantly with his acquisition. Our pressure stats were bad and they improved as well. So there were legitimate reasons to trade for him. The problem was the compensation package for a rental in a losing season.
Here is some different context with the stats with and without LW:
The D gave up 27ppg before LW arrived. They gave up 29ppg after he arrived. We were 2-6 pre-LW, beating the Skins and Bucs. 2-6 after he arrived, beating the Skins and Miami.
With common opponents:
Zeke ran for 139 yards with LW here. Without LW, he ran for 53.
Before LW was here, AP ran for 28 yards. With LW here, he ran for 36 yards.
In the first Eagles game with LW here, the Eagles ran for 118 yards. In the second game, they ran for 121 yards. The Eagles season average running the ball was 121 yards per game. So in both games, with Boston Scott as their primary, the ran to their average.
I'm not really sure we did improve after LW arrived...
'I'm not really sure we did improve after LW arrived...' Â
We gave up almost a full yard less per rush attempt and nearly 60% of our sacks and QB pressure occurred after he was acquired. Both Tomlinson and Golden's results improved dramatically as a result of the attention he drew. The DL as a whole played better. That much was obvious just watching the games even without delving into the numbers. The only individual statistical category LW didn't produce above the curve was sacks for himself.
I didn't like the deal, and if he either walks or we pay more than $12MAAV I'll like it even less...but the deal wasn't superfluous. Our run 'D' was struggling and improved significantly with his acquisition. Our pressure stats were bad and they improved as well. So there were legitimate reasons to trade for him. The problem was the compensation package for a rental in a losing season.
Here is some different context with the stats with and without LW:
The D gave up 27ppg before LW arrived. They gave up 29ppg after he arrived. We were 2-6 pre-LW, beating the Skins and Bucs. 2-6 after he arrived, beating the Skins and Miami.
With common opponents:
Zeke ran for 139 yards with LW here. Without LW, he ran for 53.
Before LW was here, AP ran for 28 yards. With LW here, he ran for 36 yards.
In the first Eagles game with LW here, the Eagles ran for 118 yards. In the second game, they ran for 121 yards. The Eagles season average running the ball was 121 yards per game. So in both games, with Boston Scott as their primary, the ran to their average.
I'm not really sure we did improve after LW arrived...
Well the first Dallas game, Elliott signed his extension the week of the game, and he was used in a limited fashion.
Williams would look a lot better if we had a LB or two to shoot gaps and make tackles.
Debating the specifics in bw's post is semantics as the overall theme Â
is still the same that Williams is a good player but not shown himself to be a difference maker on the Jets or Giant defense.
Gentleman, for whatever reason, focused in on LW at some point last year, made a strange deal in bringing him onto a bad team at a bad time based on the state of this franchise. Now the only question is he going to make a worse decision to pay top free agent prices to sign him to a longer term deal despite my first sentence above.
The draft choices DG gave up are just sunk costs huh? Wait until the Jets pick up a good WR, LB or decent Center with those picks...then it'll really sink in.
It says that he's seeking $15 m. If that's his asking price, maybe Â
I know it’s been said over and over and over and beaten to death but I can’t wrap my brain around how fucking stupid this was. A child would make this trade. And I don’t even hate Gettleman... it’s not about that. It’s about objectively looking at something and calling it what it is-a mind numbingly stupid move.
The past is the past, we have to move on etc etc but holy shit. It’s so bad it will never die. He’s a poor mans keith Hamilton... at least hammer ended up with some sacks. Good player, not worth a 3rd rounder (which almost amounts to a late 2nd) and certainly not worth 15 mil. No way.
it's not about the yearly avg. It's about the guarantees and the structure.
if this what he's starting at, the final figure will be lower. if Giants were going to meet his asking price, he'd already be re-signed.
the picks traded away are gone. If he's re-signed, the additional draft cost is the 5th rounder bumping up to a 4. The other draft picks are no longer a factor in whether or not to re-sign.
my take is that he performed as expected, and the cost is as expected, so he's what they wanted and planned on cost-wise. The only question now is whether the new regime wants him.
To a gross contract. He has to justify the trade.
We’ll see how good the trade was next year. We play a lot of good rush offenses (SF, Baltimore, Seattle, Philly, Dallas, Arizona, Cleveland). If we’re continuing to get pounded on the ground and finish with less than 7 wins after handing out a big contract to LW, I’m firing DG right after the last game ends next year.
Re-sign Williams for more than he's worth. Re-sign Golden for more than he's worth. Draft Thomas at 4 and boast how the offers to trade down were garbage.
RE: 'I'm not really sure we did improve after LW arrived...' Â
We gave up almost a full yard less per rush attempt and nearly 60% of our sacks and QB pressure occurred after he was acquired. Both Tomlinson and Golden's results improved dramatically as a result of the attention he drew. The DL as a whole played better. That much was obvious just watching the games even without delving into the numbers. The only individual statistical category LW didn't produce above the curve was sacks for himself.
Giants had 36 sacks for the year. 20 came before LW arrived. 16 post LW.
Golden had 10 sacks for the year - 4.5 pre-LW, 5.5 with LW here. He had 18 tackles for losses. 10 of those were before LW arrived.
Tomlinson had 2 sacks before LW arrived. 1.5 after he arrived. He had 49 total tackles for the year. 27 of those before LW arrived. He had 23 solo tackles for the year. 11 pre LW, 12 post LW.
So I’m not sure the words “dramatically improved” come to mind...
Again, with LW we allowed 2 more ppg on D and we had the same record - 2/6 - with and without LW.
He just didn’t materially impact the D. Maybe some incremental changes in some areas. But nothing that got passed through to helping us win more games...
RE: RE: 'I'm not really sure we did improve after LW arrived...' Â
We gave up almost a full yard less per rush attempt and nearly 60% of our sacks and QB pressure occurred after he was acquired. Both Tomlinson and Golden's results improved dramatically as a result of the attention he drew. The DL as a whole played better. That much was obvious just watching the games even without delving into the numbers. The only individual statistical category LW didn't produce above the curve was sacks for himself.
Giants had 36 sacks for the year. 20 came before LW arrived. 16 post LW.
Golden had 10 sacks for the year - 4.5 pre-LW, 5.5 with LW here. He had 18 tackles for losses. 10 of those were before LW arrived.
Tomlinson had 2 sacks before LW arrived. 1.5 after he arrived. He had 49 total tackles for the year. 27 of those before LW arrived. He had 23 solo tackles for the year. 11 pre LW, 12 post LW.
So I’m not sure the words “dramatically improved” come to mind...
Again, with LW we allowed 2 more ppg on D and we had the same record - 2/6 - with and without LW.
He just didn’t materially impact the D. Maybe some incremental changes in some areas. But nothing that got passed through to helping us win more games...
Of course you leave out the impact of a possible failed scheme, poor coaching, low morale. Just because something can't be put on a stat sheet doesn't mean it isn't important to the overall good of the team.
We gave up almost a full yard less per rush attempt and nearly 60% of our sacks and QB pressure occurred after he was acquired. Both Tomlinson and Golden's results improved dramatically as a result of the attention he drew. The DL as a whole played better. That much was obvious just watching the games even without delving into the numbers. The only individual statistical category LW didn't produce above the curve was sacks for himself.
Giants had 36 sacks for the year. 20 came before LW arrived. 16 post LW.
Golden had 10 sacks for the year - 4.5 pre-LW, 5.5 with LW here. He had 18 tackles for losses. 10 of those were before LW arrived.
Tomlinson had 2 sacks before LW arrived. 1.5 after he arrived. He had 49 total tackles for the year. 27 of those before LW arrived. He had 23 solo tackles for the year. 11 pre LW, 12 post LW.
So I’m not sure the words “dramatically improved” come to mind...
Again, with LW we allowed 2 more ppg on D and we had the same record - 2/6 - with and without LW.
He just didn’t materially impact the D. Maybe some incremental changes in some areas. But nothing that got passed through to helping us win more games...
Of course you leave out the impact of a possible failed scheme, poor coaching, low morale. Just because something can't be put on a stat sheet doesn't mean it isn't important to the overall good of the team.
Yes, indeed. He could also be a good locker room culture guy we need.
when it comes to Leonard Williams. I mean I do understand, the histrionics about it are just surprising.
Among PFF's top 50 FA he's #34 and the 5th youngest. That's just 8 spots behind everyones favorite $100m pipedream Yannick Ngakoue. Whether it's with a huge contract or a similarly compensated trade + sign, if they got Ngakoue it would probably have like a 90% approval rating. Each has made 1 pro bowl in their careers, had down seasons in 2019 relative to prior seasons, and have some general scheme/fit questions. Edge rusher is more of a glamour position and sacks are a glamour stat but I don't think that should completely minimize the importance of a good interior DL.
And don't get me wrong - I'd love to get Ngakoue because he's a good player. I'm just similarly happy to have Williams because he's also good player. We can argue about value of acquisition until we are blue in the face once we see what both cost but the game is played on the field first and both can help there over the next 4-5 years. Both are young, productive, and have track records of not missing games. It wasn't ideal to have to trade for LW but that shouldn't completely cloud the evaluation of what he is as a player.
RE: RE: RE: 'I'm not really sure we did improve after LW arrived...' Â
We gave up almost a full yard less per rush attempt and nearly 60% of our sacks and QB pressure occurred after he was acquired. Both Tomlinson and Golden's results improved dramatically as a result of the attention he drew. The DL as a whole played better. That much was obvious just watching the games even without delving into the numbers. The only individual statistical category LW didn't produce above the curve was sacks for himself.
Giants had 36 sacks for the year. 20 came before LW arrived. 16 post LW.
Golden had 10 sacks for the year - 4.5 pre-LW, 5.5 with LW here. He had 18 tackles for losses. 10 of those were before LW arrived.
Tomlinson had 2 sacks before LW arrived. 1.5 after he arrived. He had 49 total tackles for the year. 27 of those before LW arrived. He had 23 solo tackles for the year. 11 pre LW, 12 post LW.
So I’m not sure the words “dramatically improved” come to mind...
Again, with LW we allowed 2 more ppg on D and we had the same record - 2/6 - with and without LW.
He just didn’t materially impact the D. Maybe some incremental changes in some areas. But nothing that got passed through to helping us win more games...
Of course you leave out the impact of a possible failed scheme, poor coaching, low morale. Just because something can't be put on a stat sheet doesn't mean it isn't important to the overall good of the team.
I did. And I left off community service, charity work, good guy factor, the "LW wants to stay in NY" factor, etc.
If you want to take a crack how you can apply those intangibles to justify a $15-$17M salary, I'm all ears...
RE: I don't understand why all rational analysis goes out the window Â
when it comes to Leonard Williams. I mean I do understand, the histrionics about it are just surprising.
Among PFF's top 50 FA he's #34 and the 5th youngest. That's just 8 spots behind everyones favorite $100m pipedream Yannick Ngakoue. Whether it's with a huge contract or a similarly compensated trade + sign, if they got Ngakoue it would probably have like a 90% approval rating. Each has made 1 pro bowl in their careers, had down seasons in 2019 relative to prior seasons, and have some general scheme/fit questions. Edge rusher is more of a glamour position and sacks are a glamour stat but I don't think that should completely minimize the importance of a good interior DL.
And don't get me wrong - I'd love to get Ngakoue because he's a good player. I'm just similarly happy to have Williams because he's also good player. We can argue about value of acquisition until we are blue in the face once we see what both cost but the game is played on the field first and both can help there over the next 4-5 years. Both are young, productive, and have track records of not missing games. It wasn't ideal to have to trade for LW but that shouldn't completely cloud the evaluation of what he is as a player.
I think you've tossed rational analysis out the window. You just put Ngakoue in the same 'good' category as Williams.
Being 34th on a list of top 50 being used to actually promote this view should be a sign that no rational thought was applied. He's not a bad player - and the Giants should get out of the business of trading picks to pay tens of millions of dollars to players simply for 'not being bad' (see Ogletree, Alec).
That will probably be made worse. Leonard Williams is a slightly above average 3-4 DE/DT, and you can find those anywhere. He's not a difference-maker. He's not a player that opposing OC's have to plan for. He's not worth what the Giants gave up to get him. That was a mistake that should absolutely not be compounded by signing him to a big money deal.
RE: Please stop trying to justify a bad trade... Â
That will probably be made worse. Leonard Williams is a slightly above average 3-4 DE/DT, and you can find those anywhere. He's not a difference-maker. He's not a player that opposing OC's have to plan for. He's not worth what the Giants gave up to get him. That was a mistake that should absolutely not be compounded by signing him to a big money deal.
I would absolutely let him walk. But Dave won’t though. He knows his perception in the media. He has to realize he’s going to be looked upon as a bumbling incompetent fool if he lets LW walk. So not only will he sign him, he might even give him a fully guaranteed contract.
RE: RE: Please stop trying to justify a bad trade... Â
That will probably be made worse. Leonard Williams is a slightly above average 3-4 DE/DT, and you can find those anywhere. He's not a difference-maker. He's not a player that opposing OC's have to plan for. He's not worth what the Giants gave up to get him. That was a mistake that should absolutely not be compounded by signing him to a big money deal.
I would absolutely let him walk. But Dave won’t though. He knows his perception in the media. He has to realize he’s going to be looked upon as a bumbling incompetent fool if he lets LW walk. So not only will he sign him, he might even give him a fully guaranteed contract.
and that would help his reputation how exactly? He would get a little respect maybe if he said the contract demands were too high and moved on. Signing him to save face is assi ine.
RE: RE: RE: RE: 'I'm not really sure we did improve after LW arrived...' Â
We gave up almost a full yard less per rush attempt and nearly 60% of our sacks and QB pressure occurred after he was acquired. Both Tomlinson and Golden's results improved dramatically as a result of the attention he drew. The DL as a whole played better. That much was obvious just watching the games even without delving into the numbers. The only individual statistical category LW didn't produce above the curve was sacks for himself.
Giants had 36 sacks for the year. 20 came before LW arrived. 16 post LW.
Golden had 10 sacks for the year - 4.5 pre-LW, 5.5 with LW here. He had 18 tackles for losses. 10 of those were before LW arrived.
Tomlinson had 2 sacks before LW arrived. 1.5 after he arrived. He had 49 total tackles for the year. 27 of those before LW arrived. He had 23 solo tackles for the year. 11 pre LW, 12 post LW.
So I’m not sure the words “dramatically improved” come to mind...
Again, with LW we allowed 2 more ppg on D and we had the same record - 2/6 - with and without LW.
He just didn’t materially impact the D. Maybe some incremental changes in some areas. But nothing that got passed through to helping us win more games...
Of course you leave out the impact of a possible failed scheme, poor coaching, low morale. Just because something can't be put on a stat sheet doesn't mean it isn't important to the overall good of the team.
Yes, indeed. He could also be a good locker room culture guy we need.
You can't pay enough for those types.
Thankfully we gave Omameh and Stewart a combined 8M for the year to help the new coach Pat Shurmur pull the reins in as the adult in the room...
RE: RE: RE: Please stop trying to justify a bad trade... Â
and that would help his reputation how exactly? He would get a little respect maybe if he said the contract demands were too high and moved on. Signing him to save face is assi ine.
Plausible deniability. If Williams walks there's no denying the trade was a waste, a team going nowhere losing two draft picks for 8 games (in the hopes that a comp pick could possibly offset one of them) would be an outright, undeniable waste of resources.
If they sign him, then they can at least try to play up his value.
I just don't see what in LW's career trajectory anyone sees that warrants him being paid $15M a season. So far, the best case argument is 'well, the Giants have a lot of money to burn and so does everyone else', but that still stops short of explaining why they'd give up a 3rd, a 4th, and $15M a season to keep this guy.
RE: RE: I don't understand why all rational analysis goes out the window Â
when it comes to Leonard Williams. I mean I do understand, the histrionics about it are just surprising.
Among PFF's top 50 FA he's #34 and the 5th youngest. That's just 8 spots behind everyones favorite $100m pipedream Yannick Ngakoue. Whether it's with a huge contract or a similarly compensated trade + sign, if they got Ngakoue it would probably have like a 90% approval rating. Each has made 1 pro bowl in their careers, had down seasons in 2019 relative to prior seasons, and have some general scheme/fit questions. Edge rusher is more of a glamour position and sacks are a glamour stat but I don't think that should completely minimize the importance of a good interior DL.
And don't get me wrong - I'd love to get Ngakoue because he's a good player. I'm just similarly happy to have Williams because he's also good player. We can argue about value of acquisition until we are blue in the face once we see what both cost but the game is played on the field first and both can help there over the next 4-5 years. Both are young, productive, and have track records of not missing games. It wasn't ideal to have to trade for LW but that shouldn't completely cloud the evaluation of what he is as a player.
I think you've tossed rational analysis out the window. You just put Ngakoue in the same 'good' category as Williams.
Being 34th on a list of top 50 being used to actually promote this view should be a sign that no rational thought was applied. He's not a bad player - and the Giants should get out of the business of trading picks to pay tens of millions of dollars to players simply for 'not being bad' (see Ogletree, Alec).
The problem with Ogletree was that he was a bad player. The problem wasn't as much his salary or the fact that they gave up a 4th rd pick (which became John Franklin Myers, who got cut within a year) - it was that he sucked on the field.
If Leonard Williams sucks on the field I'll entirely agree with you but that hasn't happened yet. It's also why I would tag him and get a full year to decide whether he's worth signing long term, and if not I'd let him walk next year to recoup the pick as a comp pick.
Exactly what Leonard Williams was with the Jets and with the Giants. Not a huge liability. Not a producer. Just kind of there.
A $15M, just kind of there player. Who cost a 3rd and a 4th round pick. And then we wonder why the Giants are as bad as they are. It's not just coaching, it's because the front office has their heads collectively up their ass.
they tried to get him off a down year ('17) and it turned out the down year was the new normal and he just went over the cliff quickly. Way over a cliff. Clearly we didn't get anything remotely resembling an all pro. He wasn't an ok player here, he was a poor player and a consistent liability.
If Williams similarly goes over a cliff to the point where he is a liability on the field then acquiring him would have been a similarly terrible decision. If that's how you viewed his performance in the limited time we had him I disagree. If that's what you predict going forward that's a perfectly fair opinion, but it's just as fair for anyone to predict something else. As I've said, my opinion is there are a lot of variables that make it hard to accurately predict how good or bad Williams will be in the future here - which is why I want to tag him to get a year with the new staff before making a decision either way. Letting him walk next year keeps the cap clean and recoups some of the assets given up for him in the first place.
Who's to say the Giants would have drafted Myers? Maybe they draft Safety Tre Flowers and don't bother signing Antoine Bethea? Maybe they draft DT Maurice Hurst, who has 7.5 sacks in two years for Oakland, or NE LB Ju'Whuan Bentley?
Who's to say the Giants would have drafted Myers? Maybe they draft Safety Tre Flowers and don't bother signing Antoine Bethea? Maybe they draft DT Maurice Hurst, who has 7.5 sacks in two years for Oakland, or NE LB Ju'Whuan Bentley?
The odds they would have drafted the same player as LAR are close to 0.
We can second guess draft picks all day long but the Giants passed on the guys you mentioned and took RJ McIntosh just 4 picks after the pick they gave LAR, so he's probably the most likely guy they would have taken with the exact pick they gave up for Ogletree (the 3 players in between were Marquis Haynes, Dalton Schultz, and Cole Madison).
We gave up almost a full yard less per rush attempt and nearly 60% of our sacks and QB pressure occurred after he was acquired. Both Tomlinson and Golden's results improved dramatically as a result of the attention he drew. The DL as a whole played better. That much was obvious just watching the games even without delving into the numbers. The only individual statistical category LW didn't produce above the curve was sacks for himself.
Giants had 36 sacks for the year. 20 came before LW arrived. 16 post LW.
Golden had 10 sacks for the year - 4.5 pre-LW, 5.5 with LW here. He had 18 tackles for losses. 10 of those were before LW arrived.
Tomlinson had 2 sacks before LW arrived. 1.5 after he arrived. He had 49 total tackles for the year. 27 of those before LW arrived. He had 23 solo tackles for the year. 11 pre LW, 12 post LW.
So I’m not sure the words “dramatically improved” come to mind...
Again, with LW we allowed 2 more ppg on D and we had the same record - 2/6 - with and without LW.
He just didn’t materially impact the D. Maybe some incremental changes in some areas. But nothing that got passed through to helping us win more games...
Of course you leave out the impact of a possible failed scheme, poor coaching, low morale. Just because something can't be put on a stat sheet doesn't mean it isn't important to the overall good of the team.
I did. And I left off community service, charity work, good guy factor, the "LW wants to stay in NY" factor, etc.
If you want to take a crack how you can apply those intangibles to justify a $15-$17M salary, I'm all ears...
No you're not "all ears". You made up your mind a long time ago that the giants way is always wrong no matter what information comes your way.
Re-sign Williams for more than he's worth. Re-sign Golden for more than he's worth. Draft Thomas at 4 and boast how the offers to trade down were garbage.
No you're not "all ears". You made up your mind a long time ago that the giants way is always wrong no matter what information comes your way.
The Giants have been mostly wrong for a long time. So I see know reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. That trust needs to be restored with many in the fan base. In my judgment...
I was arguing with Torrag trying to use numerical facts that dismiss some of this narrative that LW made such a big impact on this defense. And I stand by the numbers. They are telling.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 'I'm not really sure we did improve after LW arrived...' Â
No you're not "all ears". You made up your mind a long time ago that the giants way is always wrong no matter what information comes your way.
The Giants have been mostly wrong for a long time. So I see know reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. That trust needs to be restored with many in the fan base. In my judgment...
I was arguing with Torrag trying to use numerical facts that dismiss some of this narrative that LW made such a big impact on this defense. And I stand by the numbers. They are telling.
Numbers like Dalvin Tomlinson's marginal drop off in some areas of production after Williams joined the team?
Did that account for snaps played by Tomlinson, which likely decreased?
One would think the unit's overall numbers on a per play basis, like YPC by opponents, is a more reliable metric.
Tomlinson's snap count remained about the same as before the acquisition of Williams. B.J. Hill's, however, took a big hit, and McIntosh's became almost non-existent.
Tomlinson's snap count remained about the same as before the acquisition of Williams. B.J. Hill's, however, took a big hit, and McIntosh's became almost non-existent.
I know Hill's took a big hit, hadn't really considered McIntosh as a factor, but still wondered if Dalvin's decreased.
Other individual metrics are skewed by LW taking plays away from other DL, and I truly prefer eyeballing to stat counts. Especially if one doesn't factor in situational stats.
I strongly believe the DL unit now is much stronger than it was even with Damon Harrison on it because they are better in short yardage. The eyeball test tells me LW, DL, and DT don't lose as much territory at the LOS, our DL is often playing the game on our opponents' side if the LOS, and that will increase with continued experience on DL's part and Hill's part and fewer snaps for individuals and more rotation.
Whatever, I'm in favor of a dominant DL and while we are not there yet, we are approaching that goal if we re-sign LW.
Everyone know we really need an elite or close to elite edge guy, but was it a mistake to pass on Allen for Jones? Can't make that call yet, can we?
Williams is a plus player. Moreso if a plus than Golden IMO.
Except your numbers don't support your conclusions. Of course statistics in a 'vacuum'
as you use them can be made to support specious arguments as you have. You completely ignore the rushing statistics because they negate your position. Allowing an entire yard less per rush is significant. It's not his fault the back 8 couldn't defend a pass or deny a 3rd down conversion to save their asses.
You also have errors in your statistical arguments. Golden's TFL numbers were 13 for the season, 4 before LW and 9 after the trade. That speaks to disruption at the LoS. Tomlinson had 29 TCKLs after LW and 20TCKLs before. Again an indication LW was helping the DL produce. You also have his sack numbers flipped not that it's significant but telling to your 'research'.
We can't know the answer to the following question but we can infer it...how would the DL have performed if they had all been asked to play another 100 snaps or with guys like McIntosh and Chris Slayton playing significant minutes in LW's stead? Answer? Not well.
So going back to what started this. You said he was 'superfluous'...here are some definitions: useless · unproductive · pointless . One man can't make a bad defense good, but he can do his job well. He can do it better than the other options available on the roster. LW did. I don't think that's superfluous.
So Williams is a good player (kwall’s very words) Â
But the gm should be fired for even considering signing the guy for 15 million. Meanwhile, good DTs do in fact earn 15 million a year. But the GM is clueless.
This is why I hate even debating this crap. The money side of It just obliterates any objective and rational talk on a player’s worth.
When is is a good DT who is under 26 NOT worth market value? It ain’t your money!
We also don’t know for sure that spending 15 or so on Williams means the giants can’t spend 15 on another (Better) player. I love how this is just commonly assumed by so many. Doesn’t always work that way. Hate to tell you this.
The TFL are indeed 18, not 13. But I had those backwards. I knew one of them showed a greater bump with LW in the line-up. I did a quick review, but it looks like 7.5 pre, 10.5 with LW.
Don’t get hung up over the draft picks. They are gone. It is like dead money.
It would be dead money if there was a different GM making the next decision. In this case, it's the same hipster dufus...
Its not going to happen by draft picks. We fool ourselves into thinking they are cheap. Yet their risk of failure in a time of need PLUS their development curves at some long learned positions ( QB/CB/DT/Center/OT) can skew the one derivative view of what's needed to build a team from the cellar
So there will be future performance to pay risks for a FA DL or a OL or a LB. After all, you don't want draft choices to learn on a team of perpetual losing.
Even a first round DT (which we cant afford) would have a 2 year development curve and an alternative opportunity cost. And having 2 good DTs next to Lawrence may well be an asymmetric unit. Neither of us is qualified to assess that possibility
I don't think the choices are so ridiculous as to be deserving of contempt. Seems a wide ( but no doubt very emotional) range of fan opinion will exist until it proves out on the field. My other guess is that the wait and see fans will just be mostly silent. Posting communities on the internet easily become echo chambers.
Take care
DT was once of the areas where we didn't have a "massive hole". So bringing in LW was superfluous. We were out of the playoff hunt and we needed to be sellers not buyers. It's Bad Team 101.
We are an organization that thrives on dumb.
Exactly. Which is why his yearly number will be lower but the guaranteed money will be to his liking. Making the deal positive for both parties.
Here is some different context with the stats with and without LW:
The D gave up 27ppg before LW arrived. They gave up 29ppg after he arrived. We were 2-6 pre-LW, beating the Skins and Bucs. 2-6 after he arrived, beating the Skins and Miami.
With common opponents:
Zeke ran for 139 yards with LW here. Without LW, he ran for 53.
Before LW was here, AP ran for 28 yards. With LW here, he ran for 36 yards.
In the first Eagles game with LW here, the Eagles ran for 118 yards. In the second game, they ran for 121 yards. The Eagles season average running the ball was 121 yards per game. So in both games, with Boston Scott as their primary, the ran to their average.
I'm not really sure we did improve after LW arrived...
Quote:
I didn't like the deal, and if he either walks or we pay more than $12MAAV I'll like it even less...but the deal wasn't superfluous. Our run 'D' was struggling and improved significantly with his acquisition. Our pressure stats were bad and they improved as well. So there were legitimate reasons to trade for him. The problem was the compensation package for a rental in a losing season.
Here is some different context with the stats with and without LW:
The D gave up 27ppg before LW arrived. They gave up 29ppg after he arrived. We were 2-6 pre-LW, beating the Skins and Bucs. 2-6 after he arrived, beating the Skins and Miami.
With common opponents:
Zeke ran for 139 yards with LW here. Without LW, he ran for 53.
Before LW was here, AP ran for 28 yards. With LW here, he ran for 36 yards.
In the first Eagles game with LW here, the Eagles ran for 118 yards. In the second game, they ran for 121 yards. The Eagles season average running the ball was 121 yards per game. So in both games, with Boston Scott as their primary, the ran to their average.
I'm not really sure we did improve after LW arrived...
Well the first Dallas game, Elliott signed his extension the week of the game, and he was used in a limited fashion.
Williams would look a lot better if we had a LB or two to shoot gaps and make tackles.
Gentleman, for whatever reason, focused in on LW at some point last year, made a strange deal in bringing him onto a bad team at a bad time based on the state of this franchise. Now the only question is he going to make a worse decision to pay top free agent prices to sign him to a longer term deal despite my first sentence above.
The draft choices DG gave up are just sunk costs huh? Wait until the Jets pick up a good WR, LB or decent Center with those picks...then it'll really sink in.
I know it’s been said over and over and over and beaten to death but I can’t wrap my brain around how fucking stupid this was. A child would make this trade. And I don’t even hate Gettleman... it’s not about that. It’s about objectively looking at something and calling it what it is-a mind numbingly stupid move.
The past is the past, we have to move on etc etc but holy shit. It’s so bad it will never die. He’s a poor mans keith Hamilton... at least hammer ended up with some sacks. Good player, not worth a 3rd rounder (which almost amounts to a late 2nd) and certainly not worth 15 mil. No way.
if this what he's starting at, the final figure will be lower. if Giants were going to meet his asking price, he'd already be re-signed.
the picks traded away are gone. If he's re-signed, the additional draft cost is the 5th rounder bumping up to a 4. The other draft picks are no longer a factor in whether or not to re-sign.
my take is that he performed as expected, and the cost is as expected, so he's what they wanted and planned on cost-wise. The only question now is whether the new regime wants him.
We’ll see how good the trade was next year. We play a lot of good rush offenses (SF, Baltimore, Seattle, Philly, Dallas, Arizona, Cleveland). If we’re continuing to get pounded on the ground and finish with less than 7 wins after handing out a big contract to LW, I’m firing DG right after the last game ends next year.
Giants had 36 sacks for the year. 20 came before LW arrived. 16 post LW.
Golden had 10 sacks for the year - 4.5 pre-LW, 5.5 with LW here. He had 18 tackles for losses. 10 of those were before LW arrived.
Tomlinson had 2 sacks before LW arrived. 1.5 after he arrived. He had 49 total tackles for the year. 27 of those before LW arrived. He had 23 solo tackles for the year. 11 pre LW, 12 post LW.
So I’m not sure the words “dramatically improved” come to mind...
Again, with LW we allowed 2 more ppg on D and we had the same record - 2/6 - with and without LW.
He just didn’t materially impact the D. Maybe some incremental changes in some areas. But nothing that got passed through to helping us win more games...
Quote:
We gave up almost a full yard less per rush attempt and nearly 60% of our sacks and QB pressure occurred after he was acquired. Both Tomlinson and Golden's results improved dramatically as a result of the attention he drew. The DL as a whole played better. That much was obvious just watching the games even without delving into the numbers. The only individual statistical category LW didn't produce above the curve was sacks for himself.
Giants had 36 sacks for the year. 20 came before LW arrived. 16 post LW.
Golden had 10 sacks for the year - 4.5 pre-LW, 5.5 with LW here. He had 18 tackles for losses. 10 of those were before LW arrived.
Tomlinson had 2 sacks before LW arrived. 1.5 after he arrived. He had 49 total tackles for the year. 27 of those before LW arrived. He had 23 solo tackles for the year. 11 pre LW, 12 post LW.
So I’m not sure the words “dramatically improved” come to mind...
Again, with LW we allowed 2 more ppg on D and we had the same record - 2/6 - with and without LW.
He just didn’t materially impact the D. Maybe some incremental changes in some areas. But nothing that got passed through to helping us win more games...
Of course you leave out the impact of a possible failed scheme, poor coaching, low morale. Just because something can't be put on a stat sheet doesn't mean it isn't important to the overall good of the team.
Quote:
In comment 14807097 Torrag said:
Quote:
We gave up almost a full yard less per rush attempt and nearly 60% of our sacks and QB pressure occurred after he was acquired. Both Tomlinson and Golden's results improved dramatically as a result of the attention he drew. The DL as a whole played better. That much was obvious just watching the games even without delving into the numbers. The only individual statistical category LW didn't produce above the curve was sacks for himself.
Giants had 36 sacks for the year. 20 came before LW arrived. 16 post LW.
Golden had 10 sacks for the year - 4.5 pre-LW, 5.5 with LW here. He had 18 tackles for losses. 10 of those were before LW arrived.
Tomlinson had 2 sacks before LW arrived. 1.5 after he arrived. He had 49 total tackles for the year. 27 of those before LW arrived. He had 23 solo tackles for the year. 11 pre LW, 12 post LW.
So I’m not sure the words “dramatically improved” come to mind...
Again, with LW we allowed 2 more ppg on D and we had the same record - 2/6 - with and without LW.
He just didn’t materially impact the D. Maybe some incremental changes in some areas. But nothing that got passed through to helping us win more games...
Of course you leave out the impact of a possible failed scheme, poor coaching, low morale. Just because something can't be put on a stat sheet doesn't mean it isn't important to the overall good of the team.
Yes, indeed. He could also be a good locker room culture guy we need.
You can't pay enough for those types.
Among PFF's top 50 FA he's #34 and the 5th youngest. That's just 8 spots behind everyones favorite $100m pipedream Yannick Ngakoue. Whether it's with a huge contract or a similarly compensated trade + sign, if they got Ngakoue it would probably have like a 90% approval rating. Each has made 1 pro bowl in their careers, had down seasons in 2019 relative to prior seasons, and have some general scheme/fit questions. Edge rusher is more of a glamour position and sacks are a glamour stat but I don't think that should completely minimize the importance of a good interior DL.
And don't get me wrong - I'd love to get Ngakoue because he's a good player. I'm just similarly happy to have Williams because he's also good player. We can argue about value of acquisition until we are blue in the face once we see what both cost but the game is played on the field first and both can help there over the next 4-5 years. Both are young, productive, and have track records of not missing games. It wasn't ideal to have to trade for LW but that shouldn't completely cloud the evaluation of what he is as a player.
Quote:
In comment 14807097 Torrag said:
Quote:
We gave up almost a full yard less per rush attempt and nearly 60% of our sacks and QB pressure occurred after he was acquired. Both Tomlinson and Golden's results improved dramatically as a result of the attention he drew. The DL as a whole played better. That much was obvious just watching the games even without delving into the numbers. The only individual statistical category LW didn't produce above the curve was sacks for himself.
Giants had 36 sacks for the year. 20 came before LW arrived. 16 post LW.
Golden had 10 sacks for the year - 4.5 pre-LW, 5.5 with LW here. He had 18 tackles for losses. 10 of those were before LW arrived.
Tomlinson had 2 sacks before LW arrived. 1.5 after he arrived. He had 49 total tackles for the year. 27 of those before LW arrived. He had 23 solo tackles for the year. 11 pre LW, 12 post LW.
So I’m not sure the words “dramatically improved” come to mind...
Again, with LW we allowed 2 more ppg on D and we had the same record - 2/6 - with and without LW.
He just didn’t materially impact the D. Maybe some incremental changes in some areas. But nothing that got passed through to helping us win more games...
Of course you leave out the impact of a possible failed scheme, poor coaching, low morale. Just because something can't be put on a stat sheet doesn't mean it isn't important to the overall good of the team.
I did. And I left off community service, charity work, good guy factor, the "LW wants to stay in NY" factor, etc.
If you want to take a crack how you can apply those intangibles to justify a $15-$17M salary, I'm all ears...
Among PFF's top 50 FA he's #34 and the 5th youngest. That's just 8 spots behind everyones favorite $100m pipedream Yannick Ngakoue. Whether it's with a huge contract or a similarly compensated trade + sign, if they got Ngakoue it would probably have like a 90% approval rating. Each has made 1 pro bowl in their careers, had down seasons in 2019 relative to prior seasons, and have some general scheme/fit questions. Edge rusher is more of a glamour position and sacks are a glamour stat but I don't think that should completely minimize the importance of a good interior DL.
And don't get me wrong - I'd love to get Ngakoue because he's a good player. I'm just similarly happy to have Williams because he's also good player. We can argue about value of acquisition until we are blue in the face once we see what both cost but the game is played on the field first and both can help there over the next 4-5 years. Both are young, productive, and have track records of not missing games. It wasn't ideal to have to trade for LW but that shouldn't completely cloud the evaluation of what he is as a player.
I think you've tossed rational analysis out the window. You just put Ngakoue in the same 'good' category as Williams.
Being 34th on a list of top 50 being used to actually promote this view should be a sign that no rational thought was applied. He's not a bad player - and the Giants should get out of the business of trading picks to pay tens of millions of dollars to players simply for 'not being bad' (see Ogletree, Alec).
I would absolutely let him walk. But Dave won’t though. He knows his perception in the media. He has to realize he’s going to be looked upon as a bumbling incompetent fool if he lets LW walk. So not only will he sign him, he might even give him a fully guaranteed contract.
Quote:
That will probably be made worse. Leonard Williams is a slightly above average 3-4 DE/DT, and you can find those anywhere. He's not a difference-maker. He's not a player that opposing OC's have to plan for. He's not worth what the Giants gave up to get him. That was a mistake that should absolutely not be compounded by signing him to a big money deal.
I would absolutely let him walk. But Dave won’t though. He knows his perception in the media. He has to realize he’s going to be looked upon as a bumbling incompetent fool if he lets LW walk. So not only will he sign him, he might even give him a fully guaranteed contract.
and that would help his reputation how exactly? He would get a little respect maybe if he said the contract demands were too high and moved on. Signing him to save face is assi ine.
Quote:
In comment 14807155 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 14807097 Torrag said:
Quote:
We gave up almost a full yard less per rush attempt and nearly 60% of our sacks and QB pressure occurred after he was acquired. Both Tomlinson and Golden's results improved dramatically as a result of the attention he drew. The DL as a whole played better. That much was obvious just watching the games even without delving into the numbers. The only individual statistical category LW didn't produce above the curve was sacks for himself.
Giants had 36 sacks for the year. 20 came before LW arrived. 16 post LW.
Golden had 10 sacks for the year - 4.5 pre-LW, 5.5 with LW here. He had 18 tackles for losses. 10 of those were before LW arrived.
Tomlinson had 2 sacks before LW arrived. 1.5 after he arrived. He had 49 total tackles for the year. 27 of those before LW arrived. He had 23 solo tackles for the year. 11 pre LW, 12 post LW.
So I’m not sure the words “dramatically improved” come to mind...
Again, with LW we allowed 2 more ppg on D and we had the same record - 2/6 - with and without LW.
He just didn’t materially impact the D. Maybe some incremental changes in some areas. But nothing that got passed through to helping us win more games...
Of course you leave out the impact of a possible failed scheme, poor coaching, low morale. Just because something can't be put on a stat sheet doesn't mean it isn't important to the overall good of the team.
Yes, indeed. He could also be a good locker room culture guy we need.
You can't pay enough for those types.
Thankfully we gave Omameh and Stewart a combined 8M for the year to help the new coach Pat Shurmur pull the reins in as the adult in the room...
and that would help his reputation how exactly? He would get a little respect maybe if he said the contract demands were too high and moved on. Signing him to save face is assi ine.
Plausible deniability. If Williams walks there's no denying the trade was a waste, a team going nowhere losing two draft picks for 8 games (in the hopes that a comp pick could possibly offset one of them) would be an outright, undeniable waste of resources.
If they sign him, then they can at least try to play up his value.
I just don't see what in LW's career trajectory anyone sees that warrants him being paid $15M a season. So far, the best case argument is 'well, the Giants have a lot of money to burn and so does everyone else', but that still stops short of explaining why they'd give up a 3rd, a 4th, and $15M a season to keep this guy.
Quote:
when it comes to Leonard Williams. I mean I do understand, the histrionics about it are just surprising.
Among PFF's top 50 FA he's #34 and the 5th youngest. That's just 8 spots behind everyones favorite $100m pipedream Yannick Ngakoue. Whether it's with a huge contract or a similarly compensated trade + sign, if they got Ngakoue it would probably have like a 90% approval rating. Each has made 1 pro bowl in their careers, had down seasons in 2019 relative to prior seasons, and have some general scheme/fit questions. Edge rusher is more of a glamour position and sacks are a glamour stat but I don't think that should completely minimize the importance of a good interior DL.
And don't get me wrong - I'd love to get Ngakoue because he's a good player. I'm just similarly happy to have Williams because he's also good player. We can argue about value of acquisition until we are blue in the face once we see what both cost but the game is played on the field first and both can help there over the next 4-5 years. Both are young, productive, and have track records of not missing games. It wasn't ideal to have to trade for LW but that shouldn't completely cloud the evaluation of what he is as a player.
I think you've tossed rational analysis out the window. You just put Ngakoue in the same 'good' category as Williams.
Being 34th on a list of top 50 being used to actually promote this view should be a sign that no rational thought was applied. He's not a bad player - and the Giants should get out of the business of trading picks to pay tens of millions of dollars to players simply for 'not being bad' (see Ogletree, Alec).
The problem with Ogletree was that he was a bad player. The problem wasn't as much his salary or the fact that they gave up a 4th rd pick (which became John Franklin Myers, who got cut within a year) - it was that he sucked on the field.
If Leonard Williams sucks on the field I'll entirely agree with you but that hasn't happened yet. It's also why I would tag him and get a full year to decide whether he's worth signing long term, and if not I'd let him walk next year to recoup the pick as a comp pick.
Exactly what Leonard Williams was with the Jets and with the Giants. Not a huge liability. Not a producer. Just kind of there.
A $15M, just kind of there player. Who cost a 3rd and a 4th round pick. And then we wonder why the Giants are as bad as they are. It's not just coaching, it's because the front office has their heads collectively up their ass.
If Williams similarly goes over a cliff to the point where he is a liability on the field then acquiring him would have been a similarly terrible decision. If that's how you viewed his performance in the limited time we had him I disagree. If that's what you predict going forward that's a perfectly fair opinion, but it's just as fair for anyone to predict something else. As I've said, my opinion is there are a lot of variables that make it hard to accurately predict how good or bad Williams will be in the future here - which is why I want to tag him to get a year with the new staff before making a decision either way. Letting him walk next year keeps the cap clean and recoups some of the assets given up for him in the first place.
The odds they would have drafted the same player as LAR are close to 0.
We can second guess draft picks all day long but the Giants passed on the guys you mentioned and took RJ McIntosh just 4 picks after the pick they gave LAR, so he's probably the most likely guy they would have taken with the exact pick they gave up for Ogletree (the 3 players in between were Marquis Haynes, Dalton Schultz, and Cole Madison).
Confession time. I had to look up "Sisyphus".
Yes, I suppose I am.
Quote:
In comment 14807155 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 14807097 Torrag said:
Quote:
We gave up almost a full yard less per rush attempt and nearly 60% of our sacks and QB pressure occurred after he was acquired. Both Tomlinson and Golden's results improved dramatically as a result of the attention he drew. The DL as a whole played better. That much was obvious just watching the games even without delving into the numbers. The only individual statistical category LW didn't produce above the curve was sacks for himself.
Giants had 36 sacks for the year. 20 came before LW arrived. 16 post LW.
Golden had 10 sacks for the year - 4.5 pre-LW, 5.5 with LW here. He had 18 tackles for losses. 10 of those were before LW arrived.
Tomlinson had 2 sacks before LW arrived. 1.5 after he arrived. He had 49 total tackles for the year. 27 of those before LW arrived. He had 23 solo tackles for the year. 11 pre LW, 12 post LW.
So I’m not sure the words “dramatically improved” come to mind...
Again, with LW we allowed 2 more ppg on D and we had the same record - 2/6 - with and without LW.
He just didn’t materially impact the D. Maybe some incremental changes in some areas. But nothing that got passed through to helping us win more games...
Of course you leave out the impact of a possible failed scheme, poor coaching, low morale. Just because something can't be put on a stat sheet doesn't mean it isn't important to the overall good of the team.
I did. And I left off community service, charity work, good guy factor, the "LW wants to stay in NY" factor, etc.
If you want to take a crack how you can apply those intangibles to justify a $15-$17M salary, I'm all ears...
No you're not "all ears". You made up your mind a long time ago that the giants way is always wrong no matter what information comes your way.
Sadly ur probably right.
Quote:
doing your Sisyphus thing this morning?
Confession time. I had to look up "Sisyphus".
Yes, I suppose I am.
Pink Floyd - Sysyphus (All Parts)
Yes, they spelled it like that.
No you're not "all ears". You made up your mind a long time ago that the giants way is always wrong no matter what information comes your way.
The Giants have been mostly wrong for a long time. So I see know reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. That trust needs to be restored with many in the fan base. In my judgment...
I was arguing with Torrag trying to use numerical facts that dismiss some of this narrative that LW made such a big impact on this defense. And I stand by the numbers. They are telling.
Quote:
No you're not "all ears". You made up your mind a long time ago that the giants way is always wrong no matter what information comes your way.
The Giants have been mostly wrong for a long time. So I see know reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. That trust needs to be restored with many in the fan base. In my judgment...
I was arguing with Torrag trying to use numerical facts that dismiss some of this narrative that LW made such a big impact on this defense. And I stand by the numbers. They are telling.
Numbers like Dalvin Tomlinson's marginal drop off in some areas of production after Williams joined the team?
Did that account for snaps played by Tomlinson, which likely decreased?
One would think the unit's overall numbers on a per play basis, like YPC by opponents, is a more reliable metric.
I know Hill's took a big hit, hadn't really considered McIntosh as a factor, but still wondered if Dalvin's decreased.
Other individual metrics are skewed by LW taking plays away from other DL, and I truly prefer eyeballing to stat counts. Especially if one doesn't factor in situational stats.
I strongly believe the DL unit now is much stronger than it was even with Damon Harrison on it because they are better in short yardage. The eyeball test tells me LW, DL, and DT don't lose as much territory at the LOS, our DL is often playing the game on our opponents' side if the LOS, and that will increase with continued experience on DL's part and Hill's part and fewer snaps for individuals and more rotation.
Whatever, I'm in favor of a dominant DL and while we are not there yet, we are approaching that goal if we re-sign LW.
Everyone know we really need an elite or close to elite edge guy, but was it a mistake to pass on Allen for Jones? Can't make that call yet, can we?
Williams is a plus player. Moreso if a plus than Golden IMO.
They had 22 out their 35 sacks as a team after LW left.
Their rushing D improved.
So how are those signs of a "plus player"...as you call LW...
as you use them can be made to support specious arguments as you have. You completely ignore the rushing statistics because they negate your position. Allowing an entire yard less per rush is significant. It's not his fault the back 8 couldn't defend a pass or deny a 3rd down conversion to save their asses.
You also have errors in your statistical arguments. Golden's TFL numbers were 13 for the season, 4 before LW and 9 after the trade. That speaks to disruption at the LoS. Tomlinson had 29 TCKLs after LW and 20TCKLs before. Again an indication LW was helping the DL produce. You also have his sack numbers flipped not that it's significant but telling to your 'research'.
We can't know the answer to the following question but we can infer it...how would the DL have performed if they had all been asked to play another 100 snaps or with guys like McIntosh and Chris Slayton playing significant minutes in LW's stead? Answer? Not well.
So going back to what started this. You said he was 'superfluous'...here are some definitions:
useless · unproductive · pointless . One man can't make a bad defense good, but he can do his job well. He can do it better than the other options available on the roster. LW did. I don't think that's superfluous.
This is why I hate even debating this crap. The money side of It just obliterates any objective and rational talk on a player’s worth.
When is is a good DT who is under 26 NOT worth market value? It ain’t your money!
We also don’t know for sure that spending 15 or so on Williams means the giants can’t spend 15 on another (Better) player. I love how this is just commonly assumed by so many. Doesn’t always work that way. Hate to tell you this.
The TFL are indeed 18, not 13. But I had those backwards. I knew one of them showed a greater bump with LW in the line-up. I did a quick review, but it looks like 7.5 pre, 10.5 with LW.