What the 49ers are or aren't (and all of the yammering about them always somehow elides the fact that Garappolo missed most of 2018) is completely immaterial to the fact that the Giants are a flaming bag of dogshit. And Jerry Reese hasn't been employed by the team in two years. Here's a quarter, go buy a new excuse. That one has passed the sell-by date.
What the 49ers are or aren't (and all of the yammering about them always somehow elides the fact that Garappolo missed most of 2018) is completely immaterial to the fact that the Giants are a flaming bag of dogshit. And Jerry Reese hasn't been employed by the team in two years. Here's a quarter, go buy a new excuse. That one has passed the sell-by date.
Wait..so circumstances only apply to teams that aren't the Giants? Evaluating other teams success or failures is not just about W-L record, only for DG and the Giants?
and the reason we are in the situation we are in today is because of nearly 10 years of poor drafting.
Say what you want about Gettleman but he has been doing a good job with the draft.
70 starts from the rookie class, and while there were some bumps there was more good than bad. If the new coaching staff can do what Judge has talked about and teach/develop these guys its a nice foundation.
still applies, although I'm glad to hear that you build through the draft counts when we're not talking about handing over 3rd and 4th round picks to sign FAs or trading up to draft Baker.
Seems like he's applying some of that hopeful logic to guys like Love and Baker. You have to do the same with Jones as well, because if he can't fix his turnover problem the Giants don't have a solution at QB.
Gettlement missed a big opportunity to improve the OL in 2019 Draft Â
You know, then think he said he'd improve the day he was hired? Here are all the guys he could have taken either instead of Baker at #30 or at #37 and kept the 4th and 5th round picks.
Kaleb McGary OT #31
Jawan Taylor OT #35 (NFL, PFF All-Rookie)
Greg Little OT#37
Cody Ford OT#38
Dalton Risner OT#41 (NFL, PFF All-Rookie)
Elgton Jenkins C#44 (NFL PFF All-Rookie)
Erik McCoy C#48 (NFL, PFF All-Rookie)
It wasn't a mystery that we sucked at OT and C in 2018. Anyone one of they guys would have been a better pick than Baker, especially considering Gettlemen's plan to continue to draft CBs in 2019 (and Beal, who cost a high 3rd rounder in the 2019 draft).
RE: RE: I don't think his drafting is particularly impressive at all, no Â
What the 49ers are or aren't (and all of the yammering about them always somehow elides the fact that Garappolo missed most of 2018) is completely immaterial to the fact that the Giants are a flaming bag of dogshit. And Jerry Reese hasn't been employed by the team in two years. Here's a quarter, go buy a new excuse. That one has passed the sell-by date.
Wait..so circumstances only apply to teams that aren't the Giants? Evaluating other teams success or failures is not just about W-L record, only for DG and the Giants?
Just trying to figure out your stance on things.
You want him to make sense? Good luck
RE: Gettlement missed a big opportunity to improve the OL in 2019 Draft Â
You know, then think he said he'd improve the day he was hired? Here are all the guys he could have taken either instead of Baker at #30 or at #37 and kept the 4th and 5th round picks.
Kaleb McGary OT #31
Jawan Taylor OT #35 (NFL, PFF All-Rookie)
Greg Little OT#37
Cody Ford OT#38
Dalton Risner OT#41 (NFL, PFF All-Rookie)
Elgton Jenkins C#44 (NFL PFF All-Rookie)
Erik McCoy C#48 (NFL, PFF All-Rookie)
It wasn't a mystery that we sucked at OT and C in 2018. Anyone one of they guys would have been a better pick than Baker, especially considering Gettlemen's plan to continue to draft CBs in 2019 (and Beal, who cost a high 3rd rounder in the 2019 draft).
Maybe you don’t remember that our starting tackles were Ereck Flowers and Bobby Hart when he got here, Pugh, and Jerry Jones at guard.
Btw, McGary looked terrible for Atlanta and he’s being moved to Guard, Taylor was ok, little and Ford were not plus starters in their first year. Jenkins and McCoy are studs. But who would’ve played CB for us? Beal?? Ballentine?? Would I take McCoy or Jenkins over Baker? Yes. The rest of them, I personally wouldn’t but what do I know
Did the 49ers struggle for two years before putting together a Superbowl roster or not?
Did Jerry Reese have ten years of awful drafts or not?
Best I can give him is an incomplete. I don't care how anyone grades his drafts. Until it translates to wins it is a fairy tale. I am to the point that NOTHING but results on the field matter to me. Improve this year and I might start to think the drafts were good. Win.
“If I had the 2nd and 6th overall drafts slots in successive years, I’d do well also...”
I don't think that's the whole story when people attempt to infuse a bit of realism into the conversation. Gettleman is doing better than Reese. TBD whether he's doing better than league average.
Lauletta - wasted pick
McIntosh - wasted pick (to date)
Asafo-Adjei - TBD, hasn't played yet
Baker - showed some promise, but question marks remain (especially the whispers about work ethic and learning the playbook)
Hernandez, Carter, Hill - various levels of 2nd year drop-off, with Hill's being severe enough to trigger the trade for Williams
Even without getting into the positional value element of the Barkley pick or whether it makes any sense at all to take a RB at the beginning of a rebuild instead of closer to the upswing coming out of the rebuild, Gettleman's drafts have had some real misses mixed in with the success.
I'll give you this though, drafting is the best part of what Gettleman has done so far with the Giants, though that's faint praise.
and the reason we are in the situation we are in today is because of nearly 10 years of poor drafting.
Say what you want about Gettleman but he has been doing a good job with the draft.
Absolutely and replacing 50+ players including 11 starters is easy to do with uhh 3 or 4 players a year.. Some Giant fans are clueless. The man is building a beast -if you cant see it your blind. Just give it time.
How can you blame DG for the record his first season here? He just joined in the offseason. Things don't change that fast.
Because by his own fucking admission he screwed up his evaluation of the roster going into 2018. If he's openly taking the blame, why are so many fans in a rush to defend him for that season?
and the reason we are in the situation we are in today is because of nearly 10 years of poor drafting.
Say what you want about Gettleman but he has been doing a good job with the draft.
Absolutely and replacing 50+ players including 11 starters is easy to do with uhh 3 or 4 players a year.. Some Giant fans are clueless. The man is building a beast -if you cant see it your blind. Just give it time.
Why is DG's burner account still allowed to post here? Building a beast? Buy a fucking clue.
That was a great draft. Jones, Lawrence, Love, Connelly and Slayton Â
“If I had the 2nd and 6th overall drafts slots in successive years, I’d do well also...”
I don't think that's the whole story when people attempt to infuse a bit of realism into the conversation. Gettleman is doing better than Reese. TBD whether he's doing better than league average.
Lauletta - wasted pick
McIntosh - wasted pick (to date)
Asafo-Adjei - TBD, hasn't played yet
Baker - showed some promise, but question marks remain (especially the whispers about work ethic and learning the playbook)
Hernandez, Carter, Hill - various levels of 2nd year drop-off, with Hill's being severe enough to trigger the trade for Williams
Even without getting into the positional value element of the Barkley pick or whether it makes any sense at all to take a RB at the beginning of a rebuild instead of closer to the upswing coming out of the rebuild, Gettleman's drafts have had some real misses mixed in with the success.
I'll give you this though, drafting is the best part of what Gettleman has done so far with the Giants, though that's faint praise.
and the reason we are in the situation we are in today is because of nearly 10 years of poor drafting.
Say what you want about Gettleman but he has been doing a good job with the draft.
Absolutely and replacing 50+ players including 11 starters is easy to do with uhh 3 or 4 players a year.. Some Giant fans are clueless. The man is building a beast -if you cant see it your blind. Just give it time.
Forgive us. The last 3 years are 12-36 worst in the NFL. DG is 9-23. I don't see the beast and I am not blind. He was worse in year 2 over year 1.
I feel like they are serving us shit for dinner and some of you are waiting in line with bibs smiling like the Mad Hatter. There is no reason for them to change the menu if you love shit so much. I don't want shit. I want wins that matter.
DG had a good draft, so fucking what? we were 4-12 last year, yay good draft! Get the fuck out of here.
Absolutely and replacing 50+ players including 11 starters is easy to do with uhh 3 or 4 players a year.. Some Giant fans are clueless. The man is building a beast -if you cant see it your blind. Just give it time.
He's had some good picks within the draft, but it remains to be seen if he's on the path towards building a good team with it. You can say that about a lot of other bad teams too.
and later is nonsense. most 3rd rounders and later are not even starters.
Starters are found throughout the draft, but fine. That said, I think you're assigning the drop-off probably about a round too early. 3rd rounders should be looked at as potential starters. If you want to say that 4th and beyond are lottery tickets and developmental prospects that may predominantly serve as depth, I'll buy that. But not 3rd round - you're talking about top 100 prospects at that point, and where DG has been drafting in the 3rd round, it's more like top 70.
RE: I choose to be in the glass half full (OK, 25% full) camp but Â
I don't fault Greg and others for their views, which on the present state of facts are not unreasonable.
I don't fault them for their views. You are what your record says you are.
However, I do think some of their justifications for their views are a little near sighted and possibly unfair.
We are at rock bottom. We are trying to climb out of a gigantic hole that's been dug over nearly the course of a decade. I see more positive in the youth of this team than I have in a LONG time. It allows me to be optimistic.
I think one of the biggest things people get wrapped up in is separating the old from the new. We are only two years post Jerry Reese and four post Tom Coughlin. We have clearly not found the right coach.
However, one of the biggest things that needed to be addressed has been addressed. The transition from Eli Manning at QB.
Eli/Coughlin/Reese are the old era. We are barely removed from them yet. Those demanding immediate results are being unfair.
And yes, I know I predicted 10-6 this past year. I do it every year. I'm hopeful. It gives me reason to watch.
So let's get "10-6" and "Eli Manning Revenge Tour" out of the way.
The lengths you people will go to defend the indefensible
Greg from LI : 10:00 am : link : reply
Does throwing up 9-23 after every reference to Gettleman really add anything?
The lengths people will go to crap on anything remotely positive about the team is a much more pervasive issue.
What does a draft rating get anyone? In the scheme of things what does it matter if someone THINKS DG had a good draft.
9-23 is ONLY thing that matters. Advanced metrics, analytics, draft grades are all just worthless bullshit. A distraction. FMiC I desperately want to throw my support and enthusiasm behind DG. I CANNOT do it until the arrow is definitively pointing up. Sick of losing.
I am a BIG fan of Daniel Jones, I THINK it will turn out to be a great pick but I don't know for sure yet. 9-23 should be everyone's mantra until it turns around. I am tired of watching a terrible product on the field. 9-23 is not good enough for me.
Right now, we are 0-0. Regurgitating 9-23 as if it indicates we'll be 18-46 two years from now is ridiculous. It was pointed out above that the Niners were 10-22. Did they have reason to be optimistic this year? Of course.
9-23 is a fantastic response to valid criticisms. It isn't commentary of the drafts. It isn't commentary that needs to be said when somebody gives any praise. It's just a pithy comment and a throwaway line that really doens't mean jackshit today.
and later is nonsense. most 3rd rounders and later are not even starters.
Starters are found throughout the draft, but fine. That said, I think you're assigning the drop-off probably about a round too early. 3rd rounders should be looked at as potential starters. If you want to say that 4th and beyond are lottery tickets and developmental prospects that may predominantly serve as depth, I'll buy that. But not 3rd round - you're talking about top 100 prospects at that point, and where DG has been drafting in the 3rd round, it's more like top 70.
here is some analysis from 2015 about draft rounds and starters. More than 50% of the 3rd rounders are not "starters". I would like to see other data, not easy to find
and later is nonsense. most 3rd rounders and later are not even starters.
Starters are found throughout the draft, but fine. That said, I think you're assigning the drop-off probably about a round too early. 3rd rounders should be looked at as potential starters. If you want to say that 4th and beyond are lottery tickets and developmental prospects that may predominantly serve as depth, I'll buy that. But not 3rd round - you're talking about top 100 prospects at that point, and where DG has been drafting in the 3rd round, it's more like top 70.
here is some analysis from 2015 about draft rounds and starters. More than 50% of the 3rd rounders are not "starters". I would like to see other data, not easy to find
The problem with the way that data is presented is that it treats the entire third round as a single value. The third round begins with pick #65 and, depending on compensatory picks, can include 40 selections (or more). To look at the overall success rate for the round without applying any sort of specific expectations based on where in the round the pick falls seems faulty to me.
Gettleman has selected #2 (#66 overall) in 2018, and would have picked #4 (#68 overall) last year but used that pick on Sam Beal. This year, he would have been picking at #4 again (#68 overall) but that pick was traded for Leonard Williams.
Do you feel that all 3rd round picks have the same likelihood of success, or would you agree that players chosen closer to the top of the round should be looked at with an expectation that more closely resembles a 2nd round prospect, whereas those selected nearer to the end of the round should be assigned a success expectation that is more similar to a 4th round pick?
and later is nonsense. most 3rd rounders and later are not even starters.
Starters are found throughout the draft, but fine. That said, I think you're assigning the drop-off probably about a round too early. 3rd rounders should be looked at as potential starters. If you want to say that 4th and beyond are lottery tickets and developmental prospects that may predominantly serve as depth, I'll buy that. But not 3rd round - you're talking about top 100 prospects at that point, and where DG has been drafting in the 3rd round, it's more like top 70.
here is some analysis from 2015 about draft rounds and starters. More than 50% of the 3rd rounders are not "starters". I would like to see other data, not easy to find
The problem with the way that data is presented is that it treats the entire third round as a single value. The third round begins with pick #65 and, depending on compensatory picks, can include 40 selections (or more). To look at the overall success rate for the round without applying any sort of specific expectations based on where in the round the pick falls seems faulty to me.
Gettleman has selected #2 (#66 overall) in 2018, and would have picked #4 (#68 overall) last year but used that pick on Sam Beal. This year, he would have been picking at #4 again (#68 overall) but that pick was traded for Leonard Williams.
Do you feel that all 3rd round picks have the same likelihood of success, or would you agree that players chosen closer to the top of the round should be looked at with an expectation that more closely resembles a 2nd round prospect, whereas those selected nearer to the end of the round should be assigned a success expectation that is more similar to a 4th round pick?
Even if you look at 2nd round, only OL and LB have better than 50% chance of starting. I would love to see more data, I haven't been able to find it. But calling 4th rounders or later wasted picks is just not genuine. Very few teams hit on those picks.
Right now, we are 0-0. Regurgitating 9-23 as if it indicates we'll be 18-46 two years from now is ridiculous. It was pointed out above that the Niners were 10-22. Did they have reason to be optimistic this year? Of course.
9-23 is a fantastic response to valid criticisms. It isn't commentary of the drafts. It isn't commentary that needs to be said when somebody gives any praise. It's just a pithy comment and a throwaway line that really doens't mean jackshit today.
9-23 is DG's record.
It is the only meaningful way a GM is measured.
As a fan, i could not give a shit less how well someone grades a fucking draft. Have a nice pat on the back, good job boy.
I care if they win regular season games.
I care if they reach the postseason.
I care if they win postseason.
Everything else is fucking bullshit.
Until they actually start winning games they credit for nothing.
Because the Niners went 10-22 and reached the Super Bowl I should believe we are? What evidence do you have that supports the correlation? Nevermind.
There ya go, you set the bar.
Win in 2020 or GTFO.
RE: RE: I choose to be in the glass half full (OK, 25% full) camp but Â
I don't fault Greg and others for their views, which on the present state of facts are not unreasonable.
I don't fault them for their views. You are what your record says you are.
However, I do think some of their justifications for their views are a little near sighted and possibly unfair.
We are at rock bottom. We are trying to climb out of a gigantic hole that's been dug over nearly the course of a decade. I see more positive in the youth of this team than I have in a LONG time. It allows me to be optimistic.
I think one of the biggest things people get wrapped up in is separating the old from the new. We are only two years post Jerry Reese and four post Tom Coughlin. We have clearly not found the right coach.
...
I agree with you up until that point. And others do as well.
Where we diverge is on what the Giants haven't done - find the right GM, and find the right scouts.
In that department, only Gettleman and Koncz are new - everyone else is old guard. They weren't working then, and to date, it doesn't seem like they're working now.
So while we hope that Judge and his staff are the goods, there's always the chance that the underlying talent is still not good enough for anyone to get off the ground, and it would be accountable to the one constant that has remained in place since the start of the Eli era, the scouting department.
when Gettleman had a 15-1 season and a SB appearance in Carolina, all sorts of explanations are given on how that wasn't really his record. It was more of Hurney's.
When it is pointed out he's the most successful GM in Panthers history, by record, it is looked at as him walking into a stacked team. When 50% of the starters in 2019 were players drafted by him, he's still knocked as a shitty GM whose drafts are overrated.
If his record is what it is, then it should go both ways.
when Gettleman had a 15-1 season and a SB appearance in Carolina, all sorts of explanations are given on how that wasn't really his record. It was more of Hurney's.
When it is pointed out he's the most successful GM in Panthers history, by record, it is looked at as him walking into a stacked team. When 50% of the starters in 2019 were players drafted by him, he's still knocked as a shitty GM whose drafts are overrated.
If his record is what it is, then it should go both ways.
Iirc, weren’t many on here at that juncture, lamenting us keeping Reese and letting DG “slip away?”
Defending Gettleman is not an easy task especially if the critics Â
come at it with different rationals. Nevertheless, if you want to defend him because he put up a 15 win season in Charlotte then can he at least get to half that with the Giants in a season before its worth the debate?
And congrats to him for the rookie grades on his draft picks and hopefully they become super Sophs.
when Gettleman had a 15-1 season and a SB appearance in Carolina, all sorts of explanations are given on how that wasn't really his record. It was more of Hurney's.
When it is pointed out he's the most successful GM in Panthers history, by record, it is looked at as him walking into a stacked team. When 50% of the starters in 2019 were players drafted by him, he's still knocked as a shitty GM whose drafts are overrated.
If his record is what it is, then it should go both ways.
I give the man credit for 15-1.
You are getting shit for all kinds of directions and different people.
I am not calling DG any names...EVER.
I will even give a total pass for year 1.
4-12 was shit.
This is the year, he has money and 2 drafts behind him.
He is on his second coach.
I want to give him the whole year in 2020.
Everyone needs to be able to agree the arrow is pointing up. It needs to be obvious to all.
Then, he will get credit. I can't give him credit for anything right now. It is too much suck for me. Sundays have not been fun AT ALL!
when Gettleman had a 15-1 season and a SB appearance in Carolina, all sorts of explanations are given on how that wasn't really his record. It was more of Hurney's.
When it is pointed out he's the most successful GM in Panthers history, by record, it is looked at as him walking into a stacked team. When 50% of the starters in 2019 were players drafted by him, he's still knocked as a shitty GM whose drafts are overrated.
If his record is what it is, then it should go both ways.
I'm still not seeing how it's mutually exclusive.
When given a solid roster, DG showed a very good ability add to that foundation and manage a successful program, though it's absolutely worth noting that he left that job due to what he perceived as a lack of autonomy.
When given a roster that was much weaker and presumably required a lot more work, DG admitted to doing a poor job of assessing the roster when he took over, and has made several missteps in the gut job that he then undertook in reshaping the roster.
And, as with any other job in any other industry, it's entirely possible that the struggles at a subsequent job after previous success at a different job help illustrate the variances that can be prevalent - sometimes it's environmental, and sometimes it's that the individual wasn't as good as their prior success indicated, or vice versa, that their subsequent struggles might not be entirely their fault.
But overall, there's this - if we're supposed to give DG full credit for 15-1, then aren't you inherently saying that the results of his third season with a team is entirely a reflection of the job he's doing there? So no more excuses after this year?
continually that DG either affirms he's leading the team's rebuild this year or he's fired.
And while things can be mutually exclusive, the assumption is that a "good GM" or a non-terrible GM would be posting better results or would have built the team up already. I would vehemently disagree with that.
We went an entire stretch of drafts that yielded few starters. Compare that to Gettleman and the Panthers where even this past season, half of the team's starters were guys he drafted. Reese ended up having a couple of drafts that were barren of starting players 3 years later.
I still think many people here dismiss or underestimate the massive job it is to turn around 8 years of sub-par drafts.
Just wanna throw my 3 1/2 cents into this thread Â
And full disclosure: I am not a Gettleman naysayer on this site.
Isn't it just possible that Gettleman -- considering where the team was when he took over, plus his free agents, plus his Drafts -- deserves a middling grade with the caveat that his final grade cannot be rendered until at least the end of the 2020 season (if not beyond)?
continually that DG either affirms he's leading the team's rebuild this year or he's fired.
And while things can be mutually exclusive, the assumption is that a "good GM" or a non-terrible GM would be posting better results or would have built the team up already. I would vehemently disagree with that.
We went an entire stretch of drafts that yielded few starters. Compare that to Gettleman and the Panthers where even this past season, half of the team's starters were guys he drafted. Reese ended up having a couple of drafts that were barren of starting players 3 years later.
I still think many people here dismiss or underestimate the massive job it is to turn around 8 years of sub-par drafts.
We agree. I guess we are just arguing if he deserves any credit so far. I am unwilling to go there until after this season.
"Shepard is the lone giant on the roster from the 2011-2016 drfats... Â
continually that DG either affirms he's leading the team's rebuild this year or he's fired.
And while things can be mutually exclusive, the assumption is that a "good GM" or a non-terrible GM would be posting better results or would have built the team up already. I would vehemently disagree with that.
We went an entire stretch of drafts that yielded few starters. Compare that to Gettleman and the Panthers where even this past season, half of the team's starters were guys he drafted. Reese ended up having a couple of drafts that were barren of starting players 3 years later.
I still think many people here dismiss or underestimate the massive job it is to turn around 8 years of sub-par drafts.
Reese was canned for those drafts, and for good reason. While at the same time, Gettleman traded talent on the roster for picks and cap space, which he proceeded to do very little with.
Reese was a good GM for a stretch, then fell off and deserved his firing. Thus far, Gettleman's record in FA is poor, and his drafting really hasn't been much better despite the players being 'starters' on a bad team. At this point, all you can do with Gettleman is hope that his players turn out better than they've showed thus far.
think that Gettleman's drafts have definitely been much better than Reese's, especially if you add in his drafts in Carolina.
The early returns are good for all of the first round picks except Baker. And he really hasn't had outright flops. We even got production from a late-round LB.
Again - he's been gone from Carolina and this past season half of their starters were his draftees. I'm not sure we could say that for Reese's picks at any time during or after his tenure, but I haven't looked at that in detail.
If DG's drafts were that good, the team wouldn't be as bad as it has been.
They're promising. I really like Jones, Lawrence, and Slayton. I need to see Hernandez and Jones take the next step to think he's done a good job drafting.
think that Gettleman's drafts have definitely been much better than Reese's, especially if you add in his drafts in Carolina.
The early returns are good for all of the first round picks except Baker. And he really hasn't had outright flops. We even got production from a late-round LB.
Again - he's been gone from Carolina and this past season half of their starters were his draftees. I'm not sure we could say that for Reese's picks at any time during or after his tenure, but I haven't looked at that in detail.
I would have to think you're referring to a select choice of drafts - because the one guy built teams that won two championships. The other joined a team and contributed to a SB appearance (and loss).
Reese had sustained success despite a littany of injuries to players drafted, having to navigate around a championship (which normally results in a down period because of the cap implications of winning) and never really having a very high draft pick.
In two years, Gettleman has drafted 2nd and 6th overall. He moved a player for several other players in return. He willfully ripped apart a team that was a year removed from a playoff appearance, and rebuilt it with practically the same holes in place (his pleas to win the game at the LOS went nowhere, with no pass rushers and an offensive line that was every bit as bad as his predecessor).
His record in free agency has been abysmal. His one FA pick would be a guy that everyone who likes to bash Bettcher would have to credit him for (Golden). One player was so bad he ended up making $180k per yard rushed, another so bad he didn't make it out of the season (Omameh).
I don't think he was terrible in Carolina, but his record there doesn't inspire much confidence. If the best you can do is compare to the last few years of Reese's tenure, where he was performing at a level that justified firing him, I'm not sure you're doing him any favors.
RE: RE: Gettlement missed a big opportunity to improve the OL in 2019 Draft Â
You know, then think he said he'd improve the day he was hired? Here are all the guys he could have taken either instead of Baker at #30 or at #37 and kept the 4th and 5th round picks.
Kaleb McGary OT #31
Jawan Taylor OT #35 (NFL, PFF All-Rookie)
Greg Little OT#37
Cody Ford OT#38
Dalton Risner OT#41 (NFL, PFF All-Rookie)
Elgton Jenkins C#44 (NFL PFF All-Rookie)
Erik McCoy C#48 (NFL, PFF All-Rookie)
It wasn't a mystery that we sucked at OT and C in 2018. Anyone one of they guys would have been a better pick than Baker, especially considering Gettlemen's plan to continue to draft CBs in 2019 (and Beal, who cost a high 3rd rounder in the 2019 draft).
Maybe you don’t remember that our starting tackles were Ereck Flowers and Bobby Hart when he got here, Pugh, and Jerry Jones at guard.
Btw, McGary looked terrible for Atlanta and he’s being moved to Guard, Taylor was ok, little and Ford were not plus starters in their first year. Jenkins and McCoy are studs. But who would’ve played CB for us? Beal?? Ballentine?? Would I take McCoy or Jenkins over Baker? Yes. The rest of them, I personally wouldn’t but what do I know
Yeah, no shit or OL was garbage when Gettleman got here. That's why he should have used more than 2 picks (one a 7th rounder) on OL in the past two years. Instead of half our 2019 draft on CBs.
Some of you are so quick to defend Gettleman that you don't even know what you are arguing.
I've never seen good numbers, and you can certainly find anecdotal examples, but I'd be curious on real data around draft + career expectancy.
What's the overall percentage of drafted players still in the league 5-9 years later? I'd bet really low. What's the average number of starters per team-draft who are in the league 5 years? I'd bet really low.
Gettleman dumped a lot of players Reese acquired who are still in the NFL. Many were knuckleheads, and that's fair.
It was Gettleman's right to purge the roster. Another option was keep more players and hire better coaching to get better output.
are taking outcomes that have a lot of input factors ( some under GM control, some a lot, some barely and some nowhere near a GMS control) and ascribing them to the GM.
Also, many of these judgements are too early to slot from 0 ( failure) to 100 (home run)
Both kinds of fallacies are being used to give credit to DG and to condemn DG.
I've never seen good numbers, and you can certainly find anecdotal examples, but I'd be curious on real data around draft + career expectancy.
What's the overall percentage of drafted players still in the league 5-9 years later? I'd bet really low. What's the average number of starters per team-draft who are in the league 5 years? I'd bet really low.
Gettleman dumped a lot of players Reese acquired who are still in the NFL. Many were knuckleheads, and that's fair.
It was Gettleman's right to purge the roster. Another option was keep more players and hire better coaching to get better output.
I stumbled across this guy looking for data. This is data from 2015 about how many 5 year starters teams could expect from that draft. Answer - not many
I've never seen good numbers, and you can certainly find anecdotal examples, but I'd be curious on real data around draft + career expectancy.
What's the overall percentage of drafted players still in the league 5-9 years later? I'd bet really low. What's the average number of starters per team-draft who are in the league 5 years? I'd bet really low.
Gettleman dumped a lot of players Reese acquired who are still in the NFL. Many were knuckleheads, and that's fair.
It was Gettleman's right to purge the roster. Another option was keep more players and hire better coaching to get better output.
I stumbled across this guy looking for data. This is data from 2015 about how many 5 year starters teams could expect from that draft. Answer - not many
are taking outcomes that have a lot of input factors ( some under GM control, some a lot, some barely and some nowhere near a GMS control) and ascribing them to the GM.
Also, many of these judgements are too early to slot from 0 ( failure) to 100 (home run)
Both kinds of fallacies are being used to give credit to DG and to condemn DG.
Feelings pulling in scraps.
Uh huh. Anything actually to subscribe to yet or not?
How can you blame DG for the record his first season here? He just joined in the offseason. Things don't change that fast.
You've got a point there - the second season was such a drastic improvement.
Hey look you want to take the stance that one should never ever ever give a regime or GM more than two years of tenure before sacking them? Before condemning them as total abject failures? Ok. But you’re going to hear about the dozens and dozens of instances where teams were rewarded after sticking with a losing regime. I mean the very GM who just got inducted into canton, George young, regressed in year 2. Yet we’re crazy for even whispering a cautious defense about DG??? All of you, gimme a break. Don’t act like its never fucking happened.
He’s gone if you’re making the decisions back then. Gone. Poof! See ya! Who’s next on the docket ?
Ill also use this as my weekly excuse to remind everyone that accorsi was coming off a 6-22 two year run heading into the 2005 season.
Honestly I’m surprised at how much attention and scrutiny the GM even gets around here lately. Every move every dollar spent leads to a referendum around here on the GM. Now we’re combing through the wins losses record and dying the fire the GM ? GMs aren’t coaches. They are held to different standards and timelines. It’s apples and oranges. You can bring in talent and improve things and not see those improvements manifest into wins right away.
On the flip side, let’s say the giants got just a little bit lucky and stole one more game in 2018 and 1-2 more games this season. Does that make DG that much better a GM? If the giants record is 3 games better would you all be happy then? You’d sleep that much better at night concerning DG? I wouldn’t. He’d be the same GM. Knows young players knows how to build a team. Not perfect maybe a little too stubborn but he can draft. That much is clear.
He’s gone if you’re making the decisions back then. Gone. Poof! See ya! Who’s next on the docket ?
Ill also use this as my weekly excuse to remind everyone that accorsi was coming off a 6-22 two year run heading into the 2005 season.
Honestly I’m surprised at how much attention and scrutiny the GM even gets around here lately. Every move every dollar spent leads to a referendum around here on the GM. Now we’re combing through the wins losses record and dying the fire the GM ? GMs aren’t coaches. They are held to different standards and timelines. It’s apples and oranges. You can bring in talent and improve things and not see those improvements manifest into wins right away.
GY is irrelevant - that was pre-cap era.
Accorsi was a meh GM on balance, that was made to look better by Eli and Coughlin.
I'm sorry that you're not willing to accept that the finances are a very real part of success in the current NFL.
in a thread discussing a good draft is fucking useless. It’s as if teams with good records don’t have good drafts. So I really don’t know what the point is.
We needed to start somewhere and hopefully the last 2 drafts are just that.
in a thread discussing a good draft is fucking useless. It’s as if teams with good records don’t have good drafts. So I really don’t know what the point is.
We needed to start somewhere and hopefully the last 2 drafts are just that.
It's the response to the equally as useless point that DG drafted X starters. Draft picks starting on a good team would be a testament to your scouting ability. Being a starter who isn't any good on a shit team shouldn't count for anything.
'starter' may be a nebulous term on a crappy team but Â
it's truly breathtaking how many resident team building experts refuse to give Gettleman any credit for 2 solid drafts. They haven't been perfect but they have been a major major upgrade over the draft results from 2012-2017. And most importantly the at the time very unpopular QB choice so far looks promising.
in a thread discussing a good draft is fucking useless. It’s as if teams with good records don’t have good drafts. So I really don’t know what the point is.
We needed to start somewhere and hopefully the last 2 drafts are just that.
It's the response to the equally as useless point that DG drafted X starters. Draft picks starting on a good team would be a testament to your scouting ability. Being a starter who isn't any good on a shit team shouldn't count for anything.
Ehh, Jones, Barkley, Lawrence can start on any team in the league (obviously not teams that don’t need a QB). Then you have the next tier of guys like Slayton and Hernandez that probably start for a lot of teams. Then you have the next few who, with better coaching probably have solid starter upside as well. There’s infinitely more talent that was drafted the last 2 years than in the 5 or so prior, IMO.
Point is any thread that looks at any shred of positivity is struck down by people who have nothing better to do but flex their internet muscles. I can’t believe how much time is spent looking at the glass half empty all the time but here we are.
We know what are record is. We know we stunk. None of us can do anything about it so why act like what you say matters at all? If you don’t want to talk about promising rookies then maybe move on with your day?
39 players got drafted in the 6 drafts between '12-'17. Just 2 got second contracts here (OBJ, Shep). Just 2 made pro bowls (OBJ, LC). Only 5 others got multi-year contracts elsewhere (Hart, Collins, Richburg, Pugh, Kennard). About half of the 39 players drafted never started here - and those were also some very bad teams where the 'starter' designation wouldn't have carried much meaning.
I counted 15 players who won starting jobs here beyond an injury fill in - and that number includes guys who were poor starters like Bobby Hart, Ereck Flowers, Reuben Randle, and Darian Thompson. The most starters from any single draft were 3 in 2014 with OBJ, Richburg, and Kennard.
The last 2 drafts are certainly still early to evaluate, but the numbers are pretty simple - 17 players have been drafted and 13 have gotten starts, 1 made a pro bowl (Saquon). Lauletta the only one no longer in the org.
2018 draft had 2 guys who have started every game they've been healthy for, and 2 guys who have started more than 10 games each who still have a shot (Carter/Hill). At a minimum that draft class has already performed as well as the best draft class in the 6 years prior.
The 2019 draft class is pacing even better so far with 5 guys having won starting roles in their rookie year - Jones, Slayton, Lawrence, Connelly, Baker and a few others who got an opportunity later in the year and looked good like Love.
in a thread discussing a good draft is fucking useless. It’s as if teams with good records don’t have good drafts. So I really don’t know what the point is.
We needed to start somewhere and hopefully the last 2 drafts are just that.
It's the response to the equally as useless point that DG drafted X starters. Draft picks starting on a good team would be a testament to your scouting ability. Being a starter who isn't any good on a shit team shouldn't count for anything.
To put it in context, you were the one discussing how Gettleman really hasn't drafted well. Not sure where the evidence is to back that up. In Carolina, he's been departed and 11 starters are among his draftees. Here, his initial record is still much better than Reese's.
The response is more to show that not everything Gettleman touches is shit. And I know many are banging the Carolina is shit drum - well, they were 5-3 last season before injuries derailed their season.
Going back to 2011 as a measuring stick of the current roster gets a little fuzzy when you consider the statistical likelihood any player will still be in the league.
I'd argue 5 drafts back is a fair measure, and Reese's last 3 drafts were not good. Missing on 2 straight 1st round picks at critical positions of need haunts this team.
That said, if this is about tallying up the number of draft picks over a period, there are many Reese players going back to 2011 still in the league that Gettleman moved away from, and just in terms of football, many of them are better than their replacements.
is a stretch as well but the overall point is if Reese drafted better at all it wouldn’t have sunk the roster for as long as it did. It also appears that the past 2 drafts have been better than any of Reese’s during his awful stretch - I think that’s fair to say as well.
This thread had a pretty simple subject that got derailed for some strange reason. Would be nice to talk about how the news guys will/could be a focal point moving forward.
is a stretch as well but the overall point is if Reese drafted better at all it wouldn’t have sunk the roster for as long as it did. It also appears that the past 2 drafts have been better than any of Reese’s during his awful stretch - I think that’s fair to say as well.
This thread had a pretty simple subject that got derailed for some strange reason. Would be nice to talk about how the news guys will/could be a focal point moving forward.
It's not a stretch if the mistakes of the past are being repeated in the present.
I am not advocating that won and loss is the right way either. Â
In fact, I don’t feel there is any perfect barometer to point to.
The debate as to whether Gettleman is doing a good job or not and whether he deserved a third year has far too many twists and turns. Mostly because the disarray this franchise was really in when he arrived.
His biggest miss is really how the hell he didn’t see it.
I think DG is not good enough for a team in this position. I also think the old paradigm of an all knowing GM is not a fit for how decisions have to get made when over 50 talent decisions get made in a year in a sport with a 25% injury rate and an average career of 4 years.
Im in favor of an admin GM with a role on a more balanced input from coaches/scouting. I didn't think McAdoo's staff or Shurmur's were good inouts to talent acquisition or development or motivation.
Absent other strong inputs all GMs are vulnerable to decisions that don't work out. imo
I am yet to see who is better. And Id rather go the route the Giants did which is to get new talent in close to the ground ( coaches) and promote those to greater voices while moving to a coaching staff heavy evaluation process and an admin support role (on balance) for any GM
But to me, meanwhile, universal condemnation applied to all DG choices and situations before and after they are made and proven out gets in the way of good thinking and good discussion.
and the 2 drafts turn out to be no worse than solid, what mistakes are you talking about?
As I've spelled out in several other threads, not factoring in positional value when making picks. CB's and RB's over OT's, for example. 2011, 2012, 2016, and again in 2018 and 2019.
I can only assume some combination of illness and need to see if new coaching was a factor on a team that stopped playing for its prior coach...or the preferred initial path of the owners ( All Gms take blame for owner mistakes...its the job) led to that assessment
Because to me, and I think almost everyone on here - a total cleanout and turnaround was needed.
A big investment on the OL I don't get upset about because that's needed almost before a new QB. But that's about it
and the 2 drafts turn out to be no worse than solid, what mistakes are you talking about?
As I've spelled out in several other threads, not factoring in positional value when making picks. CB's and RB's over OT's, for example. 2011, 2012, 2016, and again in 2018 and 2019.
Well that’s just your opinion that positional value wasn’t taken into account. It’s really quite possible, and likely, that he’s aware of positional value and felt that the player/s were too good and trumped it. You may not agree with it, which is also fine.
Outside of a trade down OT wasn’t in the cards at 6 in 2019 and we got the QB there anyway. We will see how Dillard and Howard net out in the back half of the 1st round but Lawrence is already very good, one of the top rookies. Baker? Just his out, we have to wait and see.
2018? Not going to rehash it. We took Barkley and there was no OT worth taking at 2. So then we go to the trade down argument again which to me is pointless.
In 2011 and 2012 we took Prince at 19 who while not great had a very solid career. Wilson was the last pick in the round and then got injured. Point being if we nail our 2018 and 2019 top picks, that can turn into 3 very good players (plus whatever Baker turns into) it’s already a light years better return on investment.
is not anything unusual nor really unfair at this point. He’s a big boy and has been around the block awhile so there shouldn’t be a learning curve issue here. He also displays a whole of arrogance in his speech, and for a team that is in the dregs that is either really brave or really stupid.
He has made both good, bad and indifferent choices for certain while our GM. However, his bad ones have been whoppers in my view, starting with his miscalc of the team from the start. I don’t have to go into the others but will if needed.
I tend to look at roster building as "talent production." Input side consisting of rookie and veteran acquisition -- output consisting of coaching and performance.
Both sides, interconnected and interdependent.
With 3 straight coaches fired, hard to ignore output has been a major contributor to the losing and the under-performance of the draft classes.
On 5 and 4 win teams, it's going to take a lot more than lots of snaps and starts to getting excited about the drafting. It's going to take some winning and development.
Also remember there was early optimism for drafts 2014-2017 in the following 1-2 years that soured quickly.
3 years is the floor to evaluate coaches, general management, and draft classes.
I remember being stoked about Richburg and Pugh for awhile. I thought they were going to be great.
Maybe I'm a little gun shy now, but I remember being higher on Pugh/Richburg at this stage of their careers than I am on Hernandez. If Hernandez is a hit, I do think that draft comes out really good.
and the 2 drafts turn out to be no worse than solid, what mistakes are you talking about?
As I've spelled out in several other threads, not factoring in positional value when making picks. CB's and RB's over OT's, for example. 2011, 2012, 2016, and again in 2018 and 2019.
Well that’s just your opinion that positional value wasn’t taken into account. It’s really quite possible, and likely, that he’s aware of positional value and felt that the player/s were too good and trumped it. You may not agree with it, which is also fine.
Outside of a trade down OT wasn’t in the cards at 6 in 2019 and we got the QB there anyway. We will see how Dillard and Howard net out in the back half of the 1st round but Lawrence is already very good, one of the top rookies. Baker? Just his out, we have to wait and see.
QB's have the highest positional value. As I've said before, if you feel he's the guy, you don't wait...you take him when you can. I like Lawrence, but I probably would have drafted Dillard there. Baker instead of Jawaan Taylor was a huge mistake, in my view, especially in light of what it cost to trade up for him.
Quote:
2018? Not going to rehash it. We took Barkley and there was no OT worth taking at 2. So then we go to the trade down argument again which to me is pointless.
Although I was firmly in the Bradley Chubb camp, I would have been fine with Nelson (an OG, admittedly), or Mike McGlinchey, who went at #8. Just the fact that we didn't trade down, and then took a RB at #2 was enough of a head-scratcher to me.
You left out 2016 when, if the Giants were scared off by Tunsil's video, they still had the chance to draft Taylor Decker. But, no...they went with the CB, again.
Quote:
In 2011 and 2012 we took Prince at 19 who while not great had a very solid career. Wilson was the last pick in the round and then got injured. Point being if we nail our 2018 and 2019 top picks, that can turn into 3 very good players (plus whatever Baker turns into) it’s already a light years better return on investment.
Anthony Castonzo has had a very solid career, too, and he's also played 20 games more than Amukamara over the same time span. Maybe if we'd drafted him, we don't reach for P-Rex two years later. Wilson is a memory. Meanwhile Cordy Glenn has been a rock for the Bills.
Point being, let's stop trying to build a team from the outside in, with skill players instead of trench players, and solve the problems that Gettleman identified when he was hired, but doesn't seem to prioritize in the draft.
I tend to look at roster building as "talent production." Input side consisting of rookie and veteran acquisition -- output consisting of coaching and performance.
Both sides, interconnected and interdependent.
With 3 straight coaches fired, hard to ignore output has been a major contributor to the losing and the under-performance of the draft classes.
On 5 and 4 win teams, it's going to take a lot more than lots of snaps and starts to getting excited about the drafting. It's going to take some winning and development.
Good post and very fair.
The Giants have absolutely been out-coached for years and I am not talking about how they managed timeouts or whether to go for it on 4th down. Simply put, the guys in blue were not as ready to play when the season started as their counterparts.
we took players that not only didn’t pan out but passed on others within reach. The last 2 years we took BPA and a QB, along with a top DT - no OTs worthy taking (not yet atleast) until the Baker pick.
I actually do believe DG wants to upgrade at Tackle. Solder not playing well and the value not really being there at several points in the draft have gotten us where they are.
So now comes pick 4. Will it be an OT (is one worth taking at 4?) or it will be a CB or Edge? Don’t know but I’m not taking OT just because we need one still. Looking forward to the combine.
but its easier to find players when you have a huge shortage of talent. And even with that relative strong draft the Giants still sucked.
The needs remain huge if management can repeat 2019 a couple times, then we may have something, but has the talent a competition improves, it becomes alot harder.
Also remember there was early optimism for drafts 2014-2017 in the following 1-2 years that soured quickly.
3 years is the floor to evaluate coaches, general management, and draft classes.
Agreed, and been saying that for a while. Three years has been the rule of thumb for just about everything in football for as long as I can remember. Three years to assess draft classes, three years to see what you've really got in a QB, three years to truly implement a coach's full system/philosophy, etc....
Three years. Yet, the pitchforks have been out for Gettleman since his first draft before the team he took over even took the field for the first time.
I see a lot of people say that he mishandled the rebuild and didn't properly assess the team. I think this is subjective. With a savvy draft and veteran acquisition in free agency, and some lucky bounces here and there, teams do in fact go from worst to first every year. Even crappy ones. That's parity. When Gettleman got here, he had a 36 year old franchise QB that he took a chance on putting one more team around to see what would happen. I just can't blame him for that. You don't walk away from franchise QB's. If they truly are the most important position on the field, then when you've got one you ride him. Manning was 36 with two years left on his deal and had shown the ability to make all of the throws. It didn't work out. That's the story. He took a shot, and it didn't work out.
What I commend Gettleman for, was not waiting until the season was over to clean house. He tinkered with the roster to see what he had, it didn't work out, and then the gutting process began. Saying those 8 games or so of trying to win around Eli set the franchise back immensely is a big time overreaction. We probably wouldn't be in much different of a position right now roster wise had we cut Eli as soon as Gettleman got here. There is a chance it could be better, but there is also a chance it could be worse. There is also a chance it would be the exact same. We just don't know.
In a redraft of 2018 and 2019, you take Quinton Nelson and... Josh Allen? Build from the trenches approach. So now you don't have Barkley or Jones. Is this team/roster any better the past two years because of those two players? Hard to say.
Gettleman's biggest draft accomplishment seems to be the lower rate of knuckleheads drafted, that's a prerequisite Reese didn't share when. He got desperate.
Now it's up to the coaches to get the best out of the young group.
There are plenty good and bad leading indicators, and with those pitchforks plenty of blanket defenses.
Three years, with the resources expended, and 2 regimes. After next year it's a fair time to judge Gettleman.
Criticism is absolutely deserved. My real point in even jumping in on here was that posting our record just to be a dick and then leaving the thread adds nothing of value.
Certain people often post “wake me up when we are winning”. That’s fine, then just go to sleep until then so the rest of us can talk about some of the promising young players we have.
If teams go from worst to first and the Giants haven't, wouldn't that mean DG has done a bad job?
DG misjudging the 2018 roster was a huge flaw to me. I would have fired him this off-season, but you have to give him two years with Judge IMO, even if that means he takes a backseat and the HC gets more power.
If teams go from worst to first and the Giants haven't, wouldn't that mean DG has done a bad job?
DG misjudging the 2018 roster was a huge flaw to me. I would have fired him this off-season, but you have to give him two years with Judge IMO, even if that means he takes a backseat and the HC gets more power.
Huh? It's possible to do. Not everybody does it, or can do it. But it happens. Gettleman tried to do it, but couldn't. The roster was just too bad, so he cut bait. I don't view trying as a fireable offense.
In addition to the dearth of talent Gettleman inherited.... Â
that lockerroom had developed a severe case of rot. I know some of you don't give credence to that, but the inmates were running the asylum at that point. When OBJ is your team's culture leader, that's a problem. Snacks and Collins were also clearly a problem, and look no further than the way Collins behaved when he left.
Please don't compare drafting Saquon Barkley with drafting Daniel Jones. A team that can't rush the passer or protect their relatively immobile QB has no business drafting a RB with the second pick of the draft, especially when they pass up players who could help on either side of the trench. They just don't. Not crazy about any of the available QB's? Okay, fine. I wasn't, either. So try and trade the pick, or, failing that, take the DE or OG, not the RB, "hand of God notwithstanding." In today's NFL that makes absolutely no sense.
When it comes to QB's, however, I don't have any issue with the Giants picking Daniel Jones at #6. QB's are a whole different story, and if you believe a guy has what it takes to be a franchise QB, you don't wait, you don't try to get cute, you draft him ASAP.
I hate losing as much as the next guy and am tired of it. Â
But I can also see and acknowledge, finally, just how bad it all was two years ago.
That was a very unlikable team. Maybe the most unlikable team I can ever remember the Giants fielding. Once Coughlin was gone, the lockerroom disentigrated.
If teams go from worst to first and the Giants haven't, wouldn't that mean DG has done a bad job?
DG misjudging the 2018 roster was a huge flaw to me. I would have fired him this off-season, but you have to give him two years with Judge IMO, even if that means he takes a backseat and the HC gets more power.
Huh? It's possible to do. Not everybody does it, or can do it. But it happens. Gettleman tried to do it, but couldn't. The roster was just too bad, so he cut bait. I don't view trying as a fireable offense.
Not realizing the roster was so bad and then trying to compete sends up massive red flags. Subsequent moves have reinforced those red flags to me.
I would have fired him this past off-season. But he's still around, so I'm hoping he gets it turned around.
He badly misjudged Eli and the team from the get-go. Â
Please don't compare drafting Saquon Barkley with drafting Daniel Jones. A team that can't rush the passer or protect their relatively immobile QB has no business drafting a RB with the second pick of the draft, especially when they pass up players who could help on either side of the trench. They just don't. Not crazy about any of the available QB's? Okay, fine. I wasn't, either. So try and trade the pick, or, failing that, take the DE or OG, not the RB, "hand of God notwithstanding." In today's NFL that makes absolutely no sense.
When it comes to QB's, however, I don't have any issue with the Giants picking Daniel Jones at #6. QB's are a whole different story, and if you believe a guy has what it takes to be a franchise QB, you don't wait, you don't try to get cute, you draft him ASAP.
Disagree on the first part. Agree on the second.
Barkley graded out as high as Peyton Manning according to Gettleman. He didn't like the QB's. That's been acknowledged. You have to have a partner to trade down, so let's not even argue that point because we just don't know. Barkley was viewed as the best player in the entire draft.
I'm sorry, I just can't rip the guy for taking the consensus best player in the draft. He won rookie of the year. He had 2000 yards from scrimmage and 15 TD's. I'm not going to get caught up in position value. Would this team be any different today with Chubb or Nelson than Barkley? How many more wins would that have produced?
RE: If the roster doesn't show improvement by the end of next season Â
we took players that not only didn’t pan out but passed on others within reach. The last 2 years we took BPA and a QB, along with a top DT - no OTs worthy taking (not yet atleast) until the Baker pick.
I actually do believe DG wants to upgrade at Tackle. Solder not playing well and the value not really being there at several points in the draft have gotten us where they are.
So now comes pick 4. Will it be an OT (is one worth taking at 4?) or it will be a CB or Edge? Don’t know but I’m not taking OT just because we need one still. Looking forward to the combine.
Well, we should take at least one OT because we absolutely do need them. Whether it should be done at #4 is the question.
DG needs options and trading back is the way to obtain them.
Please don't compare drafting Saquon Barkley with drafting Daniel Jones. A team that can't rush the passer or protect their relatively immobile QB has no business drafting a RB with the second pick of the draft, especially when they pass up players who could help on either side of the trench. They just don't. Not crazy about any of the available QB's? Okay, fine. I wasn't, either. So try and trade the pick, or, failing that, take the DE or OG, not the RB, "hand of God notwithstanding." In today's NFL that makes absolutely no sense.
When it comes to QB's, however, I don't have any issue with the Giants picking Daniel Jones at #6. QB's are a whole different story, and if you believe a guy has what it takes to be a franchise QB, you don't wait, you don't try to get cute, you draft him ASAP.
Disagree on the first part. Agree on the second.
Barkley graded out as high as Peyton Manning according to Gettleman. He didn't like the QB's. That's been acknowledged. You have to have a partner to trade down, so let's not even argue that point because we just don't know. Barkley was viewed as the best player in the entire draft.
I'm sorry, I just can't rip the guy for taking the consensus best player in the draft. He won rookie of the year. He had 2000 yards from scrimmage and 15 TD's. I'm not going to get caught up in position value. Would this team be any different today with Chubb or Nelson than Barkley? How many more wins would that have produced?
I don't know if they would have produced more wins in 2018, but I do believe they would have given us a stronger foundation moving forward.
But ignoring positional value is like ignoring MPG when discussing which car to buy.
3 years used to be the standard barometer for a rebuild/turnaround Â
and I think it very much applies to Gettleman here. His drafts have been promising (the original subject of this thread) but his veteran moves have been very mixed. Mara acknowledged as much. And obviously the coaching hire was a disaster.
This is the make or break year for DG but either way it goes the organization has more young talent on first contracts than it did when he got here by a long shot. So at least there's that.
To me, a team's likability is STRONGLY correlated with winning Â
Please don't compare drafting Saquon Barkley with drafting Daniel Jones. A team that can't rush the passer or protect their relatively immobile QB has no business drafting a RB with the second pick of the draft, especially when they pass up players who could help on either side of the trench. They just don't. Not crazy about any of the available QB's? Okay, fine. I wasn't, either. So try and trade the pick, or, failing that, take the DE or OG, not the RB, "hand of God notwithstanding." In today's NFL that makes absolutely no sense.
When it comes to QB's, however, I don't have any issue with the Giants picking Daniel Jones at #6. QB's are a whole different story, and if you believe a guy has what it takes to be a franchise QB, you don't wait, you don't try to get cute, you draft him ASAP.
Disagree on the first part. Agree on the second.
Barkley graded out as high as Peyton Manning according to Gettleman. He didn't like the QB's. That's been acknowledged. You have to have a partner to trade down, so let's not even argue that point because we just don't know. Barkley was viewed as the best player in the entire draft.
I'm sorry, I just can't rip the guy for taking the consensus best player in the draft. He won rookie of the year. He had 2000 yards from scrimmage and 15 TD's. I'm not going to get caught up in position value. Would this team be any different today with Chubb or Nelson than Barkley? How many more wins would that have produced?
I don't know if they would have produced more wins in 2018, but I do believe they would have given us a stronger foundation moving forward.
But ignoring positional value is like ignoring MPG when discussing which car to buy.
Some players transcend positional value. If you have a shot at an great player, or a player you believe to be head and shoulders above the rest, you should take it.
can't say the because Barkley was picked, positional value was ignored. The draft, especially at the top has to produce picks that are good to great players.
The positional comments are made oftentimes because those posters wanted to rebuild the lines - and that's a fair wish. However, what if you overdraft a lineman and he flops? See Flowers. See picks made by other teams where OL or DE's went high and were busts or poor players.
I still can't believe the amount of backlash for picking Barkley - especially since he's a good player. Would people have felt better if we picked Chubb and he was injured for the entire year? Would people have been happy if we picked a T and he was like Flowers? Especially if Barkley is ripping it up elsewhere?
I think we know the answers there.
What if you draft any player and he flops or gets injured? Â
What if you ignore your most important unit in the draft and instead spend an exorbitant amount of money on one free agent who underperforms (and that's being kind), another one who comes cheap but has a bad back...and also underperforms, and also try and make a chicken-salad Center our of a chicken-shit Guard? How's that working out?
I think we know the answer to that, too.
Because Barkley was picked, positional value was indeed Â
DG could think RBs are less valuable than DE's/OL, but that Barkley was so good he outweighed those considerations.
I also think too much is made of the Barkley pick (although I wish we went in a different direction as well) - if Hernandez was a stud and Solder wasn't a flop, I think we'd be having a different discussion.
RE: Because Barkley was picked, positional value was indeed Â
either ignored or over-ruled. How can you say otherwise?
And what happens to the players after they are drafted is not relevant as to this topic.
This has been addressed numerous times in the thread. One can weigh that a RB at #2 is a risky pick, but still trust the evaluation that the player is close to being a sure thing.
By the standard of positional value often taken here, under no circumstance would a RB picked high in the draft be acceptable. Dealing in absolutes is as bad as the perceived ignoring of positional value.
You’re broadening the topic when it doesn’t warrant it. Â
There's certainly some hyperbole from the anti-Gettleman crowd that Barkley was an awful pick, which is just noise.
But there's also quite a bit of oxygen suck from the other side that ignores there stands a chance there were better alternatives.
Not unequivocal, but certainly defensible and debatable factors:
- Externalities understood, the Giants have been an average to below average rushing team the last 2 years
- The Giants have been a 5 and 4 win team
- The Giants have been a bad blocking team
- There is a major supply problem for good, forget about elite O-lineman
- There was an O-lineman available who projected to be elite, and ended up being so
- If Barkley trends like Zek and Gurley, he will demand a lucrative extension after 3 years
- Typically good lineman stay good longer than good running backs
And selecting Barkley was anything but a risky pick. Â
I also believe he misjudged how far away the Giants actually were which is why he drafted Barkley as opposed to trying to trade down or amass picks.
DG seemed to acknowledge some of those faults and hopefully he has put mechanisms in place to correct.
Overall, I think it's fair to give him an average grade at best and recognize that he seems to have done his best job in the draft.
I don't think you can argue the talent level of the Barkley pick, but as others alluded to, misjudging the roster and whether that pick was the correct one for the long term health of the team is certainly up for debate.
His FA signings this year will be scrutinized this year, as they should be, but I choose to believe he has learned from his mistakes and will adjust accordingly.
can't say the because Barkley was picked, positional value was ignored. The draft, especially at the top has to produce picks that are good to great players.
The positional comments are made oftentimes because those posters wanted to rebuild the lines - and that's a fair wish. However, what if you overdraft a lineman and he flops? See Flowers. See picks made by other teams where OL or DE's went high and were busts or poor players.
I still can't believe the amount of backlash for picking Barkley - especially since he's a good player. Would people have felt better if we picked Chubb and he was injured for the entire year? Would people have been happy if we picked a T and he was like Flowers? Especially if Barkley is ripping it up elsewhere?
I think we know the answers there.
My only problem with the Barkley pick is that it appears the roster was so poor we are not going to be competing until we are into his next contract. How large is that contract going to be? I believe it would have been prudent to suggest the NYG were open for business and listened to offers for the number 2 pick. We could have used more picks in hindsight. Honestly, if he just used the clock and listened to offers and didn't say he ran to the podium there would be much less criticism of the pick. He tries to be too cute when speaking to the media.
That said. Barkley is no obstacle to winning. He is the best kind of leader. He puts in the work, has a team first mentality. I would like to see the team actually use him, design an offense around him that runs the ball often and gets it to him in space. It feels like we are wasting his rookie deal.
are able to be competitive this year, then we still have time to make a decision with Barkley. It seems like an eternity since last offseason and while he'll likely demand a really rich second contract, the idea we are wasting him is a bit overblown.
I've agreed that Barkley wasn't the best pick for a team that is rebuilding, but I really don't see that we would be demonstrably better with an edge rusher or Darnold and a hole at RB.
I'd have preferred a tradedown to get OL, but the right players have to be taken. Put Nelson on this team and I don't think the W/L totals are changed. Put Chubb here and the same - plus, we would've gone into last year still needing a QB.
To me, the most critical decision that was mishandled by the organization was Eli. He should have been released when McAdoo and Reese were fired. I don't think that's solely Gettleman's call though - so holding him responsible for it is tough.
Fair points but again these are all examples of big misses Â
from DG (how bad the team was, Eli, picking RB versus dealing pick or going with better positional value).
The question of whether the Giants would have had more wins versus his decisions, imv, is less relevant. The team was in the dregs at beginning of 2018 and better decisions then would have absolutely put us further up the restructuring process than where we are today.
Its been two years and they still have so many critical parts of this team that are so underperforming and so undermanned.
If teams go from worst to first and the Giants haven't, wouldn't that mean DG has done a bad job?
DG misjudging the 2018 roster was a huge flaw to me. I would have fired him this off-season, but you have to give him two years with Judge IMO, even if that means he takes a backseat and the HC gets more power.
Huh? It's possible to do. Not everybody does it, or can do it. But it happens. Gettleman tried to do it, but couldn't. The roster was just too bad, so he cut bait. I don't view trying as a fireable offense.
Not realizing the roster was so bad and then trying to compete sends up massive red flags. Subsequent moves have reinforced those red flags to me.
I would have fired him this past off-season. But he's still around, so I'm hoping he gets it turned around.
Well said Brett. I definitely believe he should've been fired this past off-season. If a GM can't even correctly judge the talent on his current team, how can anyone have any confidence in his ability to rebuild?
are able to be competitive this year, then we still have time to make a decision with Barkley. It seems like an eternity since last offseason and while he'll likely demand a really rich second contract, the idea we are wasting him is a bit overblown.
I've agreed that Barkley wasn't the best pick for a team that is rebuilding, but I really don't see that we would be demonstrably better with an edge rusher or Darnold and a hole at RB.
I'd have preferred a tradedown to get OL, but the right players have to be taken. Put Nelson on this team and I don't think the W/L totals are changed. Put Chubb here and the same - plus, we would've gone into last year still needing a QB.
To me, the most critical decision that was mishandled by the organization was Eli. He should have been released when McAdoo and Reese were fired. I don't think that's solely Gettleman's call though - so holding him responsible for it is tough.
That is all fair.
RE: I don't think his drafting is particularly impressive at all, no Â
What the 49ers are or aren't (and all of the yammering about them always somehow elides the fact that Garappolo missed most of 2018) is completely immaterial to the fact that the Giants are a flaming bag of dogshit. And Jerry Reese hasn't been employed by the team in two years. Here's a quarter, go buy a new excuse. That one has passed the sell-by date.
How bout rather Giants started a rookie this year affects the record? Maybe that had something to do w it as well? Just like Jimmy G missing th3 season. You forgot to mention that.
at this record of drafts - it yielded such a poor roster construction:
2011 - Only one player still active in the league
Price A.
2012 - Every player out of football
2013 - Pugh, Hankins and Da Monster only players still active. None with the giants
2014 - Beckham, Richburg and Kennard the only players in the league. None with the Giants
2015 - Flowers, Collins and Hart still in the league. None with the Giants
2016 - Apple, Shepard, Goodson and Thompson players still in the league
Shepard is the lone giant on the roster from the 2011-2016 drfats
To put this in context during the same time Dallas has 14 players, Philadelphia 10, and Washington 3.
Do you mean across they have 14 players across the league or on their roster from those drafts?
Dallas had 14 players on their roster last year that were drafted between 2011 and 2016. There were another 10 that were playing on other teams.
Nice job here.
As to those stats, that is a big "wow!". As bad as the Giants were, Dallas has to be at the top of the charts I would guess. That is some good talent evaluation.
that's why people get frustrated. You build your team through the draft, and when Gettleman got here, that's what he was dealing with. Meanwhile, Dallas and Philly have been competitive all those years.
It's not a coincidence.
RE: So when people dismiss Jerry Reese's hand in this.... Â
that's why people get frustrated. You build your team through the draft, and when Gettleman got here, that's what he was dealing with. Meanwhile, Dallas and Philly have been competitive all those years.
It's not a coincidence.
No one has dismissed Jerry Reese's hand in this.
But being dealt a bad hand isn't a complete excuse for also misplaying that hand. Reese sucked and got fired. And Gettleman came in and spent his first offseason trying to win with the POS roster he was handed. That was a major error.
RE: So when people dismiss Jerry Reese's hand in this.... Â
that's why people get frustrated. You build your team through the draft, and when Gettleman got here, that's what he was dealing with. Meanwhile, Dallas and Philly have been competitive all those years.
It's not a coincidence.
Reese was horrible. I am unwilling to crush DG and I am unwilling to give him any credit. Year 2 worse than year 1. End of story. Incomplete.
This year, the whole year, not 3 or 4 games in. After it is completely over, if it is not obvious the arrow is pointing up, he should be gone. He has made some decisions that are reasonable to question.
By arrowing pointing up I am not saying playoffs. I am saying we just look like a team with a clue. We are no longer an embarrassment, I will get behind DG. I appreciate what the man has gone through personally. I even like his philosophy, big strong men on the lines. Hell fucking yeah. Execute it. I need results. No more excuses.
be able to accept that Gettleman has made mistakes without portraying him as incompetent or spew vitriol at him daily.
If you are inherited the roster he was - even if you do things perfectly, it likely is going to take time to turn around. Let's say he comes in, gets rid of eli, purges the team of bad contracts and sucks it up for the first year. All that ensures is that we suck - and you still have to pick a successful QB. You still have to field a team. You still have to try to be competitive. The recent teams who have been accused of tanking aren't like they shoot right up shortly thereafter to being elite. Most of them are still struggling.
The commentary here is slanted so that Gettleman sticking with Eli, signing Solder, trading for Ogletree and trying to be competitive is a fireable offense, when it is very difficult to even put together a plan in hindsight that would have us much more improved in 2019.
It's a statistical improbability a GM will walk into a team in 2018 and the roster will be full of homegrown talent from 2011.
Reese did a bad in 15, 16, 17 -- the drafts that statistically should be making the most impact on the team right now. That's the problem.
The only purpose I see getting wrapped around a pole about what happened as far back as 2011 is to bolster the sob story for Gettleman.
Gettleman inherited a flawed roster where the most talented players were knuckleheads, the most recent drafts had brought on 2 grade idiots in the tops rounds, and the roster was top heavy with expensive contracts.
Gettleman was left a difficult task, that's why Reese was fired.
Reese did a bad in 15, 16, 17 -- the drafts that statistically should be making the most impact on the team right now. That's the problem.
The only purpose I see getting wrapped around a pole about what happened as far back as 2011 is to bolster the sob story for Gettleman.
When pointed out that Gettleman's drafts in Carolina yielded 11 players who were still starters last season (which would be very good in relation to the figures posted for Dallas, Philly and Washington) it is dismissed as the Panthers sucking.
Being wrapped around a pole isn't due to bolstering a sob story, it is because the car crashed on a heaping pile of inconsistency in argumentation
It's a statistical improbability a GM will walk into a team in 2018 and the roster will be full of homegrown talent from 2011.
Reese did a bad in 15, 16, 17 -- the drafts that statistically should be making the most impact on the team right now. That's the problem.
The only purpose I see getting wrapped around a pole about what happened as far back as 2011 is to bolster the sob story for Gettleman.
Gettleman inherited a flawed roster where the most talented players were knuckleheads, the most recent drafts had brought on 2 grade idiots in the tops rounds, and the roster was top heavy with expensive contracts.
Gettleman was left a difficult task, that's why Reese was fired.
Wrong. It's not a sob story for Gettleman. It's a sob story for Gilbride, Coughlin, Eli, the franchise.... and understanding how we got here (rock bottom), and the magnitude of getting out of the hole we were left in
Reese rode the core that he inherited into the ground. When it came his term to rebuild his aging core, he waited too long, and then failed pretty miserably at it. People lost jobs. The Giants lost games. And when Gettleman finally did get his hands on it, it was complete sh-t. Reese inherited a championship roster. Gettleman inherited thin paper chumps. So much so that in the first offseason, two thirds of the team had to be turned over. One offseason later, only 1 player remains that Reese drafted. Sterling Sheppard. The sheer magnitude of that turnover in two offseasons tells you exactly what the state of the Giants was that Reese left.
So pardon me for giving Dave Gettleman a little latitude.... Â
Gettleman inherited thin paper chumps. So much so that in the first offseason, two thirds of the team had to be turned over. One offseason later, only 1 player remains that Reese drafted. Sterling Sheppard. The sheer magnitude of that turnover in two offseasons tells you exactly what the state of the Giants was that Reese left.
comes back and has an amazing season this year can everyone agree to shut the fuck up about his draft position? Jesus christ it is getting really old. Every thread someone brings it up. Shut the fuck up, he is on the team he was picked 2nd overall, get over it.
be able to accept that Gettleman has made mistakes without portraying him as incompetent or spew vitriol at him daily.
If you are inherited the roster he was - even if you do things perfectly, it likely is going to take time to turn around. Let's say he comes in, gets rid of eli, purges the team of bad contracts and sucks it up for the first year. All that ensures is that we suck - and you still have to pick a successful QB. You still have to field a team. You still have to try to be competitive. The recent teams who have been accused of tanking aren't like they shoot right up shortly thereafter to being elite. Most of them are still struggling.
The commentary here is slanted so that Gettleman sticking with Eli, signing Solder, trading for Ogletree and trying to be competitive is a fireable offense, when it is very difficult to even put together a plan in hindsight that would have us much more improved in 2019.
I thought that if DG did a really good job from day one, they could have competed this season. I think Gettleman's initial errors have delayed that by (at least) a year. And he needs to do a bang-up job to get there - I think the roster is still REALLY weak. A 2-3 year job turned into a 4-5 year one.
be able to accept that Gettleman has made mistakes without portraying him as incompetent or spew vitriol at him daily.
If you are inherited the roster he was - even if you do things perfectly, it likely is going to take time to turn around. Let's say he comes in, gets rid of eli, purges the team of bad contracts and sucks it up for the first year. All that ensures is that we suck - and you still have to pick a successful QB. You still have to field a team. You still have to try to be competitive. The recent teams who have been accused of tanking aren't like they shoot right up shortly thereafter to being elite. Most of them are still struggling.
The commentary here is slanted so that Gettleman sticking with Eli, signing Solder, trading for Ogletree and trying to be competitive is a fireable offense, when it is very difficult to even put together a plan in hindsight that would have us much more improved in 2019.
I thought that if DG did a really good job from day one, they could have competed this season. I think Gettleman's initial errors have delayed that by (at least) a year. And he needs to do a bang-up job to get there - I think the roster is still REALLY weak. A 2-3 year job turned into a 4-5 year one.
IMO.
That logic doesn't make sense to me.
If Dave Gettleman's single offseason turned a 2-3 year job into a 4-5 year job, what was the job to being with considering the poor choices of the previous 7 offseasons?
be able to accept that Gettleman has made mistakes without portraying him as incompetent or spew vitriol at him daily.
If you are inherited the roster he was - even if you do things perfectly, it likely is going to take time to turn around. Let's say he comes in, gets rid of eli, purges the team of bad contracts and sucks it up for the first year. All that ensures is that we suck - and you still have to pick a successful QB. You still have to field a team. You still have to try to be competitive. The recent teams who have been accused of tanking aren't like they shoot right up shortly thereafter to being elite. Most of them are still struggling.
The commentary here is slanted so that Gettleman sticking with Eli, signing Solder, trading for Ogletree and trying to be competitive is a fireable offense, when it is very difficult to even put together a plan in hindsight that would have us much more improved in 2019.
I thought that if DG did a really good job from day one, they could have competed this season. I think Gettleman's initial errors have delayed that by (at least) a year. And he needs to do a bang-up job to get there - I think the roster is still REALLY weak. A 2-3 year job turned into a 4-5 year one.
IMO.
That logic doesn't make sense to me.
If Dave Gettleman's single offseason turned a 2-3 year job into a 4-5 year job, what was the job to being with considering the poor choices of the previous 7 offseasons?
2-3. That's exactly what his post says.
And the logic doesn't make sense? DG wasted year 1 by getting his roster evaluation completely wrong. That means 2-3 immediately becomes 3-4. Then, because of his misevaluation, he spends year 2 in a self-imposed cap hell to cleanup bad contracts, which resulted in a league-leading amount of dead money (roughly 60% of which was created by contracts DG handed out, not JR), which meant that year 2 was used at least partially to correct the errors of year 1.
So now here we are still at the very early stages of the rebuild. The only bright spot is that we now have our young QB, which is the centerpiece of any successful rebuild. So maybe it's still just 3-4 instead of 2-3?
It's undeniable that it's going to take at least a year longer than it should have because it started a year later than it should have.
But maybe it'll still be 2-3 when we go 10-6 this year on the Gettleman Revenge Tour.
The prior 7 off-seasons have nothing to do with it. Â
This was always a 2-3 year job minimum to me because I (correctly, I might add) thought the roster sucked when DG came in. Gettleman's year one actions delayed that.
Wrong. It's not a sob story for Gettleman. It's a sob story for Gilbride, Coughlin, Eli, the franchise.... and understanding how we got here (rock bottom), and the magnitude of getting out of the hole we were left in
LOL.
Yes Reese left the place a shambles but what was Â
Gettleman's first order of business? Well he went on to:
- miscalculate the roster
- poorly assess what Eli had left in the tank and
- miss on all of his key free agent signings
His second order of business has been cleaning up the mess he made during the first order of business.
The Giants aren't getting anywhere matching good moves against bad ones. That's what the record has shown these past two years.
...
I've agreed that Barkley wasn't the best pick for a team that is rebuilding, but I really don't see that we would be demonstrably better with an edge rusher or Darnold and a hole at RB.
I'd have preferred a tradedown to get OL, but the right players have to be taken. Put Nelson on this team and I don't think the W/L totals are changed. Put Chubb here and the same - plus, we would've gone into last year still needing a QB.
Wow... I'm impressed. I mean for 2 years, myself and a others who professed the trade down for OL POV, were raked over the coals by you. But, now you have finally come over this point of view, one that I (and a few others) espoused BEFORE that draft...
revisionist bullshit. You weren't raked over the coals for suggesting a trade down.
A lot of people wanted a tradedown. A lot of people wanted Darnold. The only QB I was on record as wanting here was Jackson, and even then, I was really leery of the pre-draft crap with his parent stepping in to be an agent.
The difference is - just because the Giants didn't do those things makes them wrong - yet you've clung to the fact that they were dead wrong. And the story always becomes the best possible outcome in these revised tales.
It isn't that Darnold is drafted here, the record is the same, the OL is poor and Barkley is winning Rookie of the Year elsewhere. Those people somehow disappeared.
The story is that we should have traded down and gotten Chubb or Nelson. Or a couple of linemen - yet our record may not be too different and Chubb being out a season isn't going to have people saying the needle is trending upward.
People can't even budge enough off their high horse to give Gettleman credit for drafting a great player.
You voiced an alternate plan. Just like I did. The difference is - two years later you are still droning on about it like a fucking banshee.
revisionist bullshit. You weren't raked over the coals for suggesting a trade down.
A lot of people wanted a tradedown. A lot of people wanted Darnold. The only QB I was on record as wanting here was Jackson, and even then, I was really leery of the pre-draft crap with his parent stepping in to be an agent.
The difference is - just because the Giants didn't do those things makes them wrong - yet you've clung to the fact that they were dead wrong. And the story always becomes the best possible outcome in these revised tales.
It isn't that Darnold is drafted here, the record is the same, the OL is poor and Barkley is winning Rookie of the Year elsewhere. Those people somehow disappeared.
The story is that we should have traded down and gotten Chubb or Nelson. Or a couple of linemen - yet our record may not be too different and Chubb being out a season isn't going to have people saying the needle is trending upward.
People can't even budge enough off their high horse to give Gettleman credit for drafting a great player.
You voiced an alternate plan. Just like I did. The difference is - two years later you are still droning on about it like a fucking banshee.
Here is what you just wrote...
blah blah blah, lotsa nonsense, blah, blah, blah...
Quote:
You voiced an alternate plan. Just like I did. The difference is - two years later you are still droning on about it like a fucking banshee.
Apparently an alternate plan you now, 2 years later agree with. You said it yourself.
Bottom line here, that even if Barkley is a great player, it was not the best use of resources. Apparently you agree with that, since now 2 years later, you would have preferred trading down for some OL... Forget making this about Gettleman, lets make this about you! All your bluster and insults were for nothing, and you now admit that the trade down for OL POV was correct.
Almost never expresses any recognizable opinion...
He exposes his hypocrisy and, the fact that he has been attacking people just for the sake of attacking them. No other motive, other than being a bully.
Reese did a bad in 15, 16, 17 -- the drafts that statistically should be making the most impact on the team right now. That's the problem.
The only purpose I see getting wrapped around a pole about what happened as far back as 2011 is to bolster the sob story for Gettleman.
When pointed out that Gettleman's drafts in Carolina yielded 11 players who were still starters last season (which would be very good in relation to the figures posted for Dallas, Philly and Washington) it is dismissed as the Panthers sucking.
Being wrapped around a pole isn't due to bolstering a sob story, it is because the car crashed on a heaping pile of inconsistency in argumentation
Just so I'm clear -- what's the connection between what Reese did in 2011 and what Gettleman did in Carolina?
Almost never expresses any recognizable opinion...
He exposes his hypocrisy and, the fact that he has been attacking people just for the sake of attacking them. No other motive, other than being a bully.
What the fuck??
If I express no recognizable opinion, how can I be hypocritical??
Let me put this very simply since you really suck at comprehending points - the Giants doing something different that you, I or any other person on this board wanted doesn't make it wrong. Spending time and crafting numerous posts saying it was wrong - still doesn't make it wrong.
You can't find a post by me that criticizes the idea of a tradedown. What I criticized is the POV that not trading down or selecting Barkley was wrong. That posting page long diatribes about positional value was bullshit. Spending the majority of the past two years not accepting that we picked Barkley, but instead trying to prove the move was incorrect - a point that still hasn't been proven one way or another.
You continue to miss this point - probably because you are too busy trying to convince the board you have one....
He’s gone if you’re making the decisions back then. Gone. Poof! See ya! Who’s next on the docket ?
Ill also use this as my weekly excuse to remind everyone that accorsi was coming off a 6-22 two year run heading into the 2005 season.
Honestly I’m surprised at how much attention and scrutiny the GM even gets around here lately. Every move every dollar spent leads to a referendum around here on the GM. Now we’re combing through the wins losses record and dying the fire the GM ? GMs aren’t coaches. They are held to different standards and timelines. It’s apples and oranges. You can bring in talent and improve things and not see those improvements manifest into wins right away.
GY is irrelevant - that was pre-cap era.
Accorsi was a meh GM on balance, that was made to look better by Eli and Coughlin.
I'm sorry that you're not willing to accept that the finances are a very real part of success in the current NFL.
huh? all you did come up with weak excuses why other sound examples don't hold any water.
sorry, but what I said is 100% true. Want me to find other legendary GMs that struggled for a few years? I will...don't tempt me.
with plenty of insider knowledge that have gone out of their way to state that fans and media focus way too much energy and attn to the salary dynamic in pro football. of course the financial side of things is relevant. Of course it plays a role, but some of you are lunatics with this shit. But what does a guy like PAt Kirwin know. He's only a former NFL exec who has also studied the game for decades now.
I mean cmon, threads 1000 hits long discussing "the future of Barkley" and talking about a contract that hasn't even happened yet. And why his next contract is doomed to be a mistake. Gimme a break. There's middle ground but not here. Never. Barkley was a stupid pick, just because I say so or because of some made up myth that has been echoed all over because it's fun and easy and seems sensible enough. But it's BS.
PS if the Giants drafted Chubb at 2 they'd be even shittier the last 2 years.
Is going to prove DG right or wrong. You will not have the answer until it is over. EVERYONE that reads this board with any kind of frequency understand fully the points both sides are making. If we are not better DG will be gone. Is what it is.
The Barkley pick did not make us 9-23. You can do anything else with what we could have done and I am not seeing many more wins. I am also not about to sing DGs praises either. You kidding? I am skeptical as shit. But year three with money to spend. the man is on the clock for his job and he knows it. Let's see how he handles it.
Almost never expresses any recognizable opinion...
He exposes his hypocrisy and, the fact that he has been attacking people just for the sake of attacking them. No other motive, other than being a bully.
What the fuck??
If I express no recognizable opinion, how can I be hypocritical??
Let me put this very simply since you really suck at comprehending points
Apparently YOU are the one incapable of comprehending points... I said the you ALMOST NEVER... The ALMOST NEVER is key. The point was when you do, you open yourself up to criticism like this because you make it such a habit to attack people no matter what.
Quote:
- the Giants doing something different that you, I or any other person on this board wanted doesn't make it wrong. Spending time and crafting numerous posts saying it was wrong - still doesn't make it wrong.
You can't find a post by me that criticizes the idea of a tradedown. What I criticized is the POV that not trading down or selecting Barkley was wrong. That posting page long diatribes about positional value was bullshit. Spending the majority of the past two years not accepting that we picked Barkley, but instead trying to prove the move was incorrect - a point that still hasn't been proven one way or another.
You continue to miss this point - probably because you are too busy trying to convince the board you have one....
Back to the fact that you cannot comprehending points. This is logic, not your strong point I know, but bear with me.
The job of the GM is to manage the roster in a way that gives the team the best chance of winning. I.E. to choose the optimal path to success. If you prefer that the Giants traded down and selected OL, then you believe that there was better value to be gained. I.E. a more optimal path. So by definition you believe that the Barkley pick was sub-optimal. If the job of the GM is to take the optimal path, and the GM took a less optimal path, then the GM was wrong. Notice I am using the word believe here, that means that its an opinion not fact.
There is no way to prove it right or wrong. Winning a championship or not doesn't prove anything. Maybe the team could have started winning championships sooner, or won more often during the GMs tenure. If no championship is won, there is no way to ever know if the other path would have yielded one instead. There really is no right or wrong, however there is good and bad. Good being the choice that is optimal or close to it, and bad is a choice that is far from optimal.
If you look at my posts over the past 2 years, I have made this point about optimizing decisions in various ways many many times. I have ALWAYS said that I believed Barkley was not the optimal path, that I believed trading down for OL was the optimal path. With 2 years of hindsight, it still appears that the trade down for OL was the more optimal path. I would even venture to say that it is more apparent now than 2 years ago.
All that is opinion. I state my opinion, perhaps I state them strongly, I tend to back those opinions up with other forms of evidence. Note I said evidence, I didn't say FACTs. I make it difficult for people argue an alternative opinion. But isn't that what debate is about, stating a position and making it difficult on the the other side to oppose it. In the end, you just like posters like that because it make you feel a loss of control. You have an odd reflexive need to try and control what is said here, and you instinctively attack anything you feel is out of your control. Some pretty sick behavior actually.
I mean cmon, threads 1000 hits long discussing "the future of Barkley" and talking about a contract that hasn't even happened yet. And why his next contract is doomed to be a mistake. Gimme a break. There's middle ground but not here. Never. Barkley was a stupid pick, just because I say so or because of some made up myth that has been echoed all over because it's fun and easy and seems sensible enough. But it's BS.
And conversely there's no middle ground to contemplate if an alternative choice would have been a better investment or helped the Giants more in the short and medium term.
Plenty posters would have preferred the Giants laser focused on fixing the offensive line, think the Giants could have improved the run game to the same degree, helped protect the QB more, and that lineman are a better investment.
I mean cmon, threads 1000 hits long discussing "the future of Barkley" and talking about a contract that hasn't even happened yet. And why his next contract is doomed to be a mistake. Gimme a break. There's middle ground but not here. Never. Barkley was a stupid pick, just because I say so or because of some made up myth that has been echoed all over because it's fun and easy and seems sensible enough. But it's BS.
And conversely there's no middle ground to contemplate if an alternative choice would have been a better investment or helped the Giants more in the short and medium term.
Plenty posters would have preferred the Giants laser focused on fixing the offensive line, think the Giants could have improved the run game to the same degree, helped protect the QB more, and that lineman are a better investment.
Let me add tht given the state of the team at the time, I think that trading down for OL was the biggest bang for the buck. Another time, a different situation, it might be different choice(s) are the best path...
You are seeking a middle ground where opinions are concerned. What middle ground is there? If I have an opinion and express it and it is different than yours, what are you seeking? You want me to change my opinion so it is closer to yours? Probably not going to happen unless you make a very good case. And let me say this, there have been times where posters have made a very good case and changed my mind about something. But those situations are going to be rare. More often, folks who post have opinions that are hardened and you are just not going to move them. So, again I ask, what are you seeking, what middle ground? You want somebody to say that maybe you have a valid opinion? Sure some are valid even if I disagree with then... On the other hand, you in particular are so far to one end of these debates that I believe you have some indefensible opinions.
I mean cmon, threads 1000 hits long discussing "the future of Barkley" and talking about a contract that hasn't even happened yet. And why his next contract is doomed to be a mistake. Gimme a break. There's middle ground but not here. Never. Barkley was a stupid pick, just because I say so or because of some made up myth that has been echoed all over because it's fun and easy and seems sensible enough. But it's BS.
And conversely there's no middle ground to contemplate if an alternative choice would have been a better investment or helped the Giants more in the short and medium term.
Plenty posters would have preferred the Giants laser focused on fixing the offensive line, think the Giants could have improved the run game to the same degree, helped protect the QB more, and that lineman are a better investment.
Let me add tht given the state of the team at the time, I think that trading down for OL was the biggest bang for the buck. Another time, a different situation, it might be different choice(s) are the best path...
You are seeking a middle ground where opinions are concerned. What middle ground is there? If I have an opinion and express it and it is different than yours, what are you seeking? You want me to change my opinion so it is closer to yours? Probably not going to happen unless you make a very good case. And let me say this, there have been times where posters have made a very good case and changed my mind about something. But those situations are going to be rare. More often, folks who post have opinions that are hardened and you are just not going to move them. So, again I ask, what are you seeking, what middle ground? You want somebody to say that maybe you have a valid opinion? Sure some are valid even if I disagree with then... On the other hand, you in particular are so far to one end of these debates that I believe you have some indefensible opinions.
I mean cmon, threads 1000 hits long discussing "the future of Barkley" and talking about a contract that hasn't even happened yet. And why his next contract is doomed to be a mistake. Gimme a break. There's middle ground but not here. Never. Barkley was a stupid pick, just because I say so or because of some made up myth that has been echoed all over because it's fun and easy and seems sensible enough. But it's BS.
And conversely there's no middle ground to contemplate if an alternative choice would have been a better investment or helped the Giants more in the short and medium term.
Plenty posters would have preferred the Giants laser focused on fixing the offensive line, think the Giants could have improved the run game to the same degree, helped protect the QB more, and that lineman are a better investment.
Because we're two years removed and it's OVER! The time to talk alternative choices ended with the pick. How many years are we going to hand wring over it?
And secondly, EVERYBODY wants the Giants laser focused on fixing the o-line.
And finally, picking Saquon Barkley did not prevent them from addressing the offensive line. They still drafted a starting G the same draft, and thought they had signed their new left tackle. The moves haven't worked, but picking Saquon is not an indictment of ignoring the offensive line.
right side. That well-thought plan took about one snap that season to see where that was heading.
So yes, more and better could have been done.
Yeah, so? A lot of us wanted them to make that move. It was that or cut bait in a first round pick in only his 3rd season (which we ended up doing when it failed).
That's still more of an indictment of Reese than Gettleman. That the 10th overall pick couldn't play ANY position on the line or be helpful in any way.
I mean cmon, threads 1000 hits long discussing "the future of Barkley" and talking about a contract that hasn't even happened yet. And why his next contract is doomed to be a mistake. Gimme a break. There's middle ground but not here. Never. Barkley was a stupid pick, just because I say so or because of some made up myth that has been echoed all over because it's fun and easy and seems sensible enough. But it's BS.
And conversely there's no middle ground to contemplate if an alternative choice would have been a better investment or helped the Giants more in the short and medium term.
Plenty posters would have preferred the Giants laser focused on fixing the offensive line, think the Giants could have improved the run game to the same degree, helped protect the QB more, and that lineman are a better investment.
Because we're two years removed and it's OVER! The time to talk alternative choices ended with the pick. How many years are we going to hand wring over it
Thanks for the rules on what can and can't be discussed Britt.
I guess we'll all go quietly to the corner now until you let us out of time out.
You're the one saying that there's no middle ground. Â
right side. That well-thought plan took about one snap that season to see where that was heading.
So yes, more and better could have been done.
Yeah, so? A lot of us wanted them to make that move. It was that or cut bait in a first round pick in only his 3rd season (which we ended up doing when it failed).
That's still more of an indictment of Reese than Gettleman. That the 10th overall pick couldn't play ANY position on the line or be helpful in any way.
So it wasn’t fixed. Stay with what’s not working isn’t a plan.
RE: Well, you are the smartest guy in the room.... Â
I can't remember another subject like it during my nearly 20 years on this site. Eli kind of, I guess, is the only other one.
This horse has been beaten to glue. We know some people despise the Barkley pick. We know some people love the Barkley pick. We know some people would have been cool with a trade down but understand and are okay with picking Barkley.
I don't really know what there is left to discuss on it other than to agree to disagree on what could've, should've, would've happened. What's done is done.
I don't really know what there is left to discuss on it other than to agree to disagree on what could've, should've, would've happened. What's done is done.
Probably then a good signal for you to bow out, and not jump in when others are having perfectly enjoyable conversation on a topic you aren't interested in?
Well, when people stop bringing it up on EVERY thread, Â
The Barkley pick is controversial, and it is going to be second guessed until the Giants win super bowl with him as a major contributor, or he is gone without a SB... It will likely die down some, but not all the way, if DG is gone.
It was such pivotable moment in Giant's history, that is stands above all others for the foreseeable future.
As you know, I hated the pick at the time, and to this day I believe it was a colossal mistake. I want to be clear though. I for one am first and foremost a Giants fan. I want all this to work out and for the Giants to be adding to their trophy case. So if there is some middle ground being sought, rest assured, that I have accepted the Barkley pick and I for one root for Barkley every time he is out there. I root for Daniel Jones every time he is out there. I root for every player on the roster to do well. However, there is a big difference, for me at least, between rooting, and looking at the team with a critical lens.
Say what you want about Gettleman but he has been doing a good job with the draft.
Say what you want about Gettleman but he has been doing a good job with the draft.
Agreed
No you wouldn't, you doddering, old, tater tot stuffing fool!
I suppose you think the 49ers front office sucks too then.
Quote:
have a nice day
I suppose you think the 49ers front office sucks too then.
10-22
Did Jerry Reese have ten years of awful drafts or not?
Wait..so circumstances only apply to teams that aren't the Giants? Evaluating other teams success or failures is not just about W-L record, only for DG and the Giants?
Just trying to figure out your stance on things.
How can you blame DG for the record his first season here? He just joined in the offseason. Things don't change that fast.
Say what you want about Gettleman but he has been doing a good job with the draft.
70 starts from the rookie class, and while there were some bumps there was more good than bad. If the new coaching staff can do what Judge has talked about and teach/develop these guys its a nice foundation.
You've got a point there - the second season was such a drastic improvement.
Seems like he's applying some of that hopeful logic to guys like Love and Baker. You have to do the same with Jones as well, because if he can't fix his turnover problem the Giants don't have a solution at QB.
Kaleb McGary OT #31
Jawan Taylor OT #35 (NFL, PFF All-Rookie)
Greg Little OT#37
Cody Ford OT#38
Dalton Risner OT#41 (NFL, PFF All-Rookie)
Elgton Jenkins C#44 (NFL PFF All-Rookie)
Erik McCoy C#48 (NFL, PFF All-Rookie)
It wasn't a mystery that we sucked at OT and C in 2018. Anyone one of they guys would have been a better pick than Baker, especially considering Gettlemen's plan to continue to draft CBs in 2019 (and Beal, who cost a high 3rd rounder in the 2019 draft).
Quote:
What the 49ers are or aren't (and all of the yammering about them always somehow elides the fact that Garappolo missed most of 2018) is completely immaterial to the fact that the Giants are a flaming bag of dogshit. And Jerry Reese hasn't been employed by the team in two years. Here's a quarter, go buy a new excuse. That one has passed the sell-by date.
Wait..so circumstances only apply to teams that aren't the Giants? Evaluating other teams success or failures is not just about W-L record, only for DG and the Giants?
Just trying to figure out your stance on things.
You want him to make sense? Good luck
Kaleb McGary OT #31
Jawan Taylor OT #35 (NFL, PFF All-Rookie)
Greg Little OT#37
Cody Ford OT#38
Dalton Risner OT#41 (NFL, PFF All-Rookie)
Elgton Jenkins C#44 (NFL PFF All-Rookie)
Erik McCoy C#48 (NFL, PFF All-Rookie)
It wasn't a mystery that we sucked at OT and C in 2018. Anyone one of they guys would have been a better pick than Baker, especially considering Gettlemen's plan to continue to draft CBs in 2019 (and Beal, who cost a high 3rd rounder in the 2019 draft).
Maybe you don’t remember that our starting tackles were Ereck Flowers and Bobby Hart when he got here, Pugh, and Jerry Jones at guard.
Btw, McGary looked terrible for Atlanta and he’s being moved to Guard, Taylor was ok, little and Ford were not plus starters in their first year. Jenkins and McCoy are studs. But who would’ve played CB for us? Beal?? Ballentine?? Would I take McCoy or Jenkins over Baker? Yes. The rest of them, I personally wouldn’t but what do I know
Did Jerry Reese have ten years of awful drafts or not?
Losing their starting QB might have had something to do with that.
I don't think that's the whole story when people attempt to infuse a bit of realism into the conversation. Gettleman is doing better than Reese. TBD whether he's doing better than league average.
Lauletta - wasted pick
McIntosh - wasted pick (to date)
Asafo-Adjei - TBD, hasn't played yet
Baker - showed some promise, but question marks remain (especially the whispers about work ethic and learning the playbook)
Hernandez, Carter, Hill - various levels of 2nd year drop-off, with Hill's being severe enough to trigger the trade for Williams
Even without getting into the positional value element of the Barkley pick or whether it makes any sense at all to take a RB at the beginning of a rebuild instead of closer to the upswing coming out of the rebuild, Gettleman's drafts have had some real misses mixed in with the success.
I'll give you this though, drafting is the best part of what Gettleman has done so far with the Giants, though that's faint praise.
Say what you want about Gettleman but he has been doing a good job with the draft.
Absolutely and replacing 50+ players including 11 starters is easy to do with uhh 3 or 4 players a year.. Some Giant fans are clueless. The man is building a beast -if you cant see it your blind. Just give it time.
Quote:
have a nice day
How can you blame DG for the record his first season here? He just joined in the offseason. Things don't change that fast.
Because by his own fucking admission he screwed up his evaluation of the roster going into 2018. If he's openly taking the blame, why are so many fans in a rush to defend him for that season?
Quote:
and the reason we are in the situation we are in today is because of nearly 10 years of poor drafting.
Say what you want about Gettleman but he has been doing a good job with the draft.
Absolutely and replacing 50+ players including 11 starters is easy to do with uhh 3 or 4 players a year.. Some Giant fans are clueless. The man is building a beast -if you cant see it your blind. Just give it time.
Why is DG's burner account still allowed to post here? Building a beast? Buy a fucking clue.
Quote:
“If I had the 2nd and 6th overall drafts slots in successive years, I’d do well also...”
I don't think that's the whole story when people attempt to infuse a bit of realism into the conversation. Gettleman is doing better than Reese. TBD whether he's doing better than league average.
Lauletta - wasted pick
McIntosh - wasted pick (to date)
Asafo-Adjei - TBD, hasn't played yet
Baker - showed some promise, but question marks remain (especially the whispers about work ethic and learning the playbook)
Hernandez, Carter, Hill - various levels of 2nd year drop-off, with Hill's being severe enough to trigger the trade for Williams
Even without getting into the positional value element of the Barkley pick or whether it makes any sense at all to take a RB at the beginning of a rebuild instead of closer to the upswing coming out of the rebuild, Gettleman's drafts have had some real misses mixed in with the success.
I'll give you this though, drafting is the best part of what Gettleman has done so far with the Giants, though that's faint praise.
Doesn’t it seem like Lauletta was ages ago?
^ THAT IS ALL!
Quote:
and the reason we are in the situation we are in today is because of nearly 10 years of poor drafting.
Say what you want about Gettleman but he has been doing a good job with the draft.
Absolutely and replacing 50+ players including 11 starters is easy to do with uhh 3 or 4 players a year.. Some Giant fans are clueless. The man is building a beast -if you cant see it your blind. Just give it time.
I feel like they are serving us shit for dinner and some of you are waiting in line with bibs smiling like the Mad Hatter. There is no reason for them to change the menu if you love shit so much. I don't want shit. I want wins that matter.
DG had a good draft, so fucking what? we were 4-12 last year, yay good draft! Get the fuck out of here.
Absolutely and replacing 50+ players including 11 starters is easy to do with uhh 3 or 4 players a year.. Some Giant fans are clueless. The man is building a beast -if you cant see it your blind. Just give it time.
This is funny!
LOL
Greg from LI : 10:00 am : link : reply
Does throwing up 9-23 after every reference to Gettleman really add anything?
The lengths people will go to crap on anything remotely positive about the team is a much more pervasive issue.
With Jerry Reese's Fingerprints
Quote:
The lengths you people will go to defend the indefensible
Greg from LI : 10:00 am : link : reply
Does throwing up 9-23 after every reference to Gettleman really add anything?
The lengths people will go to crap on anything remotely positive about the team is a much more pervasive issue.
As others have pointed out, just look at the source.
It's the best "Greg from the comments section" can do.
Starters are found throughout the draft, but fine. That said, I think you're assigning the drop-off probably about a round too early. 3rd rounders should be looked at as potential starters. If you want to say that 4th and beyond are lottery tickets and developmental prospects that may predominantly serve as depth, I'll buy that. But not 3rd round - you're talking about top 100 prospects at that point, and where DG has been drafting in the 3rd round, it's more like top 70.
I don't fault them for their views. You are what your record says you are.
However, I do think some of their justifications for their views are a little near sighted and possibly unfair.
We are at rock bottom. We are trying to climb out of a gigantic hole that's been dug over nearly the course of a decade. I see more positive in the youth of this team than I have in a LONG time. It allows me to be optimistic.
I think one of the biggest things people get wrapped up in is separating the old from the new. We are only two years post Jerry Reese and four post Tom Coughlin. We have clearly not found the right coach.
However, one of the biggest things that needed to be addressed has been addressed. The transition from Eli Manning at QB.
Eli/Coughlin/Reese are the old era. We are barely removed from them yet. Those demanding immediate results are being unfair.
And yes, I know I predicted 10-6 this past year. I do it every year. I'm hopeful. It gives me reason to watch.
So let's get "10-6" and "Eli Manning Revenge Tour" out of the way.
Quote:
The lengths you people will go to defend the indefensible
Greg from LI : 10:00 am : link : reply
Does throwing up 9-23 after every reference to Gettleman really add anything?
The lengths people will go to crap on anything remotely positive about the team is a much more pervasive issue.
9-23 is ONLY thing that matters. Advanced metrics, analytics, draft grades are all just worthless bullshit. A distraction. FMiC I desperately want to throw my support and enthusiasm behind DG. I CANNOT do it until the arrow is definitively pointing up. Sick of losing.
I am a BIG fan of Daniel Jones, I THINK it will turn out to be a great pick but I don't know for sure yet. 9-23 should be everyone's mantra until it turns around. I am tired of watching a terrible product on the field. 9-23 is not good enough for me.
Why not call it 12-36?
Right now, we are 0-0. Regurgitating 9-23 as if it indicates we'll be 18-46 two years from now is ridiculous. It was pointed out above that the Niners were 10-22. Did they have reason to be optimistic this year? Of course.
9-23 is a fantastic response to valid criticisms. It isn't commentary of the drafts. It isn't commentary that needs to be said when somebody gives any praise. It's just a pithy comment and a throwaway line that really doens't mean jackshit today.
Opinions about the past: Opinions
Re-living the past: Boring. And Pointless
Speculation about the future: Much wider range of reasonable speculation than unjustified certainty wants to admit or is emotionally able to handle.
imo
Quote:
and later is nonsense. most 3rd rounders and later are not even starters.
Starters are found throughout the draft, but fine. That said, I think you're assigning the drop-off probably about a round too early. 3rd rounders should be looked at as potential starters. If you want to say that 4th and beyond are lottery tickets and developmental prospects that may predominantly serve as depth, I'll buy that. But not 3rd round - you're talking about top 100 prospects at that point, and where DG has been drafting in the 3rd round, it's more like top 70.
here is some analysis from 2015 about draft rounds and starters. More than 50% of the 3rd rounders are not "starters". I would like to see other data, not easy to find
https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round
Quote:
In comment 14808902 uther99 said:
Quote:
and later is nonsense. most 3rd rounders and later are not even starters.
Starters are found throughout the draft, but fine. That said, I think you're assigning the drop-off probably about a round too early. 3rd rounders should be looked at as potential starters. If you want to say that 4th and beyond are lottery tickets and developmental prospects that may predominantly serve as depth, I'll buy that. But not 3rd round - you're talking about top 100 prospects at that point, and where DG has been drafting in the 3rd round, it's more like top 70.
here is some analysis from 2015 about draft rounds and starters. More than 50% of the 3rd rounders are not "starters". I would like to see other data, not easy to find
https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round
The problem with the way that data is presented is that it treats the entire third round as a single value. The third round begins with pick #65 and, depending on compensatory picks, can include 40 selections (or more). To look at the overall success rate for the round without applying any sort of specific expectations based on where in the round the pick falls seems faulty to me.
Gettleman has selected #2 (#66 overall) in 2018, and would have picked #4 (#68 overall) last year but used that pick on Sam Beal. This year, he would have been picking at #4 again (#68 overall) but that pick was traded for Leonard Williams.
Do you feel that all 3rd round picks have the same likelihood of success, or would you agree that players chosen closer to the top of the round should be looked at with an expectation that more closely resembles a 2nd round prospect, whereas those selected nearer to the end of the round should be assigned a success expectation that is more similar to a 4th round pick?
Quote:
In comment 14808943 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14808902 uther99 said:
Quote:
and later is nonsense. most 3rd rounders and later are not even starters.
Starters are found throughout the draft, but fine. That said, I think you're assigning the drop-off probably about a round too early. 3rd rounders should be looked at as potential starters. If you want to say that 4th and beyond are lottery tickets and developmental prospects that may predominantly serve as depth, I'll buy that. But not 3rd round - you're talking about top 100 prospects at that point, and where DG has been drafting in the 3rd round, it's more like top 70.
here is some analysis from 2015 about draft rounds and starters. More than 50% of the 3rd rounders are not "starters". I would like to see other data, not easy to find
https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round
The problem with the way that data is presented is that it treats the entire third round as a single value. The third round begins with pick #65 and, depending on compensatory picks, can include 40 selections (or more). To look at the overall success rate for the round without applying any sort of specific expectations based on where in the round the pick falls seems faulty to me.
Gettleman has selected #2 (#66 overall) in 2018, and would have picked #4 (#68 overall) last year but used that pick on Sam Beal. This year, he would have been picking at #4 again (#68 overall) but that pick was traded for Leonard Williams.
Do you feel that all 3rd round picks have the same likelihood of success, or would you agree that players chosen closer to the top of the round should be looked at with an expectation that more closely resembles a 2nd round prospect, whereas those selected nearer to the end of the round should be assigned a success expectation that is more similar to a 4th round pick?
Even if you look at 2nd round, only OL and LB have better than 50% chance of starting. I would love to see more data, I haven't been able to find it. But calling 4th rounders or later wasted picks is just not genuine. Very few teams hit on those picks.
Combine participants - ( New Window )
Why not call it 12-36?
Right now, we are 0-0. Regurgitating 9-23 as if it indicates we'll be 18-46 two years from now is ridiculous. It was pointed out above that the Niners were 10-22. Did they have reason to be optimistic this year? Of course.
9-23 is a fantastic response to valid criticisms. It isn't commentary of the drafts. It isn't commentary that needs to be said when somebody gives any praise. It's just a pithy comment and a throwaway line that really doens't mean jackshit today.
9-23 is DG's record.
It is the only meaningful way a GM is measured.
As a fan, i could not give a shit less how well someone grades a fucking draft. Have a nice pat on the back, good job boy.
I care if they win regular season games.
I care if they reach the postseason.
I care if they win postseason.
Everything else is fucking bullshit.
Until they actually start winning games they credit for nothing.
Because the Niners went 10-22 and reached the Super Bowl I should believe we are? What evidence do you have that supports the correlation? Nevermind.
There ya go, you set the bar.
Win in 2020 or GTFO.
Quote:
I don't fault Greg and others for their views, which on the present state of facts are not unreasonable.
I don't fault them for their views. You are what your record says you are.
However, I do think some of their justifications for their views are a little near sighted and possibly unfair.
We are at rock bottom. We are trying to climb out of a gigantic hole that's been dug over nearly the course of a decade. I see more positive in the youth of this team than I have in a LONG time. It allows me to be optimistic.
I think one of the biggest things people get wrapped up in is separating the old from the new. We are only two years post Jerry Reese and four post Tom Coughlin. We have clearly not found the right coach.
...
I agree with you up until that point. And others do as well.
Where we diverge is on what the Giants haven't done - find the right GM, and find the right scouts.
In that department, only Gettleman and Koncz are new - everyone else is old guard. They weren't working then, and to date, it doesn't seem like they're working now.
So while we hope that Judge and his staff are the goods, there's always the chance that the underlying talent is still not good enough for anyone to get off the ground, and it would be accountable to the one constant that has remained in place since the start of the Eli era, the scouting department.
When it is pointed out he's the most successful GM in Panthers history, by record, it is looked at as him walking into a stacked team. When 50% of the starters in 2019 were players drafted by him, he's still knocked as a shitty GM whose drafts are overrated.
If his record is what it is, then it should go both ways.
When it is pointed out he's the most successful GM in Panthers history, by record, it is looked at as him walking into a stacked team. When 50% of the starters in 2019 were players drafted by him, he's still knocked as a shitty GM whose drafts are overrated.
If his record is what it is, then it should go both ways.
Iirc, weren’t many on here at that juncture, lamenting us keeping Reese and letting DG “slip away?”
And congrats to him for the rookie grades on his draft picks and hopefully they become super Sophs.
When it is pointed out he's the most successful GM in Panthers history, by record, it is looked at as him walking into a stacked team. When 50% of the starters in 2019 were players drafted by him, he's still knocked as a shitty GM whose drafts are overrated.
If his record is what it is, then it should go both ways.
You are getting shit for all kinds of directions and different people.
I am not calling DG any names...EVER.
I will even give a total pass for year 1.
4-12 was shit.
This is the year, he has money and 2 drafts behind him.
He is on his second coach.
I want to give him the whole year in 2020.
Everyone needs to be able to agree the arrow is pointing up. It needs to be obvious to all.
Then, he will get credit. I can't give him credit for anything right now. It is too much suck for me. Sundays have not been fun AT ALL!
When it is pointed out he's the most successful GM in Panthers history, by record, it is looked at as him walking into a stacked team. When 50% of the starters in 2019 were players drafted by him, he's still knocked as a shitty GM whose drafts are overrated.
If his record is what it is, then it should go both ways.
I'm still not seeing how it's mutually exclusive.
When given a solid roster, DG showed a very good ability add to that foundation and manage a successful program, though it's absolutely worth noting that he left that job due to what he perceived as a lack of autonomy.
When given a roster that was much weaker and presumably required a lot more work, DG admitted to doing a poor job of assessing the roster when he took over, and has made several missteps in the gut job that he then undertook in reshaping the roster.
And, as with any other job in any other industry, it's entirely possible that the struggles at a subsequent job after previous success at a different job help illustrate the variances that can be prevalent - sometimes it's environmental, and sometimes it's that the individual wasn't as good as their prior success indicated, or vice versa, that their subsequent struggles might not be entirely their fault.
But overall, there's this - if we're supposed to give DG full credit for 15-1, then aren't you inherently saying that the results of his third season with a team is entirely a reflection of the job he's doing there? So no more excuses after this year?
And while things can be mutually exclusive, the assumption is that a "good GM" or a non-terrible GM would be posting better results or would have built the team up already. I would vehemently disagree with that.
We went an entire stretch of drafts that yielded few starters. Compare that to Gettleman and the Panthers where even this past season, half of the team's starters were guys he drafted. Reese ended up having a couple of drafts that were barren of starting players 3 years later.
I still think many people here dismiss or underestimate the massive job it is to turn around 8 years of sub-par drafts.
And full disclosure: I am not a Gettleman naysayer on this site.
Isn't it just possible that Gettleman -- considering where the team was when he took over, plus his free agents, plus his Drafts -- deserves a middling grade with the caveat that his final grade cannot be rendered until at least the end of the 2020 season (if not beyond)?
2011 - Only one player still active in the league
Price A.
2012 - Every player out of football
2013 - Pugh, Hankins and Da Monster only players still active. None with the giants
2014 - Beckham, Richburg and Kennard the only players in the league. None with the Giants
2015 - Flowers, Collins and Hart still in the league. None with the Giants
2016 - Apple, Shepard, Goodson and Thompson players still in the league
Shepard is the lone giant on the roster from the 2011-2016 drfats
And while things can be mutually exclusive, the assumption is that a "good GM" or a non-terrible GM would be posting better results or would have built the team up already. I would vehemently disagree with that.
We went an entire stretch of drafts that yielded few starters. Compare that to Gettleman and the Panthers where even this past season, half of the team's starters were guys he drafted. Reese ended up having a couple of drafts that were barren of starting players 3 years later.
I still think many people here dismiss or underestimate the massive job it is to turn around 8 years of sub-par drafts.
This is significant. And is good reason that DG deserves some latitude.
And while things can be mutually exclusive, the assumption is that a "good GM" or a non-terrible GM would be posting better results or would have built the team up already. I would vehemently disagree with that.
We went an entire stretch of drafts that yielded few starters. Compare that to Gettleman and the Panthers where even this past season, half of the team's starters were guys he drafted. Reese ended up having a couple of drafts that were barren of starting players 3 years later.
I still think many people here dismiss or underestimate the massive job it is to turn around 8 years of sub-par drafts.
Reese was canned for those drafts, and for good reason. While at the same time, Gettleman traded talent on the roster for picks and cap space, which he proceeded to do very little with.
Reese was a good GM for a stretch, then fell off and deserved his firing. Thus far, Gettleman's record in FA is poor, and his drafting really hasn't been much better despite the players being 'starters' on a bad team. At this point, all you can do with Gettleman is hope that his players turn out better than they've showed thus far.
The early returns are good for all of the first round picks except Baker. And he really hasn't had outright flops. We even got production from a late-round LB.
Again - he's been gone from Carolina and this past season half of their starters were his draftees. I'm not sure we could say that for Reese's picks at any time during or after his tenure, but I haven't looked at that in detail.
Considering that Carolina sucked, I'm not sure that's the endorsement you think it is.
They're promising. I really like Jones, Lawrence, and Slayton. I need to see Hernandez and Jones take the next step to think he's done a good job drafting.
The early returns are good for all of the first round picks except Baker. And he really hasn't had outright flops. We even got production from a late-round LB.
Again - he's been gone from Carolina and this past season half of their starters were his draftees. I'm not sure we could say that for Reese's picks at any time during or after his tenure, but I haven't looked at that in detail.
I would have to think you're referring to a select choice of drafts - because the one guy built teams that won two championships. The other joined a team and contributed to a SB appearance (and loss).
Reese had sustained success despite a littany of injuries to players drafted, having to navigate around a championship (which normally results in a down period because of the cap implications of winning) and never really having a very high draft pick.
In two years, Gettleman has drafted 2nd and 6th overall. He moved a player for several other players in return. He willfully ripped apart a team that was a year removed from a playoff appearance, and rebuilt it with practically the same holes in place (his pleas to win the game at the LOS went nowhere, with no pass rushers and an offensive line that was every bit as bad as his predecessor).
His record in free agency has been abysmal. His one FA pick would be a guy that everyone who likes to bash Bettcher would have to credit him for (Golden). One player was so bad he ended up making $180k per yard rushed, another so bad he didn't make it out of the season (Omameh).
I don't think he was terrible in Carolina, but his record there doesn't inspire much confidence. If the best you can do is compare to the last few years of Reese's tenure, where he was performing at a level that justified firing him, I'm not sure you're doing him any favors.
Quote:
You know, then think he said he'd improve the day he was hired? Here are all the guys he could have taken either instead of Baker at #30 or at #37 and kept the 4th and 5th round picks.
Kaleb McGary OT #31
Jawan Taylor OT #35 (NFL, PFF All-Rookie)
Greg Little OT#37
Cody Ford OT#38
Dalton Risner OT#41 (NFL, PFF All-Rookie)
Elgton Jenkins C#44 (NFL PFF All-Rookie)
Erik McCoy C#48 (NFL, PFF All-Rookie)
It wasn't a mystery that we sucked at OT and C in 2018. Anyone one of they guys would have been a better pick than Baker, especially considering Gettlemen's plan to continue to draft CBs in 2019 (and Beal, who cost a high 3rd rounder in the 2019 draft).
Maybe you don’t remember that our starting tackles were Ereck Flowers and Bobby Hart when he got here, Pugh, and Jerry Jones at guard.
Btw, McGary looked terrible for Atlanta and he’s being moved to Guard, Taylor was ok, little and Ford were not plus starters in their first year. Jenkins and McCoy are studs. But who would’ve played CB for us? Beal?? Ballentine?? Would I take McCoy or Jenkins over Baker? Yes. The rest of them, I personally wouldn’t but what do I know
Yeah, no shit or OL was garbage when Gettleman got here. That's why he should have used more than 2 picks (one a 7th rounder) on OL in the past two years. Instead of half our 2019 draft on CBs.
Some of you are so quick to defend Gettleman that you don't even know what you are arguing.
What's the overall percentage of drafted players still in the league 5-9 years later? I'd bet really low. What's the average number of starters per team-draft who are in the league 5 years? I'd bet really low.
Gettleman dumped a lot of players Reese acquired who are still in the NFL. Many were knuckleheads, and that's fair.
It was Gettleman's right to purge the roster. Another option was keep more players and hire better coaching to get better output.
Also, many of these judgements are too early to slot from 0 ( failure) to 100 (home run)
Both kinds of fallacies are being used to give credit to DG and to condemn DG.
Feelings pulling in scraps.
What's the overall percentage of drafted players still in the league 5-9 years later? I'd bet really low. What's the average number of starters per team-draft who are in the league 5 years? I'd bet really low.
Gettleman dumped a lot of players Reese acquired who are still in the NFL. Many were knuckleheads, and that's fair.
It was Gettleman's right to purge the roster. Another option was keep more players and hire better coaching to get better output.
I stumbled across this guy looking for data. This is data from 2015 about how many 5 year starters teams could expect from that draft. Answer - not many
https://nationalfootballpost.com/draft-expectations-by-nfl-team/
https://nationalfootballpost.com/breaking-down-the-nfl-draft/
Quote:
I've never seen good numbers, and you can certainly find anecdotal examples, but I'd be curious on real data around draft + career expectancy.
What's the overall percentage of drafted players still in the league 5-9 years later? I'd bet really low. What's the average number of starters per team-draft who are in the league 5 years? I'd bet really low.
Gettleman dumped a lot of players Reese acquired who are still in the NFL. Many were knuckleheads, and that's fair.
It was Gettleman's right to purge the roster. Another option was keep more players and hire better coaching to get better output.
I stumbled across this guy looking for data. This is data from 2015 about how many 5 year starters teams could expect from that draft. Answer - not many
https://nationalfootballpost.com/draft-expectations-by-nfl-team/
So is all your internet data from 2015?
Also, many of these judgements are too early to slot from 0 ( failure) to 100 (home run)
Both kinds of fallacies are being used to give credit to DG and to condemn DG.
Feelings pulling in scraps.
Uh huh. Anything actually to subscribe to yet or not?
I'm all for blaming 2015 on -- but it's a more complex when those drafts produced 3 or more career NFL players.
Giants were also firing a lot of coaches during that stretch, hmmm?
Quote:
How can you blame DG for the record his first season here? He just joined in the offseason. Things don't change that fast.
You've got a point there - the second season was such a drastic improvement.
Hey look you want to take the stance that one should never ever ever give a regime or GM more than two years of tenure before sacking them? Before condemning them as total abject failures? Ok. But you’re going to hear about the dozens and dozens of instances where teams were rewarded after sticking with a losing regime. I mean the very GM who just got inducted into canton, George young, regressed in year 2. Yet we’re crazy for even whispering a cautious defense about DG??? All of you, gimme a break. Don’t act like its never fucking happened.
He’s gone if you’re making the decisions back then. Gone. Poof! See ya! Who’s next on the docket ?
Ill also use this as my weekly excuse to remind everyone that accorsi was coming off a 6-22 two year run heading into the 2005 season.
Honestly I’m surprised at how much attention and scrutiny the GM even gets around here lately. Every move every dollar spent leads to a referendum around here on the GM. Now we’re combing through the wins losses record and dying the fire the GM ? GMs aren’t coaches. They are held to different standards and timelines. It’s apples and oranges. You can bring in talent and improve things and not see those improvements manifest into wins right away.
He’s gone if you’re making the decisions back then. Gone. Poof! See ya! Who’s next on the docket ?
Ill also use this as my weekly excuse to remind everyone that accorsi was coming off a 6-22 two year run heading into the 2005 season.
Honestly I’m surprised at how much attention and scrutiny the GM even gets around here lately. Every move every dollar spent leads to a referendum around here on the GM. Now we’re combing through the wins losses record and dying the fire the GM ? GMs aren’t coaches. They are held to different standards and timelines. It’s apples and oranges. You can bring in talent and improve things and not see those improvements manifest into wins right away.
GY is irrelevant - that was pre-cap era.
Accorsi was a meh GM on balance, that was made to look better by Eli and Coughlin.
I'm sorry that you're not willing to accept that the finances are a very real part of success in the current NFL.
We needed to start somewhere and hopefully the last 2 drafts are just that.
We needed to start somewhere and hopefully the last 2 drafts are just that.
It's the response to the equally as useless point that DG drafted X starters. Draft picks starting on a good team would be a testament to your scouting ability. Being a starter who isn't any good on a shit team shouldn't count for anything.
Quote:
in a thread discussing a good draft is fucking useless. It’s as if teams with good records don’t have good drafts. So I really don’t know what the point is.
We needed to start somewhere and hopefully the last 2 drafts are just that.
It's the response to the equally as useless point that DG drafted X starters. Draft picks starting on a good team would be a testament to your scouting ability. Being a starter who isn't any good on a shit team shouldn't count for anything.
Ehh, Jones, Barkley, Lawrence can start on any team in the league (obviously not teams that don’t need a QB). Then you have the next tier of guys like Slayton and Hernandez that probably start for a lot of teams. Then you have the next few who, with better coaching probably have solid starter upside as well. There’s infinitely more talent that was drafted the last 2 years than in the 5 or so prior, IMO.
Point is any thread that looks at any shred of positivity is struck down by people who have nothing better to do but flex their internet muscles. I can’t believe how much time is spent looking at the glass half empty all the time but here we are.
We know what are record is. We know we stunk. None of us can do anything about it so why act like what you say matters at all? If you don’t want to talk about promising rookies then maybe move on with your day?
I counted 15 players who won starting jobs here beyond an injury fill in - and that number includes guys who were poor starters like Bobby Hart, Ereck Flowers, Reuben Randle, and Darian Thompson. The most starters from any single draft were 3 in 2014 with OBJ, Richburg, and Kennard.
The last 2 drafts are certainly still early to evaluate, but the numbers are pretty simple - 17 players have been drafted and 13 have gotten starts, 1 made a pro bowl (Saquon). Lauletta the only one no longer in the org.
2018 draft had 2 guys who have started every game they've been healthy for, and 2 guys who have started more than 10 games each who still have a shot (Carter/Hill). At a minimum that draft class has already performed as well as the best draft class in the 6 years prior.
The 2019 draft class is pacing even better so far with 5 guys having won starting roles in their rookie year - Jones, Slayton, Lawrence, Connelly, Baker and a few others who got an opportunity later in the year and looked good like Love.
2011 - Only one player still active in the league
Price A.
2012 - Every player out of football
2013 - Pugh, Hankins and Da Monster only players still active. None with the giants
2014 - Beckham, Richburg and Kennard the only players in the league. None with the Giants
2015 - Flowers, Collins and Hart still in the league. None with the Giants
2016 - Apple, Shepard, Goodson and Thompson players still in the league
Shepard is the lone giant on the roster from the 2011-2016 drfats
To put this in context during the same time Dallas has 14 players, Philadelphia 10, and Washington 3.
Quote:
in a thread discussing a good draft is fucking useless. It’s as if teams with good records don’t have good drafts. So I really don’t know what the point is.
We needed to start somewhere and hopefully the last 2 drafts are just that.
It's the response to the equally as useless point that DG drafted X starters. Draft picks starting on a good team would be a testament to your scouting ability. Being a starter who isn't any good on a shit team shouldn't count for anything.
To put it in context, you were the one discussing how Gettleman really hasn't drafted well. Not sure where the evidence is to back that up. In Carolina, he's been departed and 11 starters are among his draftees. Here, his initial record is still much better than Reese's.
The response is more to show that not everything Gettleman touches is shit. And I know many are banging the Carolina is shit drum - well, they were 5-3 last season before injuries derailed their season.
Go for it though.
Going back to 2011 as a measuring stick of the current roster gets a little fuzzy when you consider the statistical likelihood any player will still be in the league.
I'd argue 5 drafts back is a fair measure, and Reese's last 3 drafts were not good. Missing on 2 straight 1st round picks at critical positions of need haunts this team.
That said, if this is about tallying up the number of draft picks over a period, there are many Reese players going back to 2011 still in the league that Gettleman moved away from, and just in terms of football, many of them are better than their replacements.
This thread had a pretty simple subject that got derailed for some strange reason. Would be nice to talk about how the news guys will/could be a focal point moving forward.
Here come all the debates why that is subjective as well, wait for it —
Seems you think you have such a superior way to think about this that you can scorn other perspectives and posters
That would be quite a contribution to NFL owners. Im all ears
You got the platform. Regal us with your wisdom
This thread had a pretty simple subject that got derailed for some strange reason. Would be nice to talk about how the news guys will/could be a focal point moving forward.
It's not a stretch if the mistakes of the past are being repeated in the present.
The debate as to whether Gettleman is doing a good job or not and whether he deserved a third year has far too many twists and turns. Mostly because the disarray this franchise was really in when he arrived.
His biggest miss is really how the hell he didn’t see it.
Im in favor of an admin GM with a role on a more balanced input from coaches/scouting. I didn't think McAdoo's staff or Shurmur's were good inouts to talent acquisition or development or motivation.
Absent other strong inputs all GMs are vulnerable to decisions that don't work out. imo
I am yet to see who is better. And Id rather go the route the Giants did which is to get new talent in close to the ground ( coaches) and promote those to greater voices while moving to a coaching staff heavy evaluation process and an admin support role (on balance) for any GM
But to me, meanwhile, universal condemnation applied to all DG choices and situations before and after they are made and proven out gets in the way of good thinking and good discussion.
As I've spelled out in several other threads, not factoring in positional value when making picks. CB's and RB's over OT's, for example. 2011, 2012, 2016, and again in 2018 and 2019.
I can only assume some combination of illness and need to see if new coaching was a factor on a team that stopped playing for its prior coach...or the preferred initial path of the owners ( All Gms take blame for owner mistakes...its the job) led to that assessment
Because to me, and I think almost everyone on here - a total cleanout and turnaround was needed.
A big investment on the OL I don't get upset about because that's needed almost before a new QB. But that's about it
Quote:
and the 2 drafts turn out to be no worse than solid, what mistakes are you talking about?
As I've spelled out in several other threads, not factoring in positional value when making picks. CB's and RB's over OT's, for example. 2011, 2012, 2016, and again in 2018 and 2019.
Well that’s just your opinion that positional value wasn’t taken into account. It’s really quite possible, and likely, that he’s aware of positional value and felt that the player/s were too good and trumped it. You may not agree with it, which is also fine.
Outside of a trade down OT wasn’t in the cards at 6 in 2019 and we got the QB there anyway. We will see how Dillard and Howard net out in the back half of the 1st round but Lawrence is already very good, one of the top rookies. Baker? Just his out, we have to wait and see.
2018? Not going to rehash it. We took Barkley and there was no OT worth taking at 2. So then we go to the trade down argument again which to me is pointless.
In 2011 and 2012 we took Prince at 19 who while not great had a very solid career. Wilson was the last pick in the round and then got injured. Point being if we nail our 2018 and 2019 top picks, that can turn into 3 very good players (plus whatever Baker turns into) it’s already a light years better return on investment.
He has made both good, bad and indifferent choices for certain while our GM. However, his bad ones have been whoppers in my view, starting with his miscalc of the team from the start. I don’t have to go into the others but will if needed.
Both sides, interconnected and interdependent.
With 3 straight coaches fired, hard to ignore output has been a major contributor to the losing and the under-performance of the draft classes.
On 5 and 4 win teams, it's going to take a lot more than lots of snaps and starts to getting excited about the drafting. It's going to take some winning and development.
Quote:
at this record of drafts - it yielded such a poor roster construction:
2011 - Only one player still active in the league
Price A.
2012 - Every player out of football
2013 - Pugh, Hankins and Da Monster only players still active. None with the giants
2014 - Beckham, Richburg and Kennard the only players in the league. None with the Giants
2015 - Flowers, Collins and Hart still in the league. None with the Giants
2016 - Apple, Shepard, Goodson and Thompson players still in the league
Shepard is the lone giant on the roster from the 2011-2016 drfats
To put this in context during the same time Dallas has 14 players, Philadelphia 10, and Washington 3.
Do you mean across they have 14 players across the league or on their roster from those drafts?
Love it - good read...thank you.
3 years is the floor to evaluate coaches, general management, and draft classes.
3 years is the floor to evaluate coaches, general management, and draft classes.
I remember being stoked about Richburg and Pugh for awhile. I thought they were going to be great.
Maybe I'm a little gun shy now, but I remember being higher on Pugh/Richburg at this stage of their careers than I am on Hernandez. If Hernandez is a hit, I do think that draft comes out really good.
Quote:
In comment 14809434 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
and the 2 drafts turn out to be no worse than solid, what mistakes are you talking about?
As I've spelled out in several other threads, not factoring in positional value when making picks. CB's and RB's over OT's, for example. 2011, 2012, 2016, and again in 2018 and 2019.
Well that’s just your opinion that positional value wasn’t taken into account. It’s really quite possible, and likely, that he’s aware of positional value and felt that the player/s were too good and trumped it. You may not agree with it, which is also fine.
Outside of a trade down OT wasn’t in the cards at 6 in 2019 and we got the QB there anyway. We will see how Dillard and Howard net out in the back half of the 1st round but Lawrence is already very good, one of the top rookies. Baker? Just his out, we have to wait and see.
QB's have the highest positional value. As I've said before, if you feel he's the guy, you don't wait...you take him when you can. I like Lawrence, but I probably would have drafted Dillard there. Baker instead of Jawaan Taylor was a huge mistake, in my view, especially in light of what it cost to trade up for him.
Although I was firmly in the Bradley Chubb camp, I would have been fine with Nelson (an OG, admittedly), or Mike McGlinchey, who went at #8. Just the fact that we didn't trade down, and then took a RB at #2 was enough of a head-scratcher to me.
You left out 2016 when, if the Giants were scared off by Tunsil's video, they still had the chance to draft Taylor Decker. But, no...they went with the CB, again.
Anthony Castonzo has had a very solid career, too, and he's also played 20 games more than Amukamara over the same time span. Maybe if we'd drafted him, we don't reach for P-Rex two years later. Wilson is a memory. Meanwhile Cordy Glenn has been a rock for the Bills.
Point being, let's stop trying to build a team from the outside in, with skill players instead of trench players, and solve the problems that Gettleman identified when he was hired, but doesn't seem to prioritize in the draft.
Both sides, interconnected and interdependent.
With 3 straight coaches fired, hard to ignore output has been a major contributor to the losing and the under-performance of the draft classes.
On 5 and 4 win teams, it's going to take a lot more than lots of snaps and starts to getting excited about the drafting. It's going to take some winning and development.
Good post and very fair.
The Giants have absolutely been out-coached for years and I am not talking about how they managed timeouts or whether to go for it on 4th down. Simply put, the guys in blue were not as ready to play when the season started as their counterparts.
I actually do believe DG wants to upgrade at Tackle. Solder not playing well and the value not really being there at several points in the draft have gotten us where they are.
So now comes pick 4. Will it be an OT (is one worth taking at 4?) or it will be a CB or Edge? Don’t know but I’m not taking OT just because we need one still. Looking forward to the combine.
but its easier to find players when you have a huge shortage of talent. And even with that relative strong draft the Giants still sucked.
The needs remain huge if management can repeat 2019 a couple times, then we may have something, but has the talent a competition improves, it becomes alot harder.
3 years is the floor to evaluate coaches, general management, and draft classes.
Agreed, and been saying that for a while. Three years has been the rule of thumb for just about everything in football for as long as I can remember. Three years to assess draft classes, three years to see what you've really got in a QB, three years to truly implement a coach's full system/philosophy, etc....
Three years. Yet, the pitchforks have been out for Gettleman since his first draft before the team he took over even took the field for the first time.
I see a lot of people say that he mishandled the rebuild and didn't properly assess the team. I think this is subjective. With a savvy draft and veteran acquisition in free agency, and some lucky bounces here and there, teams do in fact go from worst to first every year. Even crappy ones. That's parity. When Gettleman got here, he had a 36 year old franchise QB that he took a chance on putting one more team around to see what would happen. I just can't blame him for that. You don't walk away from franchise QB's. If they truly are the most important position on the field, then when you've got one you ride him. Manning was 36 with two years left on his deal and had shown the ability to make all of the throws. It didn't work out. That's the story. He took a shot, and it didn't work out.
What I commend Gettleman for, was not waiting until the season was over to clean house. He tinkered with the roster to see what he had, it didn't work out, and then the gutting process began. Saying those 8 games or so of trying to win around Eli set the franchise back immensely is a big time overreaction. We probably wouldn't be in much different of a position right now roster wise had we cut Eli as soon as Gettleman got here. There is a chance it could be better, but there is also a chance it could be worse. There is also a chance it would be the exact same. We just don't know.
In a redraft of 2018 and 2019, you take Quinton Nelson and... Josh Allen? Build from the trenches approach. So now you don't have Barkley or Jones. Is this team/roster any better the past two years because of those two players? Hard to say.
Now it's up to the coaches to get the best out of the young group.
Three years, with the resources expended, and 2 regimes. After next year it's a fair time to judge Gettleman.
3 years is the floor to evaluate coaches, general management, and draft classes.
Couldn’t agree more, but rarely on this board
Three years, with the resources expended, and 2 regimes. After next year it's a fair time to judge Gettleman.
Criticism is absolutely deserved. My real point in even jumping in on here was that posting our record just to be a dick and then leaving the thread adds nothing of value.
Certain people often post “wake me up when we are winning”. That’s fine, then just go to sleep until then so the rest of us can talk about some of the promising young players we have.
DG misjudging the 2018 roster was a huge flaw to me. I would have fired him this off-season, but you have to give him two years with Judge IMO, even if that means he takes a backseat and the HC gets more power.
DG misjudging the 2018 roster was a huge flaw to me. I would have fired him this off-season, but you have to give him two years with Judge IMO, even if that means he takes a backseat and the HC gets more power.
Huh? It's possible to do. Not everybody does it, or can do it. But it happens. Gettleman tried to do it, but couldn't. The roster was just too bad, so he cut bait. I don't view trying as a fireable offense.
When it comes to QB's, however, I don't have any issue with the Giants picking Daniel Jones at #6. QB's are a whole different story, and if you believe a guy has what it takes to be a franchise QB, you don't wait, you don't try to get cute, you draft him ASAP.
That was a very unlikable team. Maybe the most unlikable team I can ever remember the Giants fielding. Once Coughlin was gone, the lockerroom disentigrated.
Quote:
If teams go from worst to first and the Giants haven't, wouldn't that mean DG has done a bad job?
DG misjudging the 2018 roster was a huge flaw to me. I would have fired him this off-season, but you have to give him two years with Judge IMO, even if that means he takes a backseat and the HC gets more power.
Huh? It's possible to do. Not everybody does it, or can do it. But it happens. Gettleman tried to do it, but couldn't. The roster was just too bad, so he cut bait. I don't view trying as a fireable offense.
Not realizing the roster was so bad and then trying to compete sends up massive red flags. Subsequent moves have reinforced those red flags to me.
I would have fired him this past off-season. But he's still around, so I'm hoping he gets it turned around.
That’s not subjective whatsoever.
When it comes to QB's, however, I don't have any issue with the Giants picking Daniel Jones at #6. QB's are a whole different story, and if you believe a guy has what it takes to be a franchise QB, you don't wait, you don't try to get cute, you draft him ASAP.
Disagree on the first part. Agree on the second.
Barkley graded out as high as Peyton Manning according to Gettleman. He didn't like the QB's. That's been acknowledged. You have to have a partner to trade down, so let's not even argue that point because we just don't know. Barkley was viewed as the best player in the entire draft.
I'm sorry, I just can't rip the guy for taking the consensus best player in the draft. He won rookie of the year. He had 2000 yards from scrimmage and 15 TD's. I'm not going to get caught up in position value. Would this team be any different today with Chubb or Nelson than Barkley? How many more wins would that have produced?
So 3 years is the rule of thumb to show improvement but he gets canned in 3 years +1 day without doing so?
I actually do believe DG wants to upgrade at Tackle. Solder not playing well and the value not really being there at several points in the draft have gotten us where they are.
So now comes pick 4. Will it be an OT (is one worth taking at 4?) or it will be a CB or Edge? Don’t know but I’m not taking OT just because we need one still. Looking forward to the combine.
Well, we should take at least one OT because we absolutely do need them. Whether it should be done at #4 is the question.
DG needs options and trading back is the way to obtain them.
Quote:
Please don't compare drafting Saquon Barkley with drafting Daniel Jones. A team that can't rush the passer or protect their relatively immobile QB has no business drafting a RB with the second pick of the draft, especially when they pass up players who could help on either side of the trench. They just don't. Not crazy about any of the available QB's? Okay, fine. I wasn't, either. So try and trade the pick, or, failing that, take the DE or OG, not the RB, "hand of God notwithstanding." In today's NFL that makes absolutely no sense.
When it comes to QB's, however, I don't have any issue with the Giants picking Daniel Jones at #6. QB's are a whole different story, and if you believe a guy has what it takes to be a franchise QB, you don't wait, you don't try to get cute, you draft him ASAP.
Disagree on the first part. Agree on the second.
Barkley graded out as high as Peyton Manning according to Gettleman. He didn't like the QB's. That's been acknowledged. You have to have a partner to trade down, so let's not even argue that point because we just don't know. Barkley was viewed as the best player in the entire draft.
I'm sorry, I just can't rip the guy for taking the consensus best player in the draft. He won rookie of the year. He had 2000 yards from scrimmage and 15 TD's. I'm not going to get caught up in position value. Would this team be any different today with Chubb or Nelson than Barkley? How many more wins would that have produced?
I don't know if they would have produced more wins in 2018, but I do believe they would have given us a stronger foundation moving forward.
But ignoring positional value is like ignoring MPG when discussing which car to buy.
This is the make or break year for DG but either way it goes the organization has more young talent on first contracts than it did when he got here by a long shot. So at least there's that.
Quote:
In comment 14809509 Klaatu said:
Quote:
Please don't compare drafting Saquon Barkley with drafting Daniel Jones. A team that can't rush the passer or protect their relatively immobile QB has no business drafting a RB with the second pick of the draft, especially when they pass up players who could help on either side of the trench. They just don't. Not crazy about any of the available QB's? Okay, fine. I wasn't, either. So try and trade the pick, or, failing that, take the DE or OG, not the RB, "hand of God notwithstanding." In today's NFL that makes absolutely no sense.
When it comes to QB's, however, I don't have any issue with the Giants picking Daniel Jones at #6. QB's are a whole different story, and if you believe a guy has what it takes to be a franchise QB, you don't wait, you don't try to get cute, you draft him ASAP.
Disagree on the first part. Agree on the second.
Barkley graded out as high as Peyton Manning according to Gettleman. He didn't like the QB's. That's been acknowledged. You have to have a partner to trade down, so let's not even argue that point because we just don't know. Barkley was viewed as the best player in the entire draft.
I'm sorry, I just can't rip the guy for taking the consensus best player in the draft. He won rookie of the year. He had 2000 yards from scrimmage and 15 TD's. I'm not going to get caught up in position value. Would this team be any different today with Chubb or Nelson than Barkley? How many more wins would that have produced?
I don't know if they would have produced more wins in 2018, but I do believe they would have given us a stronger foundation moving forward.
But ignoring positional value is like ignoring MPG when discussing which car to buy.
Some players transcend positional value. If you have a shot at an great player, or a player you believe to be head and shoulders above the rest, you should take it.
The positional comments are made oftentimes because those posters wanted to rebuild the lines - and that's a fair wish. However, what if you overdraft a lineman and he flops? See Flowers. See picks made by other teams where OL or DE's went high and were busts or poor players.
I still can't believe the amount of backlash for picking Barkley - especially since he's a good player. Would people have felt better if we picked Chubb and he was injured for the entire year? Would people have been happy if we picked a T and he was like Flowers? Especially if Barkley is ripping it up elsewhere?
I think we know the answers there.
I think we know the answer to that, too.
And what happens to the players after they are drafted is not relevant as to this topic.
I also think too much is made of the Barkley pick (although I wish we went in a different direction as well) - if Hernandez was a stud and Solder wasn't a flop, I think we'd be having a different discussion.
And what happens to the players after they are drafted is not relevant as to this topic.
This has been addressed numerous times in the thread. One can weigh that a RB at #2 is a risky pick, but still trust the evaluation that the player is close to being a sure thing.
By the standard of positional value often taken here, under no circumstance would a RB picked high in the draft be acceptable. Dealing in absolutes is as bad as the perceived ignoring of positional value.
Picking a sure thing RB at #2 for a team that needs to be reconstructured almost everywhere was a waste.
But there's also quite a bit of oxygen suck from the other side that ignores there stands a chance there were better alternatives.
Not unequivocal, but certainly defensible and debatable factors:
- Externalities understood, the Giants have been an average to below average rushing team the last 2 years
- The Giants have been a 5 and 4 win team
- The Giants have been a bad blocking team
- There is a major supply problem for good, forget about elite O-lineman
- There was an O-lineman available who projected to be elite, and ended up being so
- If Barkley trends like Zek and Gurley, he will demand a lucrative extension after 3 years
- Typically good lineman stay good longer than good running backs
Unfortunately, it’s not what the Giants needed to do back in May 2018.
He did miss badly in FA and admitted to it.
I also believe he misjudged how far away the Giants actually were which is why he drafted Barkley as opposed to trying to trade down or amass picks.
DG seemed to acknowledge some of those faults and hopefully he has put mechanisms in place to correct.
Overall, I think it's fair to give him an average grade at best and recognize that he seems to have done his best job in the draft.
I don't think you can argue the talent level of the Barkley pick, but as others alluded to, misjudging the roster and whether that pick was the correct one for the long term health of the team is certainly up for debate.
His FA signings this year will be scrutinized this year, as they should be, but I choose to believe he has learned from his mistakes and will adjust accordingly.
If not, he's all but gone after this year.
The positional comments are made oftentimes because those posters wanted to rebuild the lines - and that's a fair wish. However, what if you overdraft a lineman and he flops? See Flowers. See picks made by other teams where OL or DE's went high and were busts or poor players.
I still can't believe the amount of backlash for picking Barkley - especially since he's a good player. Would people have felt better if we picked Chubb and he was injured for the entire year? Would people have been happy if we picked a T and he was like Flowers? Especially if Barkley is ripping it up elsewhere?
I think we know the answers there.
That said. Barkley is no obstacle to winning. He is the best kind of leader. He puts in the work, has a team first mentality. I would like to see the team actually use him, design an offense around him that runs the ball often and gets it to him in space. It feels like we are wasting his rookie deal.
I love Barkley the player.
I've agreed that Barkley wasn't the best pick for a team that is rebuilding, but I really don't see that we would be demonstrably better with an edge rusher or Darnold and a hole at RB.
I'd have preferred a tradedown to get OL, but the right players have to be taken. Put Nelson on this team and I don't think the W/L totals are changed. Put Chubb here and the same - plus, we would've gone into last year still needing a QB.
To me, the most critical decision that was mishandled by the organization was Eli. He should have been released when McAdoo and Reese were fired. I don't think that's solely Gettleman's call though - so holding him responsible for it is tough.
The question of whether the Giants would have had more wins versus his decisions, imv, is less relevant. The team was in the dregs at beginning of 2018 and better decisions then would have absolutely put us further up the restructuring process than where we are today.
Its been two years and they still have so many critical parts of this team that are so underperforming and so undermanned.
Quote:
In comment 14809504 BrettNYG10 said:
Quote:
If teams go from worst to first and the Giants haven't, wouldn't that mean DG has done a bad job?
DG misjudging the 2018 roster was a huge flaw to me. I would have fired him this off-season, but you have to give him two years with Judge IMO, even if that means he takes a backseat and the HC gets more power.
Huh? It's possible to do. Not everybody does it, or can do it. But it happens. Gettleman tried to do it, but couldn't. The roster was just too bad, so he cut bait. I don't view trying as a fireable offense.
Not realizing the roster was so bad and then trying to compete sends up massive red flags. Subsequent moves have reinforced those red flags to me.
I would have fired him this past off-season. But he's still around, so I'm hoping he gets it turned around.
Well said Brett. I definitely believe he should've been fired this past off-season. If a GM can't even correctly judge the talent on his current team, how can anyone have any confidence in his ability to rebuild?
I've agreed that Barkley wasn't the best pick for a team that is rebuilding, but I really don't see that we would be demonstrably better with an edge rusher or Darnold and a hole at RB.
I'd have preferred a tradedown to get OL, but the right players have to be taken. Put Nelson on this team and I don't think the W/L totals are changed. Put Chubb here and the same - plus, we would've gone into last year still needing a QB.
To me, the most critical decision that was mishandled by the organization was Eli. He should have been released when McAdoo and Reese were fired. I don't think that's solely Gettleman's call though - so holding him responsible for it is tough.
How bout rather Giants started a rookie this year affects the record? Maybe that had something to do w it as well? Just like Jimmy G missing th3 season. You forgot to mention that.
Quote:
In comment 14809112 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
at this record of drafts - it yielded such a poor roster construction:
2011 - Only one player still active in the league
Price A.
2012 - Every player out of football
2013 - Pugh, Hankins and Da Monster only players still active. None with the giants
2014 - Beckham, Richburg and Kennard the only players in the league. None with the Giants
2015 - Flowers, Collins and Hart still in the league. None with the Giants
2016 - Apple, Shepard, Goodson and Thompson players still in the league
Shepard is the lone giant on the roster from the 2011-2016 drfats
To put this in context during the same time Dallas has 14 players, Philadelphia 10, and Washington 3.
Do you mean across they have 14 players across the league or on their roster from those drafts?
Dallas had 14 players on their roster last year that were drafted between 2011 and 2016. There were another 10 that were playing on other teams.
Quote:
In comment 14809352 fanatic II said:
Quote:
In comment 14809112 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
at this record of drafts - it yielded such a poor roster construction:
2011 - Only one player still active in the league
Price A.
2012 - Every player out of football
2013 - Pugh, Hankins and Da Monster only players still active. None with the giants
2014 - Beckham, Richburg and Kennard the only players in the league. None with the Giants
2015 - Flowers, Collins and Hart still in the league. None with the Giants
2016 - Apple, Shepard, Goodson and Thompson players still in the league
Shepard is the lone giant on the roster from the 2011-2016 drfats
To put this in context during the same time Dallas has 14 players, Philadelphia 10, and Washington 3.
Do you mean across they have 14 players across the league or on their roster from those drafts?
Dallas had 14 players on their roster last year that were drafted between 2011 and 2016. There were another 10 that were playing on other teams.
Nice job here.
As to those stats, that is a big "wow!". As bad as the Giants were, Dallas has to be at the top of the charts I would guess. That is some good talent evaluation.
Quote:
In comment 14809352 fanatic II said:
Quote:
In comment 14809112 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
at this record of drafts - it yielded such a poor roster construction:
2011 - Only one player still active in the league
Price A.
2012 - Every player out of football
2013 - Pugh, Hankins and Da Monster only players still active. None with the giants
2014 - Beckham, Richburg and Kennard the only players in the league. None with the Giants
2015 - Flowers, Collins and Hart still in the league. None with the Giants
2016 - Apple, Shepard, Goodson and Thompson players still in the league
Shepard is the lone giant on the roster from the 2011-2016 drfats
To put this in context during the same time Dallas has 14 players, Philadelphia 10, and Washington 3.
Do you mean across they have 14 players across the league or on their roster from those drafts?
Dallas had 14 players on their roster last year that were drafted between 2011 and 2016. There were another 10 that were playing on other teams.
And THAT's why going back to 2011 drafting matters.
It's not a coincidence.
It's not a coincidence.
No one has dismissed Jerry Reese's hand in this.
But being dealt a bad hand isn't a complete excuse for also misplaying that hand. Reese sucked and got fired. And Gettleman came in and spent his first offseason trying to win with the POS roster he was handed. That was a major error.
It's not a coincidence.
This year, the whole year, not 3 or 4 games in. After it is completely over, if it is not obvious the arrow is pointing up, he should be gone. He has made some decisions that are reasonable to question.
By arrowing pointing up I am not saying playoffs. I am saying we just look like a team with a clue. We are no longer an embarrassment, I will get behind DG. I appreciate what the man has gone through personally. I even like his philosophy, big strong men on the lines. Hell fucking yeah. Execute it. I need results. No more excuses.
If you are inherited the roster he was - even if you do things perfectly, it likely is going to take time to turn around. Let's say he comes in, gets rid of eli, purges the team of bad contracts and sucks it up for the first year. All that ensures is that we suck - and you still have to pick a successful QB. You still have to field a team. You still have to try to be competitive. The recent teams who have been accused of tanking aren't like they shoot right up shortly thereafter to being elite. Most of them are still struggling.
The commentary here is slanted so that Gettleman sticking with Eli, signing Solder, trading for Ogletree and trying to be competitive is a fireable offense, when it is very difficult to even put together a plan in hindsight that would have us much more improved in 2019.
Reese did a bad in 15, 16, 17 -- the drafts that statistically should be making the most impact on the team right now. That's the problem.
The only purpose I see getting wrapped around a pole about what happened as far back as 2011 is to bolster the sob story for Gettleman.
Gettleman inherited a flawed roster where the most talented players were knuckleheads, the most recent drafts had brought on 2 grade idiots in the tops rounds, and the roster was top heavy with expensive contracts.
Gettleman was left a difficult task, that's why Reese was fired.
The only purpose I see getting wrapped around a pole about what happened as far back as 2011 is to bolster the sob story for Gettleman.
When pointed out that Gettleman's drafts in Carolina yielded 11 players who were still starters last season (which would be very good in relation to the figures posted for Dallas, Philly and Washington) it is dismissed as the Panthers sucking.
Being wrapped around a pole isn't due to bolstering a sob story, it is because the car crashed on a heaping pile of inconsistency in argumentation
Reese did a bad in 15, 16, 17 -- the drafts that statistically should be making the most impact on the team right now. That's the problem.
The only purpose I see getting wrapped around a pole about what happened as far back as 2011 is to bolster the sob story for Gettleman.
Gettleman inherited a flawed roster where the most talented players were knuckleheads, the most recent drafts had brought on 2 grade idiots in the tops rounds, and the roster was top heavy with expensive contracts.
Gettleman was left a difficult task, that's why Reese was fired.
Wrong. It's not a sob story for Gettleman. It's a sob story for Gilbride, Coughlin, Eli, the franchise.... and understanding how we got here (rock bottom), and the magnitude of getting out of the hole we were left in
Reese rode the core that he inherited into the ground. When it came his term to rebuild his aging core, he waited too long, and then failed pretty miserably at it. People lost jobs. The Giants lost games. And when Gettleman finally did get his hands on it, it was complete sh-t. Reese inherited a championship roster. Gettleman inherited thin paper chumps. So much so that in the first offseason, two thirds of the team had to be turned over. One offseason later, only 1 player remains that Reese drafted. Sterling Sheppard. The sheer magnitude of that turnover in two offseasons tells you exactly what the state of the Giants was that Reese left.
Did we cut Tomlinson and Engram?
We'll see how much longer Tomlinson and Engram are on the roster and whether they get a second contract.
If you are inherited the roster he was - even if you do things perfectly, it likely is going to take time to turn around. Let's say he comes in, gets rid of eli, purges the team of bad contracts and sucks it up for the first year. All that ensures is that we suck - and you still have to pick a successful QB. You still have to field a team. You still have to try to be competitive. The recent teams who have been accused of tanking aren't like they shoot right up shortly thereafter to being elite. Most of them are still struggling.
The commentary here is slanted so that Gettleman sticking with Eli, signing Solder, trading for Ogletree and trying to be competitive is a fireable offense, when it is very difficult to even put together a plan in hindsight that would have us much more improved in 2019.
I thought that if DG did a really good job from day one, they could have competed this season. I think Gettleman's initial errors have delayed that by (at least) a year. And he needs to do a bang-up job to get there - I think the roster is still REALLY weak. A 2-3 year job turned into a 4-5 year one.
IMO.
Quote:
be able to accept that Gettleman has made mistakes without portraying him as incompetent or spew vitriol at him daily.
If you are inherited the roster he was - even if you do things perfectly, it likely is going to take time to turn around. Let's say he comes in, gets rid of eli, purges the team of bad contracts and sucks it up for the first year. All that ensures is that we suck - and you still have to pick a successful QB. You still have to field a team. You still have to try to be competitive. The recent teams who have been accused of tanking aren't like they shoot right up shortly thereafter to being elite. Most of them are still struggling.
The commentary here is slanted so that Gettleman sticking with Eli, signing Solder, trading for Ogletree and trying to be competitive is a fireable offense, when it is very difficult to even put together a plan in hindsight that would have us much more improved in 2019.
I thought that if DG did a really good job from day one, they could have competed this season. I think Gettleman's initial errors have delayed that by (at least) a year. And he needs to do a bang-up job to get there - I think the roster is still REALLY weak. A 2-3 year job turned into a 4-5 year one.
IMO.
That logic doesn't make sense to me.
If Dave Gettleman's single offseason turned a 2-3 year job into a 4-5 year job, what was the job to being with considering the poor choices of the previous 7 offseasons?
Quote:
In comment 14810469 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
be able to accept that Gettleman has made mistakes without portraying him as incompetent or spew vitriol at him daily.
If you are inherited the roster he was - even if you do things perfectly, it likely is going to take time to turn around. Let's say he comes in, gets rid of eli, purges the team of bad contracts and sucks it up for the first year. All that ensures is that we suck - and you still have to pick a successful QB. You still have to field a team. You still have to try to be competitive. The recent teams who have been accused of tanking aren't like they shoot right up shortly thereafter to being elite. Most of them are still struggling.
The commentary here is slanted so that Gettleman sticking with Eli, signing Solder, trading for Ogletree and trying to be competitive is a fireable offense, when it is very difficult to even put together a plan in hindsight that would have us much more improved in 2019.
I thought that if DG did a really good job from day one, they could have competed this season. I think Gettleman's initial errors have delayed that by (at least) a year. And he needs to do a bang-up job to get there - I think the roster is still REALLY weak. A 2-3 year job turned into a 4-5 year one.
IMO.
That logic doesn't make sense to me.
If Dave Gettleman's single offseason turned a 2-3 year job into a 4-5 year job, what was the job to being with considering the poor choices of the previous 7 offseasons?
2-3. That's exactly what his post says.
And the logic doesn't make sense? DG wasted year 1 by getting his roster evaluation completely wrong. That means 2-3 immediately becomes 3-4. Then, because of his misevaluation, he spends year 2 in a self-imposed cap hell to cleanup bad contracts, which resulted in a league-leading amount of dead money (roughly 60% of which was created by contracts DG handed out, not JR), which meant that year 2 was used at least partially to correct the errors of year 1.
So now here we are still at the very early stages of the rebuild. The only bright spot is that we now have our young QB, which is the centerpiece of any successful rebuild. So maybe it's still just 3-4 instead of 2-3?
It's undeniable that it's going to take at least a year longer than it should have because it started a year later than it should have.
But maybe it'll still be 2-3 when we go 10-6 this year on the Gettleman Revenge Tour.
LOL.
- miscalculate the roster
- poorly assess what Eli had left in the tank and
- miss on all of his key free agent signings
His second order of business has been cleaning up the mess he made during the first order of business.
The Giants aren't getting anywhere matching good moves against bad ones. That's what the record has shown these past two years.
I've agreed that Barkley wasn't the best pick for a team that is rebuilding, but I really don't see that we would be demonstrably better with an edge rusher or Darnold and a hole at RB.
I'd have preferred a tradedown to get OL, but the right players have to be taken. Put Nelson on this team and I don't think the W/L totals are changed. Put Chubb here and the same - plus, we would've gone into last year still needing a QB.
Wow... I'm impressed. I mean for 2 years, myself and a others who professed the trade down for OL POV, were raked over the coals by you. But, now you have finally come over this point of view, one that I (and a few others) espoused BEFORE that draft...
All I can say is, welcome to the dark side.
A lot of people wanted a tradedown. A lot of people wanted Darnold. The only QB I was on record as wanting here was Jackson, and even then, I was really leery of the pre-draft crap with his parent stepping in to be an agent.
The difference is - just because the Giants didn't do those things makes them wrong - yet you've clung to the fact that they were dead wrong. And the story always becomes the best possible outcome in these revised tales.
It isn't that Darnold is drafted here, the record is the same, the OL is poor and Barkley is winning Rookie of the Year elsewhere. Those people somehow disappeared.
The story is that we should have traded down and gotten Chubb or Nelson. Or a couple of linemen - yet our record may not be too different and Chubb being out a season isn't going to have people saying the needle is trending upward.
People can't even budge enough off their high horse to give Gettleman credit for drafting a great player.
You voiced an alternate plan. Just like I did. The difference is - two years later you are still droning on about it like a fucking banshee.
A lot of people wanted a tradedown. A lot of people wanted Darnold. The only QB I was on record as wanting here was Jackson, and even then, I was really leery of the pre-draft crap with his parent stepping in to be an agent.
The difference is - just because the Giants didn't do those things makes them wrong - yet you've clung to the fact that they were dead wrong. And the story always becomes the best possible outcome in these revised tales.
It isn't that Darnold is drafted here, the record is the same, the OL is poor and Barkley is winning Rookie of the Year elsewhere. Those people somehow disappeared.
The story is that we should have traded down and gotten Chubb or Nelson. Or a couple of linemen - yet our record may not be too different and Chubb being out a season isn't going to have people saying the needle is trending upward.
People can't even budge enough off their high horse to give Gettleman credit for drafting a great player.
You voiced an alternate plan. Just like I did. The difference is - two years later you are still droning on about it like a fucking banshee.
Here is what you just wrote...
blah blah blah, lotsa nonsense, blah, blah, blah...
Apparently an alternate plan you now, 2 years later agree with. You said it yourself.
Bottom line here, that even if Barkley is a great player, it was not the best use of resources. Apparently you agree with that, since now 2 years later, you would have preferred trading down for some OL... Forget making this about Gettleman, lets make this about you! All your bluster and insults were for nothing, and you now admit that the trade down for OL POV was correct.
???
All I revealed was FMiC's hypocrisy.
He exposes his hypocrisy and, the fact that he has been attacking people just for the sake of attacking them. No other motive, other than being a bully.
Quote:
Reese did a bad in 15, 16, 17 -- the drafts that statistically should be making the most impact on the team right now. That's the problem.
The only purpose I see getting wrapped around a pole about what happened as far back as 2011 is to bolster the sob story for Gettleman.
When pointed out that Gettleman's drafts in Carolina yielded 11 players who were still starters last season (which would be very good in relation to the figures posted for Dallas, Philly and Washington) it is dismissed as the Panthers sucking.
Being wrapped around a pole isn't due to bolstering a sob story, it is because the car crashed on a heaping pile of inconsistency in argumentation
Just so I'm clear -- what's the connection between what Reese did in 2011 and what Gettleman did in Carolina?
He exposes his hypocrisy and, the fact that he has been attacking people just for the sake of attacking them. No other motive, other than being a bully.
What the fuck??
If I express no recognizable opinion, how can I be hypocritical??
Let me put this very simply since you really suck at comprehending points - the Giants doing something different that you, I or any other person on this board wanted doesn't make it wrong. Spending time and crafting numerous posts saying it was wrong - still doesn't make it wrong.
You can't find a post by me that criticizes the idea of a tradedown. What I criticized is the POV that not trading down or selecting Barkley was wrong. That posting page long diatribes about positional value was bullshit. Spending the majority of the past two years not accepting that we picked Barkley, but instead trying to prove the move was incorrect - a point that still hasn't been proven one way or another.
You continue to miss this point - probably because you are too busy trying to convince the board you have one....
Don't really know if need to debate Right vs. Wrong, but if those are choices would probably go with wrong.
Quote:
4-12 in 1980.
He’s gone if you’re making the decisions back then. Gone. Poof! See ya! Who’s next on the docket ?
Ill also use this as my weekly excuse to remind everyone that accorsi was coming off a 6-22 two year run heading into the 2005 season.
Honestly I’m surprised at how much attention and scrutiny the GM even gets around here lately. Every move every dollar spent leads to a referendum around here on the GM. Now we’re combing through the wins losses record and dying the fire the GM ? GMs aren’t coaches. They are held to different standards and timelines. It’s apples and oranges. You can bring in talent and improve things and not see those improvements manifest into wins right away.
GY is irrelevant - that was pre-cap era.
Accorsi was a meh GM on balance, that was made to look better by Eli and Coughlin.
I'm sorry that you're not willing to accept that the finances are a very real part of success in the current NFL.
huh? all you did come up with weak excuses why other sound examples don't hold any water.
sorry, but what I said is 100% true. Want me to find other legendary GMs that struggled for a few years? I will...don't tempt me.
I mean cmon, threads 1000 hits long discussing "the future of Barkley" and talking about a contract that hasn't even happened yet. And why his next contract is doomed to be a mistake. Gimme a break. There's middle ground but not here. Never. Barkley was a stupid pick, just because I say so or because of some made up myth that has been echoed all over because it's fun and easy and seems sensible enough. But it's BS.
PS if the Giants drafted Chubb at 2 they'd be even shittier the last 2 years.
The Barkley pick did not make us 9-23. You can do anything else with what we could have done and I am not seeing many more wins. I am also not about to sing DGs praises either. You kidding? I am skeptical as shit. But year three with money to spend. the man is on the clock for his job and he knows it. Let's see how he handles it.
Quote:
Almost never expresses any recognizable opinion...
He exposes his hypocrisy and, the fact that he has been attacking people just for the sake of attacking them. No other motive, other than being a bully.
What the fuck??
If I express no recognizable opinion, how can I be hypocritical??
Let me put this very simply since you really suck at comprehending points
Apparently YOU are the one incapable of comprehending points... I said the you ALMOST NEVER... The ALMOST NEVER is key. The point was when you do, you open yourself up to criticism like this because you make it such a habit to attack people no matter what.
- the Giants doing something different that you, I or any other person on this board wanted doesn't make it wrong. Spending time and crafting numerous posts saying it was wrong - still doesn't make it wrong.
You can't find a post by me that criticizes the idea of a tradedown. What I criticized is the POV that not trading down or selecting Barkley was wrong. That posting page long diatribes about positional value was bullshit. Spending the majority of the past two years not accepting that we picked Barkley, but instead trying to prove the move was incorrect - a point that still hasn't been proven one way or another.
You continue to miss this point - probably because you are too busy trying to convince the board you have one....
Back to the fact that you cannot comprehending points. This is logic, not your strong point I know, but bear with me.
The job of the GM is to manage the roster in a way that gives the team the best chance of winning. I.E. to choose the optimal path to success. If you prefer that the Giants traded down and selected OL, then you believe that there was better value to be gained. I.E. a more optimal path. So by definition you believe that the Barkley pick was sub-optimal. If the job of the GM is to take the optimal path, and the GM took a less optimal path, then the GM was wrong. Notice I am using the word believe here, that means that its an opinion not fact.
There is no way to prove it right or wrong. Winning a championship or not doesn't prove anything. Maybe the team could have started winning championships sooner, or won more often during the GMs tenure. If no championship is won, there is no way to ever know if the other path would have yielded one instead. There really is no right or wrong, however there is good and bad. Good being the choice that is optimal or close to it, and bad is a choice that is far from optimal.
If you look at my posts over the past 2 years, I have made this point about optimizing decisions in various ways many many times. I have ALWAYS said that I believed Barkley was not the optimal path, that I believed trading down for OL was the optimal path. With 2 years of hindsight, it still appears that the trade down for OL was the more optimal path. I would even venture to say that it is more apparent now than 2 years ago.
All that is opinion. I state my opinion, perhaps I state them strongly, I tend to back those opinions up with other forms of evidence. Note I said evidence, I didn't say FACTs. I make it difficult for people argue an alternative opinion. But isn't that what debate is about, stating a position and making it difficult on the the other side to oppose it. In the end, you just like posters like that because it make you feel a loss of control. You have an odd reflexive need to try and control what is said here, and you instinctively attack anything you feel is out of your control. Some pretty sick behavior actually.
I missed the don't above
And conversely there's no middle ground to contemplate if an alternative choice would have been a better investment or helped the Giants more in the short and medium term.
Plenty posters would have preferred the Giants laser focused on fixing the offensive line, think the Giants could have improved the run game to the same degree, helped protect the QB more, and that lineman are a better investment.
Quote:
I mean cmon, threads 1000 hits long discussing "the future of Barkley" and talking about a contract that hasn't even happened yet. And why his next contract is doomed to be a mistake. Gimme a break. There's middle ground but not here. Never. Barkley was a stupid pick, just because I say so or because of some made up myth that has been echoed all over because it's fun and easy and seems sensible enough. But it's BS.
And conversely there's no middle ground to contemplate if an alternative choice would have been a better investment or helped the Giants more in the short and medium term.
Plenty posters would have preferred the Giants laser focused on fixing the offensive line, think the Giants could have improved the run game to the same degree, helped protect the QB more, and that lineman are a better investment.
Let me add tht given the state of the team at the time, I think that trading down for OL was the biggest bang for the buck. Another time, a different situation, it might be different choice(s) are the best path...
You are seeking a middle ground where opinions are concerned. What middle ground is there? If I have an opinion and express it and it is different than yours, what are you seeking? You want me to change my opinion so it is closer to yours? Probably not going to happen unless you make a very good case. And let me say this, there have been times where posters have made a very good case and changed my mind about something. But those situations are going to be rare. More often, folks who post have opinions that are hardened and you are just not going to move them. So, again I ask, what are you seeking, what middle ground? You want somebody to say that maybe you have a valid opinion? Sure some are valid even if I disagree with then... On the other hand, you in particular are so far to one end of these debates that I believe you have some indefensible opinions.
Quote:
In comment 14811452 djm said:
Quote:
I mean cmon, threads 1000 hits long discussing "the future of Barkley" and talking about a contract that hasn't even happened yet. And why his next contract is doomed to be a mistake. Gimme a break. There's middle ground but not here. Never. Barkley was a stupid pick, just because I say so or because of some made up myth that has been echoed all over because it's fun and easy and seems sensible enough. But it's BS.
And conversely there's no middle ground to contemplate if an alternative choice would have been a better investment or helped the Giants more in the short and medium term.
Plenty posters would have preferred the Giants laser focused on fixing the offensive line, think the Giants could have improved the run game to the same degree, helped protect the QB more, and that lineman are a better investment.
Let me add tht given the state of the team at the time, I think that trading down for OL was the biggest bang for the buck. Another time, a different situation, it might be different choice(s) are the best path...
You are seeking a middle ground where opinions are concerned. What middle ground is there? If I have an opinion and express it and it is different than yours, what are you seeking? You want me to change my opinion so it is closer to yours? Probably not going to happen unless you make a very good case. And let me say this, there have been times where posters have made a very good case and changed my mind about something. But those situations are going to be rare. More often, folks who post have opinions that are hardened and you are just not going to move them. So, again I ask, what are you seeking, what middle ground? You want somebody to say that maybe you have a valid opinion? Sure some are valid even if I disagree with then... On the other hand, you in particular are so far to one end of these debates that I believe you have some indefensible opinions.
My reply was really to djm, not christian...
Quote:
I mean cmon, threads 1000 hits long discussing "the future of Barkley" and talking about a contract that hasn't even happened yet. And why his next contract is doomed to be a mistake. Gimme a break. There's middle ground but not here. Never. Barkley was a stupid pick, just because I say so or because of some made up myth that has been echoed all over because it's fun and easy and seems sensible enough. But it's BS.
And conversely there's no middle ground to contemplate if an alternative choice would have been a better investment or helped the Giants more in the short and medium term.
Plenty posters would have preferred the Giants laser focused on fixing the offensive line, think the Giants could have improved the run game to the same degree, helped protect the QB more, and that lineman are a better investment.
Because we're two years removed and it's OVER! The time to talk alternative choices ended with the pick. How many years are we going to hand wring over it?
And secondly, EVERYBODY wants the Giants laser focused on fixing the o-line.
And finally, picking Saquon Barkley did not prevent them from addressing the offensive line. They still drafted a starting G the same draft, and thought they had signed their new left tackle. The moves haven't worked, but picking Saquon is not an indictment of ignoring the offensive line.
Ask Jerry Reese the number one reason he was fired.
Ask Jerry Reese the number one reason he was fired.
I have been the harshest Jerry Reese critic since 2012 in that regard.
I get it.
So yes, more and better could have been done.
So yes, more and better could have been done.
Yeah, so? A lot of us wanted them to make that move. It was that or cut bait in a first round pick in only his 3rd season (which we ended up doing when it failed).
That's still more of an indictment of Reese than Gettleman. That the 10th overall pick couldn't play ANY position on the line or be helpful in any way.
Quote:
In comment 14811452 djm said:
Quote:
I mean cmon, threads 1000 hits long discussing "the future of Barkley" and talking about a contract that hasn't even happened yet. And why his next contract is doomed to be a mistake. Gimme a break. There's middle ground but not here. Never. Barkley was a stupid pick, just because I say so or because of some made up myth that has been echoed all over because it's fun and easy and seems sensible enough. But it's BS.
And conversely there's no middle ground to contemplate if an alternative choice would have been a better investment or helped the Giants more in the short and medium term.
Plenty posters would have preferred the Giants laser focused on fixing the offensive line, think the Giants could have improved the run game to the same degree, helped protect the QB more, and that lineman are a better investment.
Because we're two years removed and it's OVER! The time to talk alternative choices ended with the pick. How many years are we going to hand wring over it
Thanks for the rules on what can and can't be discussed Britt.
I guess we'll all go quietly to the corner now until you let us out of time out.
I would have been fine with the trade down for Nelson if they got good value.
But the value apparently wasn't there (been discussed ten trillion times already) and they took Barkley.
You, and a few others, seem to be the only ones that can't get over it and find middle ground.
I would have been fine with the trade down for Nelson if they got good value.
But the value apparently wasn't there (been discussed ten trillion times already) and they took Barkley.
You, and a few others, seem to be the only ones that can't get over it and find middle ground.
The sarcasm of my comment went about 30,000 feet over your head. Read DJM's original post to which I was responding.
Quote:
right side. That well-thought plan took about one snap that season to see where that was heading.
So yes, more and better could have been done.
Yeah, so? A lot of us wanted them to make that move. It was that or cut bait in a first round pick in only his 3rd season (which we ended up doing when it failed).
That's still more of an indictment of Reese than Gettleman. That the 10th overall pick couldn't play ANY position on the line or be helpful in any way.
So it wasn’t fixed. Stay with what’s not working isn’t a plan.
Lol. Oh Britt.
This horse has been beaten to glue. We know some people despise the Barkley pick. We know some people love the Barkley pick. We know some people would have been cool with a trade down but understand and are okay with picking Barkley.
I don't really know what there is left to discuss on it other than to agree to disagree on what could've, should've, would've happened. What's done is done.
It’s not one subject.
Probably then a good signal for you to bow out, and not jump in when others are having perfectly enjoyable conversation on a topic you aren't interested in?
It made it about 10 posts and here we are, 200 later.
It was such pivotable moment in Giant's history, that is stands above all others for the foreseeable future.
As you know, I hated the pick at the time, and to this day I believe it was a colossal mistake. I want to be clear though. I for one am first and foremost a Giants fan. I want all this to work out and for the Giants to be adding to their trophy case. So if there is some middle ground being sought, rest assured, that I have accepted the Barkley pick and I for one root for Barkley every time he is out there. I root for Daniel Jones every time he is out there. I root for every player on the roster to do well. However, there is a big difference, for me at least, between rooting, and looking at the team with a critical lens.