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.
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.