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.
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.