to rebuild this OL in particular?
After missing on Solder, Omameh, Remmers, Will Hernandez, trading up for DeAndre Baker instead of staying put and taking a Dalton Risner or Elgton Jenkins whom both would have been available at our 2nd round slot... only good OL move he has made is getting Zeitler in the OBJ/OV trade.
Okay, maybe Will Hernandez isnt a bust yet but I think after 2 years he is trending more toward being a bust than he is being a hit.
Do you trust Dave to get this OL right, yes or no?
I am a fan of DG. I like hearing him speak. Actions speak louder though. And I have seen enough to believe he can't fix this OL. 2 years, 2 strikes. This 3rd year should be his final try at fixing the OL IMO. It should be fixed after 3 years, no?
Quote:
could have been better off at this point by cutting bait with Eli earlier than they did and going in a different direction?
Yes, that could have forced them to make a questionable QB pick (although that would have just been another bad decision) and not been better off but there are absolutely alternatives that could have made them better off.
I'm saying that it could have been better or worse, marginally.
We would have had an extra what? 7 million in free agency to spend? 10 million? Eli's contract was not the albatross it's made out to be. If they needed that money, they could've and would've been able to find it elsewhere. What's the point of cutting your veteran QB to sign stop gap QB?
Keeping Eli did not prevent them in going in any single direction that you think they should have gone. Even if they drafted Darnold.
They knew they had to find Manning's replacement. It was inevitable. It did not prevent them, IMO, from making any other move. They drafted Barkley, which they could have done with or without Manning. They could have still traded down at 2 for (Nelson) with or without Manning. They could have still taken a QB with Manning.
So what exactly did keeping Manning prevent them from doing, exactly? What would cutting Manning outright upon Dave Gettleman's arrival done for the franchise moving forward?
All god points. I would have thought the savings was more than that though if you cut him but will admit I don't know.
I do believe they invested unwisely around the idea of keeping him though, and would have re-thought the whole thesis if cutting him though (Solder, Barkley) so there is that.
These kinds of org structures do well in businesses or ventures with stable operations/low turnover/low change/low need for public interactions/low competitive intensity
Managing Partners with expertise based power circles ( partners) are a very common in had to competitively distinguish/ fluid/high human capital turn based businesses.
Managing Partners do the investor meetings/face the public and do have certain signing authorities, but the world is full of partnerships where the lead practice or most distinguished practice or the biggest revenue generators have much more power in their power circles than the Managing Partner.
When all goes well, the MP job is kind of just be fair internally, listen to the difference makers, get funds to the winners and be in front of the owners and markets. The meeting and decision dynamics are much more widely shared and Collaborative and Inclusion are the key to morale and motivation ...for more know what they are doing and have proven valid points of view. Orchestrating and incorporating the input of many voices becomes the necessary MP style
When there is a power vacuum (coaches/scouts/lazy owners) the MP has to be more omni present even when stretched thin and in areas beyond their core expertise. Compliance and high wire acts are the key to survival with second guessing second raters all around
My view is the scouting and coaching and backbone competence was not there at the end of the rot everywhere hands off Reese/Ross era. So smarter all in power centers up the game of everyone at the table and the MP fades in relative input.
In addition, when things go badly external to operations voices ( owners) get to meddle on instincts and without data. After all, in a slow group that does not self examine, all ideas are more equal.
When things are stronger the owners get sold solid well prepared ideas/crisp meetings/data backed argumentation and their weirdness/instincts get managed and overwhelmed by earned confidence.
notice how much easier it is to interpret a hierarchy than a loser construct. So much so that we assign hierarchy so we can assert the ton we do not know.
Lastly, there is not any organization or human endeavor that can be assessed by snapshots at their best looking moments/decisions or worst snapshots in time.
Sorry, that's true of every poster, every marriage, every kid raising, every endeavor.
Assessing snapshots is as much about the commentator as the snap.
Assessing any one Giant after the owner fired 3 HC, 1 GM, 1 Chief Scout and the organization fired 6 or more scouts and 30 or more coordinators and coaches in a five year period followed by a pretty wide ranging search and out of prior norm hiring of an experienced, assertive and confident coaching staff isn't going to hit more than the assessments miss. imo
Quote:
In comment 14814706 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
Maybe he didn't like the QB's in 2018.
I feel like you're changing your tune a bit here. I might be misremembering or thinking of someone else, but I feel like you were staunchly of the opinion that the rebuild was happening around Eli and that the QB position could simply be addressed at a later date.
Now, if that wasn't your take, I apologize. And if it was, I definitely can understand how you might have been saying that both with your head and your heart because it seemed like you would have preferred for the rebuild to happen around Eli to potentially extend Eli's career for your own enjoyment.
But if it was you, and you're now saying that the rebuild couldn't begin in earnest until the QB was replaced? Well, I find it a bit convenient coming from the guy who likes to frequently accuse others of moving the goalposts.
It was a little more nuanced than that.
Yes, I thought the rebuild could happen concurrently with keeping Eli around for the end of his contract.
However, I said they should be actively seeking his replacement while doing it, which they were (and did).
Again, it's was never an either/or proposition.
I did not create the narrative of any sort of "Win with Eli" mandate.
Rebuild around Eli while searching for his replacement, yeah, I endorsed that.
Eli Revenge Tour. 10-6.
Sure sounds like "win with Eli" but maybe you can be more clear about when you're speaking from the heart vs. sharing an objective view? Because it feels inconsistent to say that you didn't advocate for making one last run with Eli when you also predicted a 10-6 record, said the media had it out for the Giants for predicting mediocrity, and proclaimed 2019 the "Eli Revenge Tour."
Eli Revenge Tour. Was exclusively about his play. Proving wrong that his skills had fallen off a cliff. Making the doubters eat their words.
10-6 was posted on a season prediction thread, months later, and was offered with no context whatsoever. I just posted "10-6 (which I go into every year believing it is possible, and have explained why, and yes, it is purely for my optimism, hope, and enjoyment).
But those two quotes have gotten a lot of mileage.
So what exactly did keeping Manning prevent them from doing, exactly? What would cutting Manning outright upon Dave Gettleman's arrival done for the franchise moving forward?
It's pretty simple. Eli was no longer capable of winning games after 2017 without pristine conditions. Conditions that are/were impossible to create under a cap model. So we wasted at least a year getting into rebuild mode to accommodate the Eli Sympathy Tour. Valuable football time and resources wasted by men - Mara and DG - we were delusional.
Some of us saw the flaw in that approach; but too many saw virtue in it.
Now here were are, 9 wins and 23 losses later, and the only thing that has changed is the sympathy for Eli has swung over to Gettleman.
The amount of slack that gets cut for this guy is really inexplicable at this point.
By that logic, any GM that doesn't have an immediate improvement is a failure.
Confusing "slack" with patience in letting him do his job have been confused on this topic since Day 1, which is why Gettleman has been under fire since Day 1 (even down to the method in which he was hired)
Its about whether we will go another 9-23 over the next two seasons because of his mistakes and not getting the roster fixed.
By that logic, any GM that doesn't have an immediate improvement is a failure.
Confusing "slack" with patience in letting him do his job have been confused on this topic since Day 1, which is why Gettleman has been under fire since Day 1 (even down to the method in which he was hired)
That's not true. Not all 9-23 teams are created equal.
If the overhaul was underway by jettisoning Eli once DG arrived, not trying to build a team behind drafting a RB #2 in the draft, and not missing on the HC, the 9-23 could have better context.
Instead, DG and Mara went all in on Eli, tried to make chicken salad out of chicken sh-t, stuff a playoff team in a team that wasn't close to being ready to win, and royally screwed up the roster in the short and medium term.
So whatever poor roster/situation he inherited, one could just as easily argue that DG's moves have not discernibly improved that team at all. We are simply back to square one.
DG's one lifeline right now is Jones. That has to work. If not, his tenure will be remembered as a complete disaster.
It is neither fact, not even provable at this point.
Two years of taking a talent-poor team and not seeing immediate results shouldn't be the barometer of what kind of job has been done. We should almost all agree that this year is the pivotal one to use as evaluation.
So let's say we jettisoned Eli, drafted Darnold and still tried to supplememnt the roster with mid-priced FA's hoping they would work out. There's no proof that this alternative is better, and if Darnold doesn't pan out, it is likely worse.
Let's say we pick Chubb. He suffers a season-ending injury like he did in DEN. We're likely not feeling any better.
Let's say we traded down and loaded up on OL, but used a veteran stop-gap QB and don't have a serviceable RB. Even if the OL are solid, we may not seem to be trending up because of poor play in other areas.
What if scenarios don't just go one way.
Let's say we jettisoned eli, and went 6-10 the past two years, does that really make anyone feel better?
It is neither fact, not even provable at this point.
Two years of taking a talent-poor team and not seeing immediate results shouldn't be the barometer of what kind of job has been done. We should almost all agree that this year is the pivotal one to use as evaluation.
What the hell does "fact and provable" have to do with this conversation? Does exactly 16 more games make the evaluation factual for some reason. Of course not.
I think the concept is that there will be more facts available to make an evaluation...just as if there will be even more if you wait 32 more games. The barometer being used really just depends on your temperature of the situation.
Let's say we traded down and loaded up on OL, but used a veteran stop-gap QB and don't have a serviceable RB. Even if the OL are solid, we may not seem to be trending up because of poor play in other areas.
What if scenarios don't just go one way.
Let's say we jettisoned eli, and went 6-10 the past two years, does that really make anyone feel better?
Lets say Giants did one of the above scenarios and lo and behold...we were able to improve the oline and edge moreso with the extra free agent $ and better use of draft picks, added a very good but not generational RB in middle round, and still got DJ.
And maybe we still went 6-10 but things looked much better in the second half of 2019 than they actually played out.
feel any better going into this offseason?
These discussions always start with the premise that the moves were wrong and that the alternatives were correct.
Quote:
is what I've argued against frequently:
Let's say we traded down and loaded up on OL, but used a veteran stop-gap QB and don't have a serviceable RB. Even if the OL are solid, we may not seem to be trending up because of poor play in other areas.
What if scenarios don't just go one way.
Let's say we jettisoned eli, and went 6-10 the past two years, does that really make anyone feel better?
Lets say Giants did one of the above scenarios and lo and behold...we were able to improve the oline and edge moreso with the extra free agent $ and better use of draft picks, added a very good but not generational RB in middle round, and still got DJ.
And maybe we still went 6-10 but things looked much better in the second half of 2019 than they actually played out.
feel any better going into this offseason?
For one, that actually did happen in 2018. The Giants started 0-8, jettisoned the malcontents and dead weight on the O-line, inserted Jamon Brown, and the Giants finished the second half with a respectable 4-4 while Barkley was breaking out as offensive rookie of the year.
So I did feel better going into 2019, actually. Then, after an 0-2 start, they started the Daniel Jones era and wen't 2-0... Then Barkley got hurt and we were relegated to a team that had no defense to speak of but a young QB who was showing lots of promise and a breakout fifth round rookie in Slayton.
So there are positives despite the record.
And if the prudent play in your view is to wait out critical year 3 to evaluate DG, then that is fine.
Just like it is fine to evaluate him right now, even if its a poor evaluation and the feeling is to give him year 3 anyway or tell him to clean out his desk.
Quote:
In comment 14814956 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
is what I've argued against frequently:
Let's say we traded down and loaded up on OL, but used a veteran stop-gap QB and don't have a serviceable RB. Even if the OL are solid, we may not seem to be trending up because of poor play in other areas.
What if scenarios don't just go one way.
Let's say we jettisoned eli, and went 6-10 the past two years, does that really make anyone feel better?
Lets say Giants did one of the above scenarios and lo and behold...we were able to improve the oline and edge moreso with the extra free agent $ and better use of draft picks, added a very good but not generational RB in middle round, and still got DJ.
And maybe we still went 6-10 but things looked much better in the second half of 2019 than they actually played out.
feel any better going into this offseason?
For one, that actually did happen in 2018. The Giants started 0-8, jettisoned the malcontents and dead weight on the O-line, inserted Jamon Brown, and the Giants finished the second half with a respectable 4-4 while Barkley was breaking out as offensive rookie of the year.
So I did feel better going into 2019, actually.
And a lot of other posters might tell you if you looked closer at that respectable 4-4 record that there were still plenty of warning signs of a team not really getting better. Such as the true quality of the wins, who the opposing QBs were, the lack of competitiveness in the losses, etc.
His drafts have been incomplete meaning I don’t know yet what to think of them. He inspires 0 confidence. The Beckham trade was excellent but that’s it. He’s terrible and throwing away the 68th pick in the draft for 0... 0. Should have gotten him canned right away. He could have signed overacted pos Leonard Williams anyway. Awful. Just awful.
What happened after was OBJ got hurt in the first preseason game against Cleveland, and by week five the top 4 WRs are out for the year. MacAdoo was not a good enough coach to keep the team together, and questions about Eli were beginning.
DG traded off a lot of talent, hired a poor head coach, and the results are 9-23.
Personally, I don't like DG as a GM, but his personal moves have been a mixed bag, like almost every other NFL GM. If he got the QB pick right, and Judge turns out to be a good head coach, I think our Falls are going to be much better going forward.
It is neither fact, not even provable at this point.
Two years of taking a talent-poor team and not seeing immediate results shouldn't be the barometer of what kind of job has been done. We should almost all agree that this year is the pivotal one to use as evaluation.
Something is indeed provable. It's the trenches; and DG's fingerprints are ALL over the Oline and Dline. They reflect his vision. And to date, neither has been remotely good.
So if you believe, which I'm sure you do, that having competent trench play is a key piece to success than one can certainly tie the 9-23 record to DG.
But, yes, you are right in this regard. This third year should be make or break.
Saying the DL has "has not been remotely good" is at best overblown and at worst, flat out wrong.
Quote:
many are assuming as fact that DG has built the team the wrong way and the 9-23 is a direct result of his missteps.
It is neither fact, not even provable at this point.
Two years of taking a talent-poor team and not seeing immediate results shouldn't be the barometer of what kind of job has been done. We should almost all agree that this year is the pivotal one to use as evaluation.
Something is indeed provable. It's the trenches; and DG's fingerprints are ALL over the Oline and Dline. They reflect his vision. And to date, neither has been remotely good.
So if you believe, which I'm sure you do, that having competent trench play is a key piece to success than one can certainly tie the 9-23 record to DG.
But, yes, you are right in this regard. This third year should be make or break.
If you had to completely replace both lines nearly 100% in just two offseasons, do you think you could do a competent/successful job of that? Would you sell yourself to an owner that way? Do you think most GM's would/could?
It would require near perfection to work with that kind of precision, and honestly, no competition from the other 31 teams for the finite available players in the draft/free agency.
Saying the DL has "has not been remotely good" is at best overblown and at worst, flat out wrong.
Well, when you aggregate the lack of sacks, the lack of forced fumbles, the poor turnover margin, the poor run defense, the below average pressure stats, etc - over the last two years - it's hard to get out of the bad zone.
Why in the world he didn't just start off with the PR that :
"QB transitions are always tough and hard to judge"
" we are going to try things to improve as fast as we can instead of being patient. Im not afraid to take some risks to get us proud of our NY Giants sooner rather than later"
" If everyone performs like they can we will be competitive, if we have injuries or off years by some guys its going to be harder"
" we are going to concentrate on the draft but we have to have some guys for these young guys to learn from"
everyone knew all that is true. Everyone would have said, Im in favor of some risks. Everyone would have said, yeah, right, the talent is not up to snuff.
Instead he got into debates with a press corp very different from the late 1980's and very different than in North Carolina.
He invited blame and he increased it. Badly serving Mara and Eli and his coaches and the fans
I assume irritability and some loss of judgement is a side effect of some of his treatments and the sword of Damocles hanging over his head.
But...where was Hanlon the last few years until this year? Invisible and ineffective and quite frankly inclined to fight with the media as well. Combativeness to the dumb media works when the team is doing well and is a steep slope down when its not
Saying the DL has "has not been remotely good" is at best overblown and at worst, flat out wrong.
??
The Oline is a mess still and we are on close to life support at the Tackle position. The DLine should not be characterized as good in most aspects.
If you had to completely replace both lines nearly 100% in just two offseasons, do you think you could do a competent/successful job of that? Would you sell yourself to an owner that way? Do you think most GM's would/could?
It would require near perfection to work with that kind of precision, and honestly, no competition from the other 31 teams for the finite available players in the draft/free agency.
Mr. Hog Mollie waltzed into Jints Centralville essentially saying he was here to save the day in the trenches. That was his specialty. Super. Great. Where do I sign? Sounds like we can check that box pretty quickly.
So since it hasn't come to fruition, despite material cap space and high profile trades, the new spin is lack of time?
Come on. We can be on different sides of the aisle here for a lot of things, but it would seem that there is common ground that DG has not lived up to his end of the bargain with restoring the trenches.
Quote:
If you had to completely replace both lines nearly 100% in just two offseasons, do you think you could do a competent/successful job of that? Would you sell yourself to an owner that way? Do you think most GM's would/could?
It would require near perfection to work with that kind of precision, and honestly, no competition from the other 31 teams for the finite available players in the draft/free agency.
Mr. Hog Mollie waltzed into Jints Centralville essentially saying he was here to save the day in the trenches. That was his specialty. Super. Great. Where do I sign? Sounds like we can check that box pretty quickly.
So since it hasn't come to fruition, despite material cap space and high profile trades, the new spin is lack of time?
Come on. We can be on different sides of the aisle here for a lot of things, but it would seem that there is common ground that DG has not lived up to his end of the bargain with restoring the trenches.
He’s rebuilt the OL. But the guys he’s brought in aren’t nearly good enough and he’s going to have to sink more resources into it at both Tackles and Center. The DL, I’ve long maintained, has been overrated on bbi for over a year now. This is a big offseason for DG. If faulty line play continues to plague this team and we stumble to a 5-11 season, I doubt Dave makes it to 2021.
Quote:
In comment 14814950 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
many are assuming as fact that DG has built the team the wrong way and the 9-23 is a direct result of his missteps.
It is neither fact, not even provable at this point.
Two years of taking a talent-poor team and not seeing immediate results shouldn't be the barometer of what kind of job has been done. We should almost all agree that this year is the pivotal one to use as evaluation.
Something is indeed provable. It's the trenches; and DG's fingerprints are ALL over the Oline and Dline. They reflect his vision. And to date, neither has been remotely good.
So if you believe, which I'm sure you do, that having competent trench play is a key piece to success than one can certainly tie the 9-23 record to DG.
But, yes, you are right in this regard. This third year should be make or break.
If you had to completely replace both lines nearly 100% in just two offseasons, do you think you could do a competent/successful job of that? Would you sell yourself to an owner that way? Do you think most GM's would/could?
It would require near perfection to work with that kind of precision, and honestly, no competition from the other 31 teams for the finite available players in the draft/free agency.
I think the fundamental disagreement is pretty well evident in this post. You think it would have taken near perfection to turn around the line, and that may be true if we were expecting it to go from a shitshow to a very good line. But it went from a shitshow to a shitshow with different names. Solder was a bad signing. Omameh was a fucking disaster. Halapio was bad and then got the infamous "don't sleep on Pio" endorsement from DG (and he's already hinting at continuing the Halapio experiment at OC into 2020; hopefully Judge can veto that idea). It's not just that he inherited a bad situation with the OL; the majority of the moves he made to address that bad situation have been just as bad as his predecessor.
So you're right, it would have taken near perfection. And if that's the standard that you think anyone is expecting from him, you'd be right to defend him against that because it would be unrealistic. But I think that's not quite what people are looking for - I think they're looking for some shred of evidence that Mr. Hawg Mawllies is more than just a fucking soundbite machine when it comes to fixing the OL here.
As for the both lines part, if you want to use the DL to somehow give DG a pass on the OL, I think you're being too kind. If you're going to use your top two first round picks of your tenure on a RB and a QB, get the fucking OL right. The defense sucked even with his improved DL anyway. I would have preferred if he had more success on the OL than the DL. I would have preferred if he spent a first, third, and fifth round pick on OL players, and that if he was going to trade for an impending FA, it was an OL instead of a DL. He's using draft resources on the DL that surpass what he's doing for the OL, and his FA moves on the OL have flat-out sucked.
I think the fundamental disagreement is pretty well evident in this post. You think it would have taken near perfection to turn around the line, and that may be true if we were expecting it to go from a shitshow to a very good line. But it went from a shitshow to a shitshow with different names. Solder was a bad signing. Omameh was a fucking disaster. Halapio was bad and then got the infamous "don't sleep on Pio" endorsement from DG (and he's already hinting at continuing the Halapio experiment at OC into 2020; hopefully Judge can veto that idea). It's not just that he inherited a bad situation with the OL; the majority of the moves he made to address that bad situation have been just as bad as his predecessor.
So you're right, it would have taken near perfection. And if that's the standard that you think anyone is expecting from him, you'd be right to defend him against that because it would be unrealistic. But I think that's not quite what people are looking for - I think they're looking for some shred of evidence that Mr. Hawg Mawllies is more than just a fucking soundbite machine when it comes to fixing the OL here.
As for the both lines part, if you want to use the DL to somehow give DG a pass on the OL, I think you're being too kind. If you're going to use your top two first round picks of your tenure on a RB and a QB, get the fucking OL right. The defense sucked even with his improved DL anyway. I would have preferred if he had more success on the OL than the DL. I would have preferred if he spent a first, third, and fifth round pick on OL players, and that if he was going to trade for an impending FA, it was an OL instead of a DL. He's using draft resources on the DL that surpass what he's doing for the OL, and his FA moves on the OL have flat-out sucked.
well said GD
Last year was tougher to judge the line improvement for two reasons:
1. Rookie QB who held onto the ball too long at times.
2. Saquon was hurt a large portion of the season.
That shot show line is better than anything we’ve trotted out there since 2011-12
sacks. Lawrence had a solid rookie season.
The team needs reasonably competent Offensive Tackles.
Rookie qb DID hold onto the ball too long, led to a significant number of fumbles, did it not?
The team needs reasonably competent Offensive Tackles.
'Reasonable competent OT's.'
Wait another 5 years. We'll get there eventually (probably not).
Funniest shit I've read here in a few hours.
The team needs reasonably competent Offensive Tackles.
As a tandem, per PFF, Solder and Remmers were one of the worst duos in the NFL...
And if you are dubious of PFF, which I get, I simply say trust your eyes or just read Sy's reviews from this year. There are pretty damning...
Funniest shit I've read here in a few hours.
That was unreal. But the counter spin here was that's what the GM is "supposed to say". So we're reading to much into it.
When I challenged people to actually listen to that interview where DG says it, and he says it passionately, I got the expected answer...crickets.
Rookie qb DID hold onto the ball too long, led to a significant number of fumbles, did it not?
Of course he held onto it too long. He's a rookie. Lets see if he develops pocket awareness and this GM gives him some Tackle help.
As to 2018, the sacks did go down in second but a lot of it is the Giants had games where they had leads going into 2H/4Q and weren't playing catch up and passing as much. As such, the sack rate declined. Some of it was better oline play but alot wasn't.
Quote:
who got rid of the ball in a panic instant to a brave rookie who held onto it too long.
The team needs reasonably competent Offensive Tackles.
As a tandem, per PFF, Solder and Remmers were one of the worst duos in the NFL...
Quote:
"..Solder’s 57 pressures allowed this season are seven more than any other player, and the 97 combined pressures allowed for the duo is the most in the NFL.
And if you are dubious of PFF, which I get, I simply say trust your eyes or just read Sy's reviews from this year. There are pretty damning...
It's not fact or provable...even in the trenches!
Yeah, that was an interesting theme today. We can't "prove" the OL and DL were poor.
Despite so many statistical measures to the contrary...
Back to the OP's theme though, I just don't see how anybody can review his moves over the past 2 years and say they have faith in him.
So I think he has a trust issue, particularly with fans, and every move should be scrutinized with very little benefit of the doubt given...
If you say it enough times, it's sure to catch on. Keep it up.
If you say it enough times, it's sure to catch on. Keep it up.
huh?