|
|
Quote: |
DeAndre Baker is still in Florida, training every day in the hopes that he'll soon be able to rejoin the Giants. The Giants, though, have still not welcomed him back. And it's not clear when -- or if -- they will. Giants CB DeAndre Baker's lawyer says charges could be dropped by end of week: 'I think we've got the case won' New York still hasn't let Baker participate in virtual offseason meetings |
That said, he was in a place where he probably shouldn't have been, and carrying a gun (which I think is REQUIRED BY LAW in Florida).
If he's lucky enough to beat this, the Giants should watch him like a hawk. This was strike 1.
Hopefully he comes back clean, and the new regime plays him to his STRENGTHS rather than his weaknesses.
If he doesn’t then the team moves on.
Reads like Elite Mobster32
lol
I think the league has to investigate.
I believe His gun was legally owned and carried
Best case....the case gets dropped and the kid learns something and becomes a better person from experience
I hope and pray that he is innocent.
I hope and pray that he is innocent.
I'm pretty sure if the witnesses recanted, it wasn't out of fear. It was from having a much fatter wallet.
This is far from clear cut, even if charges are dropped.
Quote:
Then there should be no reason for Baker not to continue his career. If what we heard from Baler’s camp is true and he is completely innocent then he should stay with the team. Now, if there is something else going on that would be another thing.
Not so sure: first, Patel has shown himself to be a bit of a loose cannon, broad, inconsistent claims and, as yet, no back-up. Second, someone above said, strike one, yeah, if charges dropped, he should be re-instated. This is not strike one, it's a big strike 2, strikes 1 and 1.5 being a poor teammate and indifferent to his playbook, meetings, and responsibilities--if you don't think JJ has gotten the skinny from DG on this, think again--1.5 being awol for virtual meetings on JJ's watch.
This is far from clear cut, even if charges are dropped.
Except if there isn’t anything here that’s wrong it’s not strike anything.
That said, I am not a fan of Baker and disagreed with Gettleman’s drafting him when he did especially trading up a 4th and a 5th. In that year, the Giants signed Love, Slayton and Connelly in this rounds so there was the possibility of something special in that draft. But, as of now, if Baker is not the starter, we are left with Beal who has to prove he can stay healthy let alone do the job or Ballentine who has to show he belongs in the league or Love who has to show he can play on the outside. I don’t know about other possibilities on the roster. Not that Baker is anything special but, at the end of last year, he showed something and given that teams need 3+ CBs, he is needed on this roster.
time on Baker if he won’t be here for awhile.
Reads like Elite Mobster32
League discipline is another matter.
Giants are just being careful. Baker will be practicing with the team after charges are dropped.
Busting out on a first round pick is a great loss
It’s tough to be competitive when you do that.
I think a suspension is coming, unless he can prove he wasn't at the card game.
League discipline is another matter.
This isn't typically the way the Giants handle things, but it could be that they're waiting for some sort of legal resolution since they're on the hook for his entire contract in full unless/until there is conduct detrimental to the team for them to void the guarantees.
That doesn't necessarily mean he's in their plans; it could mean that they don't know how much they can plan for him right now but aren't rushing to judgment.
I suppose that might just be semantics; I just don't know if uncertainty and benefit of the doubt actually equate to a vote of confidence.
You don’t prioritize the secondary in FA and the draft to the extent they did if they think they have a young stud already on the roster.
Quote:
he's still in the Giants plans. If they were getting rid of him regardless it would have been done by now.
League discipline is another matter.
This isn't typically the way the Giants handle things, but it could be that they're waiting for some sort of legal resolution since they're on the hook for his entire contract in full unless/until there is conduct detrimental to the team for them to void the guarantees.
That doesn't necessarily mean he's in their plans; it could mean that they don't know how much they can plan for him right now but aren't rushing to judgment.
I suppose that might just be semantics; I just don't know if uncertainty and benefit of the doubt actually equate to a vote of confidence.
I think they are waiting to see how it plays out. And because of that I have to think they are still hoping they can turn his career around. That's really it.
From a production standpoint they continued to load up on depth so life will go on without Baker, but I'm not sure they are ready to dump him. He wasn't abysmal his rookie year, he just wasn't very good. We've seen that before with many players.
Well if you say so.
Link - ( New Window )
You don’t prioritize the secondary in FA and the draft to the extent they did if they think they have a young stud already on the roster.
They needed to replace Bethea and Jenkins, so they drafted McKinney and signed Bradberry. Slot CB was an issue, so they drafted Holmes. I don't think Baker factored into their decision-making at all, his play last year or his legal troubles.
I won't. He struggled, and had some flashes. If they are cutting him it will be based on his legal issues or if they think he won't work hard at fixing his play or his off the field choices. He won't be cut because he had a bad rookie year. CB is a really hard position to adapt to and any other 1st or 2nd rounder would be given more than a year to fix it.
I've also seen some rankings of Ballentines play being worse, and he isn't getting cut either.
Anyway saying he won’t get cut for his terrible play but instead for the underlying issues that led to his terrible play is an exercise in semantics I’m not that interested in.
That's the exercise you like to participate in....
Anyway saying he won’t get cut for his terrible play but instead for the underlying issues that led to his terrible play is an exercise in semantics I’m not that interested in.
There are a number of games where Baker shut down his opponent. Sy covered them in his game reviews which are still archived. But he was very inconsistent.
Anyway saying he won’t get cut for his terrible play but instead for the underlying issues that led to his terrible play is an exercise in semantics I’m not that interested in.
Well you seemed to make this about his play not just his legal issues, hence my post. I don't think its semantics at all, they are two wildly different situations (legal issues vs. play/talent), only the fate can be the same (cut/traded/retained).
That's all i've got on it, if you think he sucks we will see in 2020 if hes still here and playing. He wouldn't be the first player to not play well and turn it around, its actually happened to us with Webster and others. I'm going to go ahead and see how it goes from here.
That's the exercise you like to participate in....
Link?
Not a good look to act like you never said that, you've actually said it often. Don't know about the "career over" part but your numerous posts suggest you either A don't want him here anymore or B think the Giants should get rid of him. Don't want to assume but I don't think i'm far off on it.
Any luck with those OT draft profiles that had all four OTs as late first/early second grades? Or any explanation for why you said Joe Judge should have to answer for his decision to draft DeAndre Baker?
Maybe stop phrasing your own baseless (and often, factually incorrect) opinions as those of anyone else? Or worse, as though they're facts?
Let me ask you if gettleman had a time machine And could do something different on draft day, do you still think he takes Baker?
But you can get a good deal on a baker jersey right now if you have confidence in him.
Link - ( New Window )