took a lot of heat for some of his trades or allowing a player to leave. Now as time has passed it looks like DG made the right call. Collins got paid but has not produced. OBJ got his money then got traded away. Has not produced close to his pay. Plus had another injury and missed games. Now he doesn't look like the same player he once was.
Baker was brutal, but that's really the only bad draft pick he's made. So many good ones. Even Carter looks like a worthy 3rd round pick. He's going to play in this league a long time.
Wish we could do the Baker pick over again but shit happens.
The defense lacks a leader/playmaker and it's been neglected for a while now. Maybe he envisioned McKinney in that role and is the victim of bad luck (Baker included), but either way, give that he's gone RB, QB, and LT in three consecutive first rounds, I expect a heavy investment in the defense this offseason.
How do you take Barkley and ask him to run behind a terrible OLine for 3 years? Trading for Peppers and saying we got two 1st rounders...he's below average safety? Your plan A at center is converting an OT...that's brilliant.
There's been more miss than hit. The rest of the NFC East hopes he never leaves.
Trading OBJ
drafting d lawerence-he could get all pro votes this year
jones-passing on haskins and got us a franchise QB
barkley-passing on darnold and rosen, he was the best player in draft
letting collins walk, he is so overhyped and overpaid
trading snacks-probably an attitude/locker room thing but solid return for a guy who was going downhill
bradberry-looked pretty good until very late.
martinez-tackling machine and great at POA. he is the best MLB we have had in some time
slayton-a #1 WR found in ROUND 5!
l williams (some say its a negative but he is a good player regardless)
golden (solid signing for the money and had a good year last year)
tate (some will say this is bad, but he produced for us last year and he isnt a long term solution, just a way to add more talent to the corp) he is also priced right and wont affect future of team in any way
zeitler- he has been just okay, but he gave the bum vernon up so this was a win. also a decent vet presence to add knowing the OL was going to see turnover and a lot of young faces
thomas- looks the part had a decent first start against a great front
hernandez- still early and you could argue a negative, but he has been a starter for us through two coaches so clearly many people feel he has talent
holmes - solid first game jury still out but this would definitely be a positive
carter- he is a third rounder and they got good value there, i expect him to be around a while
His drafts- he has drafted well and found good value in mid and late rounds
bad:
alec ogletree - good first year, but didnt really HURT us long term as we cleared the money
sam beal
baker(you could argue it isnt his fault)
solder (you could argue at the time the giants OL had NO stabilizing force so the signing was needed)
j stewart( people act like he was signed to be a huge producer for us. he was a depth vet signing, he had to fill the roster)
shurmur hiring (he had a part but wasnt the sole decision maker here)
jenkins (i think he was a quality player, but this was an attitude thing i think)
love- shaky, but a depth guy. sort of nitpicking there
ballentine- got abused last night, should be a backup, so i put under negative but shouldnt kill dave for this as he was meant to be depth and a project who could potentially start
gates-wow i feel bad putting him here, it was his FIRST start. I think the really thing here is the center position from halap to pulley to gates, we are still searching for that guy. maybe april brings it or gates gets better
remmers-he was trash but he was also a stopgap as its hard to add EVERYONE in a single offseason. Lets see what we have in peart, this could be another nice find by DG
overall, he has been good. his failures outside of solder arent team destroying. the OBJ thing had to go down and he clearly won that trade at this point.
Overall, he catches WAY too much shit. the giants team is young and has a new scheme and staff. it takes time for young guys to get acclimated and make plays. I for one like the direction of the team. DG has been forced to pivot a couple of times all while battling cancer. I think he has done a solid job especially in the draft.
Just kidding.
But lets be real - he's pumped serious resources into the OL and CB positions and those are still the two greatest weaknesses on this team.
Obviously if Jones is a hit, all that can be forgiven.
it takes two and there is no proven fact that it works out. the team that slides down often loses. I dont think its wise to miss out on the better prospect. chances of you hitting on ALL of the picks you acquire is slim, give me 1 sure thing vs 3 maybes
In comment 14973571 BleedBlue said:
Quote:
I think he has had ample opportunity to trade down and gain draft picks and is just not savvy enough to do it.
it takes two and there is no proven fact that it works out. the team that slides down often loses. I dont think its wise to miss out on the better prospect. chances of you hitting on ALL of the picks you acquire is slim, give me 1 sure thing vs 3 maybes
Link - ( New Window )
I'll give you one example. Look st the two defensives from last night.
One defense has ferocious edge rushers who are speed players and pluggers as DLs. The other defense has premium draft picks and money spent on big slow DLs who at best can push the pocket.
That's a GM philosophy that has been passed by in the modern NFL. It's a flawed plan.
If your defense can't disrupt and potentially sack the QB every time he drops back your team has no chance in this NFL.
Even the whole "hog molly" thing is ass backward in this NFL. The best OLs are athletes not big slow guys like Hernandez who is quickly becoming a replacement player.
Hopefully Dave is retired after this season and Judge has some input on on a young GM who he messes with philosophically.
Quote:
I think he has had ample opportunity to trade down and gain draft picks and is just not savvy enough to do it.
it takes two and there is no proven fact that it works out. the team that slides down often loses. I dont think its wise to miss out on the better prospect. chances of you hitting on ALL of the picks you acquire is slim, give me 1 sure thing vs 3 maybes
where do you get these "sure things" you speak of? The fact sure things don't exist is a prime reason for the occasional trade down - if you know that even the smartest teams miss on draft picks, why not give yourself more bites at the apple?
It really takes a special kind of arrogance to simply never do it. Or just an inability to think quickly when on the clock. But there's no way any of that applies to DG!
You build through the draft and smart free agency signings. The roster that DG took over, may have been the worst roster in all of football, in all seriousness. It was that bad. Zero depth, zero plan, and bad contracts throughout the roster.
You can't reverse that in 1 season, let alone 2. You have to flush it all down and start over, which they have finally done. And now that they've finally done it (post 2019) you guys want to know why we suck?
You build through the draft and smart free agency signings. The roster that DG took over, may have been the worst roster in all of football, in all seriousness. It was that bad. Zero depth, zero plan, and bad contracts throughout the roster.
You can't reverse that in 1 season, let alone 2. You have to flush it all down and start over, which they have finally done. And now that they've finally done it (post 2019) you guys want to know why we suck?
the amount of excuses people make for DG never ceases to amaze. Great job! Although I think you left out a few of the old standbys (Mara, Solder's kid, etc.)
Baker was brutal, but that's really the only bad draft pick he's made. So many good ones. Even Carter looks like a worthy 3rd round pick. He's going to play in this league a long time.
Wish we could do the Baker pick over again but shit happens.
I count trading JPP as a miss. How so? JPP has bounced back with 20 sacks in two seasons, while the draft picks we got because B.J. Hill, who took a sharp nosedive in his second season, and Kyle Lauletta, who never amounted to much; on the other hand our pass rush became one of the worst in the league, with no lasting fix.
Outside of that? I'm good with the direction now. And if I'm really happy with the QB, LT, and coaching hires....why should I be shitting on DG?
He walked into a bad situation, tried to put a ton of lipstick on an ugly pick in a short amount of time, failed, and then regrouped with smart decisions. I'm sorry if you'll never ever ever forgive him for 2018. Some people here can get over it.
Again - not sure if anyone else feels that way, but having Eli still here for Jones' rookie season was invaluable. I could give a shit about the cap space in 2019, we were going to suck anyway.
Outside of that? I'm good with the direction now. And if I'm really happy with the QB, LT, and coaching hires....why should I be shitting on DG?
He walked into a bad situation, tried to put a ton of lipstick on an ugly pick in a short amount of time, failed, and then regrouped with smart decisions. I'm sorry if you'll never ever ever forgive him for 2018. Some people here can get over it.
Why did he hire Shurmer? The only other time he was head coach was with the Cleveland Browns, where he did exactly as well as he had with the Giants: 9-23.
Looking back on it, who did you want the Giants to hire?
But he has definitely been more good than bad.
Even passing on a quarterback, which I was upset about turned out well.
But who knew they d be in place to get a quarterback the next season.
Trevor Lawrence is a really great QB prospect. Cool. Time to stop talking about him. He'll be on another team.
Quote:
I think he has had ample opportunity to trade down and gain draft picks and is just not savvy enough to do it.
it takes two and there is no proven fact that it works out. the team that slides down often loses. I dont think its wise to miss out on the better prospect. chances of you hitting on ALL of the picks you acquire is slim, give me 1 sure thing vs 3 maybes
The reason why the chances of hitting on all of your picks is because there are no sure things. The idea isn't gimme one sure thing vs. three maybes. The idea is gimme three cheaper maybes vs. one more expensive maybe.
Outside of that? I'm good with the direction now. And if I'm really happy with the QB, LT, and coaching hires....why should I be shitting on DG?
He walked into a bad situation, tried to put a ton of lipstick on an ugly pick in a short amount of time, failed, and then regrouped with smart decisions. I'm sorry if you'll never ever ever forgive him for 2018. Some people here can get over it.
He has made some smarter decisions after 2018. Also some just as bad that seem to be keeping this team treading water. Nobody gets them all right but he needs a much higher batting average.
Quote:
that we have so many smart posters on this board who can't help themselves and can't see the bigger picture. Asking things like "well why aren't we good then?" is a complete lack of awareness to how building a team in the NFL works.
You build through the draft and smart free agency signings. The roster that DG took over, may have been the worst roster in all of football, in all seriousness. It was that bad. Zero depth, zero plan, and bad contracts throughout the roster.
You can't reverse that in 1 season, let alone 2. You have to flush it all down and start over, which they have finally done. And now that they've finally done it (post 2019) you guys want to know why we suck?
the amount of excuses people make for DG never ceases to amaze. Great job! Although I think you left out a few of the old standbys (Mara, Solder's kid, etc.)
"No plan" is the perfect motto for DG. Draft a QB at #6 and a RB at #2 and don't build an OLine to make them successful. William's trade was just plain stupid. We'd have him signed to a cheap longterm deal (is he even worth a longterm.deal?) right now had he not traded for him. He gave away Collins and Jackrabbit for nothing when both had trade value. If your secondary sucks, gotta pressure the QB...but he has zero plan to make that happen.
Hate to tell you...but after the last 3 years, this is still a VERY untalented NFL team.
DG sucks! This is slowly becoming an organization like the Raiders, Dolohins, and Browns...bad hires and decisions year after year and fans like you will keep saying that next year will always be our year...this team is still years (multiple) away from competing for a Super Bowl.
The talent on this team was so bad, and the injuries and retirements continued to take their toll, that it will be at least a couple of more years before they really have all the holes filled with decent players. But they are slowly getting better even if it is two steps forward and one step back.
Patience, grasshopper.
Ryan - they have to actually be good otherwise you’re not building anything.
Solder is an abomination of a contract, they have wasted two years of Saquon in failing to provide an offensive line, and they're still short 2/5ths of a starting quality line.
Quote:
are you living in an alternate reality? DG has now drafted a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th round pick on the OL throughout his tenure. How is that not building the OL?
Ryan - they have to actually be good otherwise you’re not building anything.
And 3 of those 4 picks were just drafted this year. Come on, man!
The talent on this team was so bad, and the injuries and retirements continued to take their toll, that it will be at least a couple of more years before they really have all the holes filled with decent players. But they are slowly getting better even if it is two steps forward and one step back.
Patience, grasshopper.
Can you exaggerate any more? Maybe just go with a yacht next time.
Of course, one has to say Lamar Jackson was the best QB value that year, so we might have done better...hindsight I suppose.
I just get a bit tired of the Jones v. Darnold v. Rosen takes, when I those are not the players I would have chosen from.
If you fill the true franchise qb role (i.e., top 5-8 yearly qb) and the LT role, you'll be remembered fondly.
No that’s not what some of us are doing. Let us know when it’s okay to evaluate DG.
It does if you get lucky in a year and it most likely actually weakens the talent pool unless you do it for depth after...after you have a core of above average players (like NE did for a few years).
I submit that its the wrong model for this part of the talent building staircase
Quote:
But it really does seem like people focus too much on the misses.
A lot of fans forget that EVERY team misses on picks.
Also consider that every team hits on picks. Has Gettleman outproduced a large number of his GM peers?
Looking back on it, who did you want the Giants to hire?
this is the same lazy bullshit as when people say "they had to sign Solder".
You build through the draft and smart free agency signings. The roster that DG took over, may have been the worst roster in all of football, in all seriousness. It was that bad. Zero depth, zero plan, and bad contracts throughout the roster.
You can't reverse that in 1 season, let alone 2. You have to flush it all down and start over, which they have finally done. And now that they've finally done it (post 2019) you guys want to know why we suck?
Couldn’t have said it better. This is perfect. You want to get on DG for not kicking the rebuild off sooner? Like pre 2018? Ok. But there’s no proof he could have traded those vets off 3-4-5-6-12 months sooner than he did and not cutting eli didn’t hamstring the giants one fucking bit. That was always a made up urban legend. Maybe DG tried to hang on one year too long with those fa moves he made in 2018 but oh well, they spent some money on locker room older vets that were outta here 2 years later. Big deal.
From a roster building asset mgmt pov we are in terrific shape. We just need to coach the talent up and go from there. Yes we need wins. But some of you refuse to see the slow burn building process that DG has facilitated. It’s as clear as fucking day. One loss and it’s an all out war on DG as usual. Can we let this season play out first? It just might be ok. Young players!
Quote:
In comment 14973526 BlackLight said:
Quote:
But it really does seem like people focus too much on the misses.
A lot of fans forget that EVERY team misses on picks.
Also consider that every team hits on picks. Has Gettleman outproduced a large number of his GM peers?
In terms of the draft, the Giants are above the league average of having drafted players on the team. That's just one metric, but Reese for a couple of years was last and next to last using that metric.
But I do not believe that's the only way to judge a GM or their drafting prowess
However, Reese literally had two drafts that just 3 years after had yielded 0 and 1 players remaining. That;s really hard to overcome
It does if you get lucky in a year and it most likely actually weakens the talent pool unless you do it for depth after...after you have a core of above average players (like NE did for a few years).
I submit that its the wrong model for this part of the talent building staircase
DG has made a lot of draft picks and he's been at the helm of rosters of varying quality. It would seem he does not think it's a worthwhile strategy at any time.
Getting rid of OBJ despite the contract will turn out to be a very good move for us.
Just a shame he signed Shurmur to be HC.
Again, DG cleaned the entire roster out and started fresh in 2019. And this was something that most fans wanted him to do. If you can’t be patient, why bother?
I think a lot of the DG hate is carried over from the 2013-2017 years. And that’s hilarious to me because he was the GM of the Panthers winning divisions and going to the SB during those years.
I admire your patience! Gonna be a bit of a wait......
Beyond those guys, there ain't much.
Beyond those guys, there ain't much.
Are you only considering drafted players? You just named 5 players in 3 drafts and I'd imagine they think McKinney could be #6. Hernandez may still have a chance too.
What do you consider the appropriate number per draft?
If you are also considering acquired players I'd add LW and Bradberry.
Beyond those guys, there ain't much.
If you’re asking about a projection for top 10 at their position, I’ll go with: Thomas, Hernandez, Barkley, Jones, Slayton, Lawrence, Martinez, Bradberry, McKinney. Jury is way out on Holmes and Peart, but they absolutely have the tools to be a top 10 nickel CB and RT. But again, kind of useless to project them as they haven’t played a down.
DG has had 3 drafts. During these drafts I think he’s done quite well to re stock the roster with talent. There have been some big misses in FA that have not hurt the roster long term. There have also been some hits in FA, it has been a mixed bag. DG has another offseason to get some pass rushers, LB, and perhaps more OL help if needed. It’s going to take another offseason before we can finally say “ok, this looks good now.” Or “ok, ya know what, maybe these guys just aren’t very good.”
We have one of the youngest teams in the league now that DG has cleared everything. Our QB has played 13 games. Our LT has played 1. I just checked and Barkley turned 23 in February. New head coach who actually has a plan for the program. Let’s see what the product on the field is at week 12 of this season. If it’s awful, I’ll agree it might be time to give DG the pink slip. If it’s steadily improving week over week and we are in the mix for the division, then he deserves to keep it going without question.
Gettleman got some major things wrong on his first swing: wrong coach, wrong left tackle, wrong middle linebacker, wrong center, wrong left guard, wrong first round CB.
If the Giants would have rounded out left tackle, middle linebacker, and corner — they could have upgraded 3 different positions. Imagine if they could have addressed center, edge rusher, and WR with the money and resources allocated to Bradberry, Martinez, and Thomas.
You add that to getting QB, RB, the DLs, and the safeties he did get right, this team would be in the mix.
Quote:
Question - how many Giants can you honestly say project to be top 10 at their position? Barkley, obviously. Lawrence, probably. Thomas might. Maybe Jones and Slaton.
Beyond those guys, there ain't much.
Are you only considering drafted players? You just named 5 players in 3 drafts and I'd imagine they think McKinney could be #6. Hernandez may still have a chance too.
What do you consider the appropriate number per draft?
If you are also considering acquired players I'd add LW and Bradberry.
Leonard Williams is a top 10 DL? Take your pick of DE or DT and I think you’d be hard pressed to actually sell him as top-10. If you’re looking at DE, the pass rush isn’t there. And if you’re considering him a DT, are you really going to claim that TWO of the top 10 DTs in the entire league are Giants? That feels a little bit homerish.
He unquestionably gets held somewhat accountable for the fallout of the years he wasn't even here. Just in the past week a couple of interesting posts have been made:
- Quick rebuilds can happen. Look at SF.
Except that the SF rebuild took 5 years.
- Gettleman has made no attempt at all to address the Center position
Except that by definition of having a different starting Center, that is certainly an attempt
- Gettleman can't be trusted to evaluate talent. He has handed out terrible contracts to FA's like Stewart and Omameah.
I'm still wondering how keen minds here still don't reference signing Connor Barwin and complain about it a few years later
Even today, there was a big debate about picking Barkley. Why?? The guy is a great player and yet if we had picked Darnold or Rosen, we'd be in a much worse position. What does revisiting that draft do? Not to mention, Barkley is a productive player.
I get Gettleman being second guessed because recent team results have been poor, but to act like he's made hardly any good moves is just being willfully ignorant or stubborn because people dug in on criticizing certain moves - the trade of Beckham being a glaring one.
He unquestionably gets held somewhat accountable for the fallout of the years he wasn't even here. Just in the past week a couple of interesting posts have been made:
- Quick rebuilds can happen. Look at SF.
Except that the SF rebuild took 5 years.
- Gettleman has made no attempt at all to address the Center position
Except that by definition of having a different starting Center, that is certainly an attempt
- Gettleman can't be trusted to evaluate talent. He has handed out terrible contracts to FA's like Stewart and Omameah.
I'm still wondering how keen minds here still don't reference signing Connor Barwin and complain about it a few years later
Even today, there was a big debate about picking Barkley. Why?? The guy is a great player and yet if we had picked Darnold or Rosen, we'd be in a much worse position. What does revisiting that draft do? Not to mention, Barkley is a productive player.
I get Gettleman being second guessed because recent team results have been poor, but to act like he's made hardly any good moves is just being willfully ignorant or stubborn because people dug in on criticizing certain moves - the trade of Beckham being a glaring one.
Quote:
In comment 14973925 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
Question - how many Giants can you honestly say project to be top 10 at their position? Barkley, obviously. Lawrence, probably. Thomas might. Maybe Jones and Slaton.
Beyond those guys, there ain't much.
Are you only considering drafted players? You just named 5 players in 3 drafts and I'd imagine they think McKinney could be #6. Hernandez may still have a chance too.
What do you consider the appropriate number per draft?
If you are also considering acquired players I'd add LW and Bradberry.
Leonard Williams is a top 10 DL? Take your pick of DE or DT and I think you’d be hard pressed to actually sell him as top-10. If you’re looking at DE, the pass rush isn’t there. And if you’re considering him a DT, are you really going to claim that TWO of the top 10 DTs in the entire league are Giants? That feels a little bit homerish.
The question was phrased as "project to be in the top 10 of their position" - I don't think Lawrence is there yet but he can certainly get there.
And yes I think Williams is in the discussion of top 10 DTs. Donald and Jones are clearly the top 2. Buckner and Cox probably the next 2. Hicks if he's healthy. Then there's the cluster Williams is in with Jarrett, Clark, etc.
I thought that if DG did a good job, the Giants could be a playoff team in year three. It’s not a big deal if that’s year four and not three, but when would a supporter jump off the bandwagon?
I thought DG should have been fired this past off-season prior to the team selecting a coach. Since he wasn’t, I think he should be given another two (I don’t think we should hire a GM who had no say in the coach and I can’t imagine wanting to fire Judge after a single year). I see positive signs, especially with Jones - he looks really good.
The thing I care most about this year is seeing development in the OL as the year progresses. I really want to see Hernandez take a step in particular - I think we talk way too much about the Barkley pick and not enough about Hernandez. Hernandez really needs to be a strong starter for this team. We’ve invested way too much in the line to not have a good one by next year. And I think if the line’s good next year, everyone shuts the hell up about Barkley and we have a top ten offense.
I thought that if DG did a good job, the Giants could be a playoff team in year three. It’s not a big deal if that’s year four and not three, but when would a supporter jump off the bandwagon?
I thought DG should have been fired this past off-season prior to the team selecting a coach. Since he wasn’t, I think he should be given another two (I don’t think we should hire a GM who had no say in the coach and I can’t imagine wanting to fire Judge after a single year). I see positive signs, especially with Jones - he looks really good.
The thing I care most about this year is seeing development in the OL as the year progresses. I really want to see Hernandez take a step in particular - I think we talk way too much about the Barkley pick and not enough about Hernandez. Hernandez really needs to be a strong starter for this team. We’ve invested way too much in the line to not have a good one by next year. And I think if the line’s good next year, everyone shuts the hell up about Barkley and we have a top ten offense.
This is a very rational take. I think what it comes down to is, when do you think the rebuild started? I certainly understand the impatience (I’m not a big DG guy myself), but I think an argument can be made that prior to last season, the full “rebuild” wasn’t set to start til this year.
I believe the Giants were being genuine when they floated the idea of Eli starting all of last year, only to find out through the preseason that DJ was a little further ahead of schedule, than even the coaching staff had anticipate.
Not to give a complete pass to his time prior to this year, as he’s had time retool, and has had some mild success in the draft, but overall underwhelming. That being said, the evident trackshift from “win now” to “long term build,” will buy DG time in ownerships eyes, and is the reason I’m not tearing my hair out.
I think we’re a year away from being competitive. We need a stud pass rusher to be relevant. I think once McKinney returns, if he returns full strength, we have a group of DB’s who could be a lot of fun to watch if we can just get pressure on the QB. We’ve cluster drafted at OL. We have young talent in quite a few spots. DJ has a lot to like, but a few things that still make me nervous. I used to have a 3 year rule with QB’s to know what they really are, but the NFL has changed so much over the past 5-10 years it’s gotten so much tougher.
My point is this: A lot of this hinges on growth of young talent, but we seem to be on the right path if you judge the rebuild based on the past 18 months. Just, it’s hard to look past the years prior when you look at 12 wins in 3 seasons. But, if he hit on DJ and Judge, all of this becomes moot.
There’s no doubt that DG grossly misevaluated the roster in the spring of 2018. There are extenuating circumstances, though (th3 ownerships view of the roster, DG’s health situation).
In reality, we are into year 2 of the rebuild, not 3.
He is not perfect and not all of his moves have worked out (name the GM who bats 1000).
Say, what you want... not all of us thing DG is a buffoon.
Quote:
Question - how many Giants can you honestly say project to be top 10 at their position? Barkley, obviously. Lawrence, probably. Thomas might. Maybe Jones and Slaton.
Beyond those guys, there ain't much.
If you’re asking about a projection for top 10 at their position, I’ll go with: Thomas, Hernandez, Barkley, Jones, Slayton, Lawrence, Martinez, Bradberry, McKinney. Jury is way out on Holmes and Peart, but they absolutely have the tools to be a top 10 nickel CB and RT. But again, kind of useless to project them as they haven’t played a down.
I found this to be wholly optimistic. Top 10 projections?
Try Barkley, hopefully Thomas and maybe Lawrence.
That's it folks.
I get Gettleman being second guessed because recent team results have been poor, but to act like he's made hardly any good moves is just being willfully ignorant or stubborn because people dug in on criticizing certain moves - the trade of Beckham being a glaring one.
Fair, anybody suggesting their aren't any good moves would be incorrect. But don't act like a critic of DG is going to list those out in their respective posts as often as you would like to see. That's why we seemingly have people like you to look for exaggerations and put your own little exaggeration on them to make your point.
Most importantly on DG, there have been far more bad moves and moves that have simply done nothing relative to improving the team over the past 3 years and that is the problem. Things don't turn on a dime and as we know no GM gets them all correct. But our guy isn't getting enough of them to right the ship. And that is quite damning since the roster he inherited was so poor that most of his players moves should net some positive...correct? But they simply aren't or not enough to create more wins.
As an example, the Offensive Line dramatics that went on with his predecessor, and now him, have simply killed this team for years now. It's not okay just to try and fix it, either get it right or you should and will be fairly criticized, and ultimately replaced. A lot of attention and investment went into this OL. It wasn't done efficiently nor timely on his watch but it was done. It may pay dividends and it may not but it needs to at least start stabilizing soon. Otherwise we are just wasting more time and the careers of the two best players he drafted.
I think he is correct in his mantra having to be able to run the ball, stop the run and get after the QB while having a QB that can throw from one. That is just football.
He has made decisions on players that did not work out and some that have. The franchise was in such bad shape talent wise that is takes time especially when you are trying to send a franchise icon QB to a dignified ending. I do believe they are getting very close and the team is getting ready for another nice extended window of winning but they need more good football players.
There’s no doubt that DG grossly misevaluated the roster in the spring of 2018. There are extenuating circumstances, though (th3 ownerships view of the roster, DG’s health situation).
In reality, we are into year 2 of the rebuild, not 3.
It's getting really old hearing people give Gettleman a pass for year one. In fact, his inability to judge the talent level of players on his own roster is an even more glaring example of how he is not a competent GM.
No matter how you want to paint it, this is year 3 of Gettleman's stewardship. If he can't produce even a .500 record in year 3, he has to go. I'd say a very very small percentage of the Gettleman supporters would have signed up for another 3 years of losing at the time he was hired. While you can't expect miracles in 3 years, you should be able to produce at least a .500 club especially in a league that strives for parity.
I think he is correct in his mantra having to be able to run the ball, stop the run and get after the QB while having a QB that can throw from one. That is just football.
He has made decisions on players that did not work out and some that have. The franchise was in such bad shape talent wise that is takes time especially when you are trying to send a franchise icon QB to a dignified ending. I do believe they are getting very close and the team is getting ready for another nice extended window of winning but they need more good football players.
The only thing in the mantra that DG may have achieved is replaced Eli with what looks like a very good QB in Daniel Jones that a team should be able to win with.
The rest of the mantra is empty promises.
Three years in, he has failed miserably at accomplishing two of his four goals.
Quote:
I think he is correct in his mantra having to be able to run the ball, stop the run and get after the QB while having a QB that can throw from one. That is just football.
Three years in, he has failed miserably at accomplishing two of his four goals.
Greg - are you suggesting the Giants can stop the run well enough to be labeled an accomplishment? I hope not.
If DG wasn't our GM would OBJ be gone? Would Collins? Would Darnold be our QB? All is and buts.
I think DG is doing a good job. You don't? Thats fine but don't dont pretend to know we would be a better team without him. You have no way of knowing that.
Collins was a one-dimensional safety who wanted to be paid top dollar. Vernon flashed when healthy, but rarely was and the OL was a mess.
The problem wasn't that we didn't have talent, it was that the talented players we had were either getting too old, were always injured, or were terrible influences on the environment. He's literally overhauled almost the entire lineup now.
What realistically could he have done year 1? If he jettisoned everyone, we'd have been even more screwed with dead money - which already was going to be a problem going forward. He's cleaned that up pretty well.
Look - he's had misses. But coming into the situation he did, even if he made perfect moves in every aspect, there was still a long road ahead because the previous regime left the roster bare or with players that aren't the foundation to build with.
It's getting really old hearing people give Gettleman a pass for year one. In fact, his inability to judge the talent level of players on his own roster is an even more glaring example of how he is not a competent GM.
(FYI, I believe DG will retire the next few months, making this point moot.)
Quote:
When is DG supposed to be judged on his record?
I thought that if DG did a good job, the Giants could be a playoff team in year three. It’s not a big deal if that’s year four and not three, but when would a supporter jump off the bandwagon?
I thought DG should have been fired this past off-season prior to the team selecting a coach. Since he wasn’t, I think he should be given another two (I don’t think we should hire a GM who had no say in the coach and I can’t imagine wanting to fire Judge after a single year). I see positive signs, especially with Jones - he looks really good.
The thing I care most about this year is seeing development in the OL as the year progresses. I really want to see Hernandez take a step in particular - I think we talk way too much about the Barkley pick and not enough about Hernandez. Hernandez really needs to be a strong starter for this team. We’ve invested way too much in the line to not have a good one by next year. And I think if the line’s good next year, everyone shuts the hell up about Barkley and we have a top ten offense.
This is a very rational take. I think what it comes down to is, when do you think the rebuild started? I certainly understand the impatience (I’m not a big DG guy myself), but I think an argument can be made that prior to last season, the full “rebuild” wasn’t set to start til this year.
I believe the Giants were being genuine when they floated the idea of Eli starting all of last year, only to find out through the preseason that DJ was a little further ahead of schedule, than even the coaching staff had anticipate.
Not to give a complete pass to his time prior to this year, as he’s had time retool, and has had some mild success in the draft, but overall underwhelming. That being said, the evident trackshift from “win now” to “long term build,” will buy DG time in ownerships eyes, and is the reason I’m not tearing my hair out.
I think we’re a year away from being competitive. We need a stud pass rusher to be relevant. I think once McKinney returns, if he returns full strength, we have a group of DB’s who could be a lot of fun to watch if we can just get pressure on the QB. We’ve cluster drafted at OL. We have young talent in quite a few spots. DJ has a lot to like, but a few things that still make me nervous. I used to have a 3 year rule with QB’s to know what they really are, but the NFL has changed so much over the past 5-10 years it’s gotten so much tougher.
My point is this: A lot of this hinges on growth of young talent, but we seem to be on the right path if you judge the rebuild based on the past 18 months. Just, it’s hard to look past the years prior when you look at 12 wins in 3 seasons. But, if he hit on DJ and Judge, all of this becomes moot.
Colin, good post - I think his misread of that year one roster was such a mistake that I lost a lot of confidence in him. I started becoming worried then. I'm very willing to be patient if I think we are on the right track.
With that said, I share some of the optimism. I'm very excited about Judge. The only thing I'd add is that you can get a false positive (or negative) in the NFL: the worst thing for the Giants was the 2016 season, for example. 8-8 might look like progress one year, but we could have just gotten lucky.
Furthermore, as time has gone by, a lot of the things he's gotten killed for have looked better in hindsight. Remember the reaction to the Beckham deal? Who's laughing now?
Barkley over the likes of Darnold and Rosen? Looks pretty good to me.
Hell, he was mocked relentlessly for the Jones pick.
Every GM is hit and miss on personnel. Every one of them.
And regarding the decision to stick with Eli a few more years, people need to realize how scarce true talent at that position is. They were talking about this the other night about the Steelers and Ben. If you think you have a guy, even at an advanced age, who has pelts on the wall, and you feel still can get the job done, you're gonna squeeze every last ounce out of his career. The problem with the last years of Eli's career is that there was so much junk and chaos around him between lack of talent, coaching changes/terrible coaches, it was hard to judge what he had left.
Where I've been a bit disappointed in him personally is strictly along the offensive line, which, after 2 full seasons and 1 game, still looks unsettled to me. Also, the hiring of Pat Shurmur which was a complete waste of 2 seasons and many at the time knew it. He is/was a bad head coach. Just a bad hire and it was totally obvious at the time.
If I were to grade Gettleman right now for the last 3 years I'd give him a B. I'm very confident he found our QB. I feel very good about our head coach. The importance of those 2 picks lift what would be an otherwise pretty average body of work so far.
Beyond those guys, there ain't much.
If this is a knock on DG, the guy has been here THREE years. How many blue chippers can a guy bring in over 3 drafts? I can rip off 4 or 5 and that's pretty damn good.
Plus, we really really really need to let this season play out. it is YEAR THREE. How much time does the average player need to reach his potential? You know, that 2nd or 3rd round or 4th round pick--how long? I'd say it's probably about 2-3 years.
But lets just condemn the entire cake before it's fully baked. Makes sense.
Can we let things play out? Can we all acknowledge that despite some hiccups in 2018, DG has clearly built this thing with the long game in mind?
Look, if this team emerges in January with the same number of questions that it faced prior to week 1, I will be the first to say that DG missed on too many picks and players and it's probably time to move on. But I don't think that's going to happen and I feel even better about that belief after watching this team on MNF. I think more answers are coming than people think. But it's week 1.
We need to see more. It's really as simple as that.
It's premature to declare anything "right" when you can't win. The Giants haven't had a single week with a winning record since 2016.
I listed a number of moves above I liked, and a number of moves I think smart. But bottomline, if the Giants can't block and they can't defend the pass, they aren't going to win. And until they prove they can do that on a semi-regular basis, nothing is "right" -- just promising.
Collins was a one-dimensional safety who wanted to be paid top dollar. Vernon flashed when healthy, but rarely was and the OL was a mess.
Quote:
It's getting really old hearing people give Gettleman a pass for year one. In fact, his inability to judge the talent level of players on his own roster is an even more glaring example of how he is not a competent GM.
The problem wasn't that we didn't have talent, it was that the talented players we had were either getting too old, were always injured, or were terrible influences on the environment. He's literally overhauled almost the entire lineup now.
What realistically could he have done year 1? If he jettisoned everyone, we'd have been even more screwed with dead money - which already was going to be a problem going forward. He's cleaned that up pretty well.
Look - he's had misses. But coming into the situation he did, even if he made perfect moves in every aspect, there was still a long road ahead because the previous regime left the roster bare or with players that aren't the foundation to build with.
You are correct, he did inherit a mess but it was his job to remedy the situation. Instead, he wasted his entire first year by thinking we could contend. It was an egregious error and he should not be given a pass for that. Like I stated in my previous post, I didn't expect us to be a SB contender again in year 3 (although other teams have been able to make very swift turnarounds) but if his record shows 3 consecutive years of losing - he's gotta go.
You can't just discard every player due to contracts. You can't just walk away from Eli without having a backup. As it is, we were left with a lot of dead money, but that was going to be dead money if he turned over the roster immediately too.
Plus, what if he replaced Eli with Darnold or Rosen?
The idea that he set the team back significantly because of his first year is a myth. He still got his franchise RB and what looks like a great choice at QB.
You build through the draft and smart free agency signings. The roster that DG took over, may have been the worst roster in all of football, in all seriousness. It was that bad. Zero depth, zero plan, and bad contracts throughout the roster.
You can't reverse that in 1 season, let alone 2. You have to flush it all down and start over, which they have finally done. And now that they've finally done it (post 2019) you guys want to know why we suck?
I think you're using "let alone" incorrectly. Should be 2 seasons, let alone 1.
Collins was a one-dimensional safety who wanted to be paid top dollar. Vernon flashed when healthy, but rarely was and the OL was a mess.
Quote:
It's getting really old hearing people give Gettleman a pass for year one. In fact, his inability to judge the talent level of players on his own roster is an even more glaring example of how he is not a competent GM.
The problem wasn't that we didn't have talent, it was that the talented players we had were either getting too old, were always injured, or were terrible influences on the environment. He's literally overhauled almost the entire lineup now.
What realistically could he have done year 1? If he jettisoned everyone, we'd have been even more screwed with dead money - which already was going to be a problem going forward. He's cleaned that up pretty well.
Look - he's had misses. But coming into the situation he did, even if he made perfect moves in every aspect, there was still a long road ahead because the previous regime left the roster bare or with players that aren't the foundation to build with.
No one with any football sense was looking for immediate success in year 1 (other than maybe DG) so your arguing about a point nobody made.
It was that he wasted a year or so going down a bad path, he brought in a lot of guys that sucked or didn't move the needle and gave up a good amount of picks and $ in the meanwhile. He has brought in good talent too but patience is wearing thin without wins, particularly when you see fundamental issues still not working like establishing at least a stable Offensive Line.
Furthermore, as time has gone by, a lot of the things he's gotten killed for have looked better in hindsight. Remember the reaction to the Beckham deal? Who's laughing now?
Barkley over the likes of Darnold and Rosen? Looks pretty good to me.
Hell, he was mocked relentlessly for the Jones pick.
Every GM is hit and miss on personnel. Every one of them.
And regarding the decision to stick with Eli a few more years, people need to realize how scarce true talent at that position is. They were talking about this the other night about the Steelers and Ben. If you think you have a guy, even at an advanced age, who has pelts on the wall, and you feel still can get the job done, you're gonna squeeze every last ounce out of his career. The problem with the last years of Eli's career is that there was so much junk and chaos around him between lack of talent, coaching changes/terrible coaches, it was hard to judge what he had left.
Where I've been a bit disappointed in him personally is strictly along the offensive line, which, after 2 full seasons and 1 game, still looks unsettled to me. Also, the hiring of Pat Shurmur which was a complete waste of 2 seasons and many at the time knew it. He is/was a bad head coach. Just a bad hire and it was totally obvious at the time.
If I were to grade Gettleman right now for the last 3 years I'd give him a B. I'm very confident he found our QB. I feel very good about our head coach. The importance of those 2 picks lift what would be an otherwise pretty average body of work so far.
Publicly stated he misread the roster; 12 wins over three years; worst record in the league; and 0-1 this year with a scary display of supporting one of the most dynamic running backs in the game today.
And he gets a "B"?
Quote:
Gettleman hit a home run. Regardless of what the naysayers think.
Furthermore, as time has gone by, a lot of the things he's gotten killed for have looked better in hindsight. Remember the reaction to the Beckham deal? Who's laughing now?
Barkley over the likes of Darnold and Rosen? Looks pretty good to me.
Hell, he was mocked relentlessly for the Jones pick.
Every GM is hit and miss on personnel. Every one of them.
And regarding the decision to stick with Eli a few more years, people need to realize how scarce true talent at that position is. They were talking about this the other night about the Steelers and Ben. If you think you have a guy, even at an advanced age, who has pelts on the wall, and you feel still can get the job done, you're gonna squeeze every last ounce out of his career. The problem with the last years of Eli's career is that there was so much junk and chaos around him between lack of talent, coaching changes/terrible coaches, it was hard to judge what he had left.
Where I've been a bit disappointed in him personally is strictly along the offensive line, which, after 2 full seasons and 1 game, still looks unsettled to me. Also, the hiring of Pat Shurmur which was a complete waste of 2 seasons and many at the time knew it. He is/was a bad head coach. Just a bad hire and it was totally obvious at the time.
If I were to grade Gettleman right now for the last 3 years I'd give him a B. I'm very confident he found our QB. I feel very good about our head coach. The importance of those 2 picks lift what would be an otherwise pretty average body of work so far.
Publicly stated he misread the roster; 12 wins over three years; worst record in the league; and 0-1 this year with a scary display of supporting one of the most dynamic running backs in the game today.
And he gets a "B"?
Do you know how hard it is to find a QB in this league?
You've also taken all context out of the state of this franchise when he took over.
And you give him a "B".
Just curious, does your grading scale top out at A?
Isn't it tangible progress to have Jones as the QB right now?
That the roster is a lot younger?
In a lot better cap position because they made the right decisions on OBJ & LC?
Is it encouraging to see Andrew Thomas play 1 of the better games we've seen at LT in a long time in his first game with no preseason?
the point of the thread was that with the benefit of hindsight it appears DG has made correct calls on most of (not all) the big roster decisions - many of which were unpopular and heavily criticized. Reflexively dismissing those decisions with the W-L record is a deflection given the context of the roster transition/rebuild.
DG may not deserve to stick around after this season but even if he needs to be replaced the franchise is tangibly in a much better position now because of many of his decisions. I don't understand why it's controversial to observe that they have made some inarguably good decisions that have the franchise heading in a better direction. There absolutely also needs to be some tangible evidence in the W-L this year - but these repetitive arguments don't recycle on every thread because anyone denies that or thinks DG should be given a lifetime contract and key to the city. Year 3 has traditionally been the shit or get off the pot year and I think that's the case here.
And you give him a "B".
Just curious, does your grading scale top out at A?
He went the wrong way down a one-way street?? Bullshit. There were a lot of paths to take, including replacing Eli with a guy like Darnold or Rosen, a move that could potentially set up back much further.
That's why I don't understand the Year 1 handwringing. He could have gotten every other move correct and then drafted Rosen, and where are we?? The idea that he "misread" the roster and that this is a critical error not only hasn't been proven - it gets mentioned here most every day
Isn't it tangible progress to have Jones as the QB right now?
That the roster is a lot younger?
In a lot better cap position because they made the right decisions on OBJ & LC?
Is it encouraging to see Andrew Thomas play 1 of the better games we've seen at LT in a long time in his first game with no preseason?
the point of the thread was that with the benefit of hindsight it appears DG has made correct calls on most of (not all) the big roster decisions - many of which were unpopular and heavily criticized. Reflexively dismissing those decisions with the W-L record is a deflection given the context of the roster transition/rebuild.
DG may not deserve to stick around after this season but even if he needs to be replaced the franchise is tangibly in a much better position now because of many of his decisions. I don't understand why it's controversial to observe that they have made some inarguably good decisions that have the franchise heading in a better direction. There absolutely also needs to be some tangible evidence in the W-L this year - but these repetitive arguments don't recycle on every thread because anyone denies that or thinks DG should be given a lifetime contract and key to the city. Year 3 has traditionally been the shit or get off the pot year and I think that's the case here.
I generally agree with this. While I'm not necessarily confident, there's reason for hope and optimism.
Quote:
house when he took over. But his misread the roster and Eli, but DG went the wrong way down a one-way street. He has also made some good moves and the team still isn't winning.
And you give him a "B".
Just curious, does your grading scale top out at A?
He went the wrong way down a one-way street?? Bullshit. There were a lot of paths to take, including replacing Eli with a guy like Darnold or Rosen, a move that could potentially set up back much further.
That's why I don't understand the Year 1 handwringing. He could have gotten every other move correct and then drafted Rosen, and where are we?? The idea that he "misread" the roster and that this is a critical error not only hasn't been proven - it gets mentioned here most every day
The view that he misread the roster is less about delaying progress and more about losing confidence in Gettleman's abilities as GM when combined with the other errors.
Quote:
house when he took over. But his misread the roster and Eli, but DG went the wrong way down a one-way street. He has also made some good moves and the team still isn't winning.
And you give him a "B".
Just curious, does your grading scale top out at A?
He went the wrong way down a one-way street?? Bullshit. There were a lot of paths to take, including replacing Eli with a guy like Darnold or Rosen, a move that could potentially set up back much further.
That's why I don't understand the Year 1 handwringing. He could have gotten every other move correct and then drafted Rosen, and where are we?? The idea that he "misread" the roster and that this is a critical error not only hasn't been proven - it gets mentioned here most every day
You're not thinking clearly. DG said it himself that he misread it.
And suggesting he correctly bypassed what could have set the team back further is not exactly a victory. I would hope he doesn't step on EVERY landmine.
Isn't it tangible progress to have Jones as the QB right now?
That the roster is a lot younger?
In a lot better cap position because they made the right decisions on OBJ & LC?
Is it encouraging to see Andrew Thomas play 1 of the better games we've seen at LT in a long time in his first game with no preseason?
the point of the thread was that with the benefit of hindsight it appears DG has made correct calls on most of (not all) the big roster decisions - many of which were unpopular and heavily criticized. Reflexively dismissing those decisions with the W-L record is a deflection given the context of the roster transition/rebuild.
DG may not deserve to stick around after this season but even if he needs to be replaced the franchise is tangibly in a much better position now because of many of his decisions. I don't understand why it's controversial to observe that they have made some inarguably good decisions that have the franchise heading in a better direction. There absolutely also needs to be some tangible evidence in the W-L this year - but these repetitive arguments don't recycle on every thread because anyone denies that or thinks DG should be given a lifetime contract and key to the city. Year 3 has traditionally been the shit or get off the pot year and I think that's the case here.
Agree with a lot of this Eric. And I do think the franchise is in better shape, but mostly because we have had so many first rounds picks (particularly early ones) which comes from the continued losing. But better shape doesn't mean winning shape, at least yet.
And suggesting he correctly bypassed what could have set the team back further is not exactly a victory. I would hope he doesn't step on EVERY landmine.
That's the point I don't understand. When Gettleman signs a player today and part of the backlash against that is "don't forget that he misread the roster when he took over", what exactly does that mean?
There's little to no correlation to what happened in year 1 to the rebuild we're in now. I think there's only 3 players left over from when he got here. Is the argument that he needed to jettison people more quickly or have more players gone?
Solder and Ogletree were disasters and were both costly. The Giants literally had to replace them with high resource replacements 2 years later.
If the Giants had shored up left tackle and middle linebacker in the 2018 offseason, they could have funneled those resources to other positions this offseason.
There's little to no correlation to what happened in year 1 to the rebuild we're in now. I think there's only 3 players left over from when he got here. Is the argument that he needed to jettison people more quickly or have more players gone?
Christian nailed it here:
If the Giants had shored up left tackle and middle linebacker in the 2018 offseason, they could have funneled those resources to other positions this offseason.
It's foolish to pretend there are no ripple effects or downstream implications for previous mistakes, especially when they require subsequent resources to correct.
Quote:
You're not thinking clearly. DG said it himself that he misread it.
And suggesting he correctly bypassed what could have set the team back further is not exactly a victory. I would hope he doesn't step on EVERY landmine.
That's the point I don't understand. When Gettleman signs a player today and part of the backlash against that is "don't forget that he misread the roster when he took over", what exactly does that mean?
There's little to no correlation to what happened in year 1 to the rebuild we're in now. I think there's only 3 players left over from when he got here. Is the argument that he needed to jettison people more quickly or have more players gone?
Keep pivoting to wherever you need to in order to help your cause.
And if you cannot see any correlation, then you truly are just being obtuse.
That's not misreading the roster - it was making two poor signings, neither of which I'm disputing.
I'm asking what impact "misreading" the roster has today and why it is always mentioned. And of course Googs is confused by this question - because he brings it up often - without being able to provide an answer. It is just another way to knock the GM
That wouldn't have been seen as misreading the roster, yet our team would be in more trouble than we are today and it would take a massive resource to figure out what to do at QB
That wouldn't have been seen as misreading the roster, yet our team would be in more trouble than we are today and it would take a massive resource to figure out what to do at QB
You really want to continue to use this as your defense of the GM's performance to date...he didn't pick a QB in 2018 that wound up being bad?
This is so stupid that I will play along this same ridiculousness train of thought...why didn't he pick Lamar Jackson?
Obtuse.
I'm asking point blank how "misreading" the roster in 2018 has impacted us. What moves has it prevented or hamstrung us with? How would have completely gutting things immediately have a positive today?
And it is rich for you to call things obtuse. You're still complaining about signing Jonathon Stewart! Which means you should easily be able to explain how signing him has impacted us today - but again, you can't
Do you think its bad luck?
Gettleman needs to do better, as he said himself.
Two years on, and if you look at the offseason as a whole, the relevant additions amount to Barkley, Hernandez, Carter, Hill, Gates. Am I missing anyone?
They added a great running back, a mid range starting guard, a question mark starting center, a mid range linebacker, and a backup lineman.
With a first, second, three thirds (including the supplemental), trades, and cap — I don’t think it was a good year.
They added a great running back, a mid range starting guard, a question mark starting center, a mid range linebacker, and a backup lineman.
With a first, second, three thirds (including the supplemental), trades, and cap — I don’t think it was a good year.
And I would agree with all of that
But now that’s just glossed over as an afterthought. It feels like the things he gets right, even if they are huge, are glossed over while things like the Stewart contract (at the time) are made out to be these huge blunders that are unforgivable mistakes.
They added a great running back, a mid range starting guard, a question mark starting center, a mid range linebacker, and a backup lineman.
With a first, second, three thirds (including the supplemental), trades, and cap — I don’t think it was a good year.
don't forget the lousy coach (and staff).
First you started complaining that posters don't mention Gettleman's good moves enough which is both silly and petty. If you think he is so short-changed here then why don't you post his achievements instead of calling everybody a moron.
Then you pivoted to what progress could DG realistically have in year one because he was left with such a disaster. Yet he didn't think so at the time but later publicly said he made a mistake.
Then you pivoted to he was hamstrung by so many bad contracts in year one. Yet, he goes right out and creates 2 more incredibly bad ones in signing up Solder and trading for Ogletree.
Then you pivoted to he didn't really "waste" the entire first year anyway because he landed a franchise running back. Great job, pick the highest rated RB on the board at #2.
Then you wanted to pivot to lecturing us on the fact that at least he didn't make the mistake of drafting Darnold or Rosen to replace Eli. Again great job not making a bad team worse. Don't concern yourself with making it better timely, just not worse.
Then you wanted to pivot to "misreading" the roster really didn't affect this rebuild at all. Missing that being so short-sighted and desperate only created more problems at the outset. As noted above, thinking guys like Solder and Ogletree help in the short window, but really all they did was provide bad play, were super costly, and then resources had to be spent later to replace them. Also, he has some younger players under contract that are keepers and he is pissing away $ and their playing lives while he wastes a year or so missing the rest of the roster. Or that he would rethink the players he signed and/or drafted if he knew how to better evaluate a roster. Or maybe he checks his ego at the door in 2018 and parlays that #2 pick into several core OL/DL pieces versus a running back that had 6 yards on 15 carries Monday night in YEAR 3 of his tenure. Or the simple fact that missing this provides less confidence in his overall evaluation skills as a GM.
I never personally got caught up in which QB to draft in 18. I’ve always maintained you need to get the coach right, then worry about QB. I like Jones and think he’s a good QB. I like Barkley and think he’s a great running back.
I hope the order of operations lines up. The data and history pretty clearly show returns on a running back tail deeply after about 5-6 seasons. The data and history show the returns on a QB don’t really kick up until years 2 on.
I think we are in a window right now where peak Barkley and emerging Jones lineup. And the part that sucks is the line is still so fragile. I really hope all three of those components lineup in the next few years.
Across multiple handles.
That sure will be fruitful
But now that’s just glossed over as an afterthought. It feels like the things he gets right, even if they are huge, are glossed over while things like the Stewart contract (at the time) are made out to be these huge blunders that are unforgivable mistakes.
The goal post has always been to build a contending team.
If he nails the QB transition yet still can't build a playoff team, he did an awful job. Are we closer to contention than we were when he took the job? Yeah, I think so. But I also think it was hard to get much lower, and think some poor decisions have slowed progress. I'm also not confident we definitely have the makings of a contender yet. Phrased a bit differently, I want to have the feeling I had at the end of 2020 that I did at the end of 2004. I don't have that optimism yet. And yes, there were big differences (the 04 Giants had real veteran talent, etc. - but I hope you get my point).
Quote:
the goalposts are always moving for DG’s detractors. A lot of guys here said the transition at QB would be the defacto thing that would define Gettleman.
But now that’s just glossed over as an afterthought. It feels like the things he gets right, even if they are huge, are glossed over while things like the Stewart contract (at the time) are made out to be these huge blunders that are unforgivable mistakes.
The goal post has always been to build a contending team.
If he nails the QB transition yet still can't build a playoff team, he did an awful job. Are we closer to contention than we were when he took the job? Yeah, I think so. But I also think it was hard to get much lower, and think some poor decisions have slowed progress. I'm also not confident we definitely have the makings of a contender yet. Phrased a bit differently, I want to have the feeling I had at the end of 2020 that I did at the end of 2004. I don't have that optimism yet. And yes, there were big differences (the 04 Giants had real veteran talent, etc. - but I hope you get my point).
Me too, but how many games in a row did we lose before getting that final victory? Hopefully we get there sooner than the end of this season. Despite the opening loss, I saw some improvements to be hopeful about.
No, its the opposite.
- can the Giants block better upfront
- can the Giants defend the pass better
If the Giants show marked improvements in those two areas I will be excited for next year.
I’ve seen this one too many times to assume it. The Giants are counting on a rookie 4th round, and two second mid/late round picks in the secondary. And they are counting on an UDFA center and a journeyman right tackle.
First you started complaining that posters don't mention Gettleman's good moves enough which is both silly and petty. If you think he is so short-changed here then why don't you post his achievements instead of calling everybody a moron.
Then you pivoted to what progress could DG realistically have in year one because he was left with such a disaster. Yet he didn't think so at the time but later publicly said he made a mistake.
Then you pivoted to he was hamstrung by so many bad contracts in year one. Yet, he goes right out and creates 2 more incredibly bad ones in signing up Solder and trading for Ogletree.
Then you pivoted to he didn't really "waste" the entire first year anyway because he landed a franchise running back. Great job, pick the highest rated RB on the board at #2.
Then you wanted to pivot to lecturing us on the fact that at least he didn't make the mistake of drafting Darnold or Rosen to replace Eli. Again great job not making a bad team worse. Don't concern yourself with making it better timely, just not worse.
Then you wanted to pivot to "misreading" the roster really didn't affect this rebuild at all. Missing that being so short-sighted and desperate only created more problems at the outset. As noted above, thinking guys like Solder and Ogletree help in the short window, but really all they did was provide bad play, were super costly, and then resources had to be spent later to replace them. Also, he has some younger players under contract that are keepers and he is pissing away $ and their playing lives while he wastes a year or so missing the rest of the roster. Or that he would rethink the players he signed and/or drafted if he knew how to better evaluate a roster. Or maybe he checks his ego at the door in 2018 and parlays that #2 pick into several core OL/DL pieces versus a running back that had 6 yards on 15 carries Monday night in YEAR 3 of his tenure. Or the simple fact that missing this provides less confidence in his overall evaluation skills as a GM.
Bingo!
Quote:
the goalposts are always moving for DG’s detractors.
No, its the opposite.
Exactly. The goalposts are fairly static for DG's critics: if he's doing such a great job, we should see it translate into wins at some point, right? Or is it just Reese's fault in perpetuity?
If/when we have a consistent winning team, everyone should agree that DG deserves credit for the roster (and if anyone refuses to give him credit at that point, then I'd agree they're moving the goalposts). Until then, though, it's the excuses and accolades in absence of any real victories on the field that is the very definition of moving the goalposts.
Quote:
In comment 14974275 LBH15 said:
Quote:
house when he took over. But his misread the roster and Eli, but DG went the wrong way down a one-way street. He has also made some good moves and the team still isn't winning.
And you give him a "B".
Just curious, does your grading scale top out at A?
He went the wrong way down a one-way street?? Bullshit. There were a lot of paths to take, including replacing Eli with a guy like Darnold or Rosen, a move that could potentially set up back much further.
That's why I don't understand the Year 1 handwringing. He could have gotten every other move correct and then drafted Rosen, and where are we?? The idea that he "misread" the roster and that this is a critical error not only hasn't been proven - it gets mentioned here most every day
You're not thinking clearly. DG said it himself that he misread it.
And suggesting he correctly bypassed what could have set the team back further is not exactly a victory. I would hope he doesn't step on EVERY landmine.
Give me a fucking break with what DG said. Please just stop.
Someone please enlighten us all on what magic rebuilding moves could have been made prior to 2018 that lead us to a much better place today. Please. I am all ears.
If you don't think this roster and checkbook isn't in a much better place today than it was in 2018 I give up. Things can take time. We all wanted to win in 2018. Some of us cautiously hoped they would. They lost about 5 games that year that could have gone either way and 2-3 of them probably should have. We weren't well coached and we weren't THAT good but they were better than the 2017 team. the minute that team had no shot, DG dumped the vets and kicked off the true rebuild. 2019 that team wasn't going to win fuck all, it was infantile across the board. Ok? Now we are in the dawn of 2020 and some of you can't wait to shovel more dirt and conjure up THREE YEARS! It's like talking to a brick wall. Even if Dg is run outta town after this season, some of you are ridiculous. You will never be right on this stance no matter what happens to DG. Never.
Just because he signed Solder and some vets doesn't mean he misread shit. It means DG wanted to restore order to an absolutely toxic and maligned locker room. He signs one left tackle after literally the most awful OL ever disgraced the team one year prior. Solder was 30 when he was signed. Never hurt. He comes here, plays OK that first year and then falls apart and the knives come out. How convenient.
You don't know what the hell was being said behind the scenes in early 2018. You don't know wtf Mara or Tisch were "advising" DG to do. You don't know shit. Neiter do I. But I don't sit here and act like I do and then condemn the GM for saying something in a press conference.
How does the roster look? To some it's awful. To others it's young and up n coming. I guess it's up to the beholder, but make no mistake, DG has issued a well needed enema to this entire franchise and the roster is young, cheap and buying in to what the coaching is preaching.
But now that’s just glossed over as an afterthought. It feels like the things he gets right, even if they are huge, are glossed over while things like the Stewart contract (at the time) are made out to be these huge blunders that are unforgivable mistakes.
Very specifically to the bolded point above, my recollection is that it has largely been DG's most vocal supporters who have said things like "you guys might be right about Solder and Ogletree (add whatever other criticisms), but if DG nails the QB transition and finds us another franchise QB right after Eli, he will have done a good job."
Most of his critics actually just want the team to win again. Somehow we get painted as the bad fans for being dissatisfied with a crappy on-field product though. After all, if the rest of the roster that DG builds around Daniel Jones turns DJ into the second coming of Archie Manning instead of Eli Manning, will DG really deserve any credit just for Jones?
You're so busy fellating every move the Giants make that you seem to have missed the fact that Gettleman himself admitted to misreading the roster. I think he actually used those exact words.
myself and most of the other pessimists like most of what the team has done this off season, mostly around the Judge hire. But after a week one drubbing it’s not the time for the DG defenders to deliver a told you so.
Quote:
that is a made up narrative that was pulled out of your ass all because of the Eli decision and some lip service.
You're so busy fellating every move the Giants make that you seem to have missed the fact that Gettleman himself admitted to misreading the roster. I think he actually used those exact words.
people that have nothing to offer make shit up. You just did. Keep at it. I never said every move was correct matter of fact i said the exact opposite.
Ok fine fire the GM for one questionable off-season that was all but rectified one off-season later. Whatever helps you sleep at night. Never mind that we don't even know for sure if things could have been differently back in 18, hey, he said some shit, that's enough!
Quote:
that is a made up narrative that was pulled out of your ass all because of the Eli decision and some lip service.
You're so busy fellating every move the Giants make that you seem to have missed the fact that Gettleman himself admitted to misreading the roster. I think he actually used those exact words.
and you're so hell bent on riding DG outta town that you can't see there is more to a GM tenure than just PC lip service. There is also more to the Giants front office than just the GM There is the owner. The same owner who has stated that HE hires the head coach and plenty of media types have also stated that ownership has final say on a lot of decisions. Ask yourself why wasn't DG fired if he truly "miread" the roster? That's a huge indictment on someone if they truly committed that error. Are we really sure there wasn't more going on back then? ? Are we sure MAra didn't tell DG to stick with Eli one more year?
Maybe mara didn't say shit. That's certainly possible, but I question that. And even if DG felt like Eli was worth another go, he was 36 and healthy, i've seen bigger mistakes than going with Eli for one more year. He wasn't even that bad in 2018.
So Chris and Nephew Timmy keep getting promoted no matter the product on the field.
Well Mr. Big Picture - I didn't make up anything that Gettleman said and you can go look it up yourself.
And I am all for forming a better opinion of DG using this year 3...what else are we going to do. The OP was formed indicating Gettleman was making the "right calls" to date and its okay to give opinions on that theme.
Try and control yourself a bit more with these rants. You act like a child at Toys R Us.
You shouldn't ever tell any poster how to act or what is a "good look".
myself and most of the other pessimists like most of what the team has done this off season, mostly around the Judge hire. But after a week one drubbing it’s not the time for the DG defenders to deliver a told you so.
I would hardly call that a week 1 drubbing
Two quarters of competitive football is not a competitive game.
I think it’s become difficult to separate the difference between being a total cluster, and just getting your ass kicked. The Giants functioned like a pro team, which over the past many years hasn’t always been the case. But that’s a mild consolation.
You shouldn't ever tell any poster how to act or what is a "good look".
Why do you?
Quote:
You shouldn't ever tell any poster how to act or what is a "good look".
Why do you?
I tell people how to act? I tell people what is a "good look". No. I call people fucking morons when they post stupid shit or debate things I think are incorrect.
And I'm doing it on one handle, pointing out the irony of a previously banned poster coming back to a board that thought he was a tool, calling another poster a child. Maturity in Aces there, Googs!
Move on. I am not the googs that clearly bothered you before, and your posts don't threaten me.
Your thing is wearing out a welcome on one handle, trolling the board until getting kicked off, and then reincarnating to exhibit the EXACT same behavior. Rinse and repeat
And it dovetails right into "my thing", because it is the behavior of a fucking moron.
Quote:
In comment 14974694 djm said:
Quote:
that is a made up narrative that was pulled out of your ass all because of the Eli decision and some lip service.
You're so busy fellating every move the Giants make that you seem to have missed the fact that Gettleman himself admitted to misreading the roster. I think he actually used those exact words.
and you're so hell bent on riding DG outta town that you can't see there is more to a GM tenure than just PC lip service. There is also more to the Giants front office than just the GM There is the owner. The same owner who has stated that HE hires the head coach and plenty of media types have also stated that ownership has final say on a lot of decisions. Ask yourself why wasn't DG fired if he truly "miread" the roster? That's a huge indictment on someone if they truly committed that error. Are we really sure there wasn't more going on back then? ? Are we sure MAra didn't tell DG to stick with Eli one more year?
Maybe mara didn't say shit. That's certainly possible, but I question that. And even if DG felt like Eli was worth another go, he was 36 and healthy, i've seen bigger mistakes than going with Eli for one more year. He wasn't even that bad in 2018.
So you're willing to contort yourself in such a fashion that you would sooner assume that DG lied about his admission that he misread the roster after the 2017 season and handled the 2018 offseason differently than he would have had he assessed the roster properly, rather than acknowledge that he didn't do a very good job that year, but you're supposedly the rational one?
I have a secret for you: I don't want to run DG out of town. I just want the Giants to win consistently again. I happen to think DG is an impediment to that, but I would prefer to be wrong about that so that we don't have to sit through another GM conducting another tear-down and rebuild with no consistent success in between.
I just don't understand the point of excuses. DG is paid to build a winning team. To date, the team has not won. I don't really care about Mara's involvement because whatever hindrance Mara represents, he was that for Reese (who everyone blames) and he will be for the next GM, whenever that time comes. So there's really no point of blaming Mara for DG's moves any more than blaming the traffic on Route 3, since both are going to be constants for the Giants no matter who the GM is.
As I said above, you should move on.
Why should I respect the views of certain people who willfully post ridiculous shit?
Why should I respect the views of certain people who willfully post ridiculous shit?
sorry
Right now, I’m more encouraged from what I’ve seen from Daniel Jones over Darnold, although it’s early in both their careers.
The people who advocated for Bradley Chubb or Nelson leading up to the 2018 draft do have an argument. But, DG looks good for the Jones pick (so far).
Ducks back out of the room.
Right now, I’m more encouraged from what I’ve seen from Daniel Jones over Darnold, although it’s early in both their careers.
The people who advocated for Bradley Chubb or Nelson leading up to the 2018 draft do have an argument. But, DG looks good for the Jones pick (so far).
Actually insider rumor mill suggests the pick would have more likely been Bradley Chubb, or DG would have accepted the "very reasonable" trade offer he was given. He chose Barkley and never waivered.
And I agree, DG does look good for the Jones pick.
You can't just discard every player due to contracts. You can't just walk away from Eli without having a backup. As it is, we were left with a lot of dead money, but that was going to be dead money if he turned over the roster immediately too.
Plus, what if he replaced Eli with Darnold or Rosen?
The idea that he set the team back significantly because of his first year is a myth. He still got his franchise RB and what looks like a great choice at QB.
It's definitely not a myth nd you don't need a #2 overall pick to get a franchise RB (nor is a franchise RB even needed to be a champion).
I think you're right about Barkley not setting the team back.
But you don't think it set the team back to have to replace within two years the OLT and MLB that DG acquired in 2018? Wouldn't the team be farther along on the road to contention if the resources expended to acquire either Solder/Ogletree or Thomas/Martinez could have been used to address other areas of the roster?
No GM bats 1.000, but those are pretty glaring missteps that have contributed to the speed (or lack thereof) of the rebuild.
But these debates always come back to "misreading" the roster, even with the old "AHA! Gettleman said it himself" posts
Misreading the roster hasn't set back the roster unless you want to argue he should have signed a cheap Tackle and a cheap LB (and expect them to then perform well) and let go of all the players he did right when he took over (not feasible, but what the hell)
Missing out on FA's is a mark against him, and a pretty significant one.
They absolutely did not have to pay OBJ, that's said as if it was a must. They could have made him play out the season, they could have traded him. This is too often the rhetoric with Giants defenders, talking about the decisions they made as if they "had to make those"
And I would say that's the biggest problem with DG and the Giants front office as a whole. They are overconfident absolutely to a fault, they don't gather all the facts, they assume their reads on players are the right ones and seem to consistently have depth problems counting on their own players too much. It's not just the players, the way they talk about their internal people, take Abrams. There is nothing wrong with promoting from within but the fact that us as fans have a clear window into that during maybe our worst period, again overconfidence. They admit they are behind on things yet they never make any big front office changes, they keep acting like tweaks are what is needed. I've said they could very well be on their way to solving problems but the idea that they have any reason to be confident in their management is laughable.
Confidence should be earned on an ongoing basis not because you won Superbowl 8 years ago. Hopeful is good, coaching looks better, we have some key pieces in place. But that's just the thing, key pieces aren't enough unless you can build a team that grasps good asset allocation principles and has depth. Something the Giants have shown exactly zero competence for in a while.
But these debates always come back to "misreading" the roster, even with the old "AHA! Gettleman said it himself" posts
Misreading the roster hasn't set back the roster unless you want to argue he should have signed a cheap Tackle and a cheap LB (and expect them to then perform well) and let go of all the players he did right when he took over (not feasible, but what the hell)
Missing out on FA's is a mark against him, and a pretty significant one.
But Gettleman said it himself! Ah ha!
The tangible evidence you are looking for is the 36 losses that the team has endured during the three years of Gettleman's reign. The most in the NFL over that time. Not one team has as many losses no matter how many injuries, bad picks, turnovers and stupid decisions they have made. Gettleman's teams have lost the most
If he is making the right calls, or at least more right than wrong, then why have the Giants averaged the least amount of wins for the 3 years he has been the GM?
You know, maybe you're right...DG and his decisions haven't set the team back at all. He is just holding them steady at 4 wins per year.
My argument has been consistent for the past three years. It has been that the roster was in shambles when DG took over, after years of poor drafts, and it was a significant challenge for him to rebuild. The same type of thing most 3-4 win teams would face. I said that picking Barkley wasn't the problem and that he and Jones are the type of plus-talent players you need to build a competitive team. Amassing good layers should lead to a good team.
I've talked about DG's actions and the moves he's made, even saying that some moves and signings haven't worked out and are a negative for his record. What I don't do is cling to signings of reserve RB's and use it as a rally call to troll threads. I don't use press conference excerpts and use them to damn people a few years down the road
That's saved for those who aren't looking for a nuanced argument because they just want to troll people with the good old "Gettleman sucks" tirade. It basically takes away the only tool they have, which is ironic - even you can figure out why....
But these debates always come back to "misreading" the roster, even with the old "AHA! Gettleman said it himself" posts
Misreading the roster hasn't set back the roster unless you want to argue he should have signed a cheap Tackle and a cheap LB (and expect them to then perform well) and let go of all the players he did right when he took over (not feasible, but what the hell)
Missing out on FA's is a mark against him, and a pretty significant one.
Misreading the roster does come to question his ability as an evaluator.
And while you can argue that he didn’t set the tam back (debatable) at the same time he added very few plus players to the team in 2018
It’s hard to compete when you only add 1-3 quality players in a given year.
My argument has been consistent for the past three years.
What you argue changes constantly. Probably because you argue constantly.
I typed a post above yesterday how you pivoted constantly in trying to defend DG from people in this very thread when they had valid points over yours.
Look above for a refresher.
Quote:
missteps. I haven't argued that there haven't.
But these debates always come back to "misreading" the roster, even with the old "AHA! Gettleman said it himself" posts
Misreading the roster hasn't set back the roster unless you want to argue he should have signed a cheap Tackle and a cheap LB (and expect them to then perform well) and let go of all the players he did right when he took over (not feasible, but what the hell)
Missing out on FA's is a mark against him, and a pretty significant one.
Misreading the roster does come to question his ability as an evaluator.
And while you can argue that he didn’t set the tam back (debatable) at the same time he added very few plus players to the team in 2018
It’s hard to compete when you only add 1-3 quality players in a given year.
It’s kind of hard to set back a 3-13 team. But Gettleman has been awful close wading around 4 wins per year.
It's pretty easy to see a scenario where not drafting Barkley would have been better than drafting him. Our OL line sucks and we have little to no pass rush. How about drafting Quentin Nelson, arguably the best OL in the league, in the 1st round and Nick Chubb in the 2nd round? How about a Chubb combo platter, Bradley in the first (12 sacks as a rookie) and Nick in the 2nd. I'll take either of those scenarios over Barkley/Hernandez. Granted, we don't know how the rest of the draft would have played out - Nick Chubb might not have been available had we not drafted Barkley. It's just an example.
Myles Sanders went in the 2nd round last year, I believe he has to be considered a franchise back. Look at the RBs that went in the 2nd round this year; Jonathan Taylor, JK Dobbins, Swift, Akers - all have the potential to be top flight RBs in the league.
The point is, an RB that is good enough to win with, can be had on day 2 of the draft every year. They might not be as uber-talented as Saquon but they don't need to be.
A GM that does not understand the positional value of draft picks will set a team back.
I did a search on threads about “positional value”. The term turned up 8 threads between 2010 and 2018.
From 2018 to now there are 32 threads.
I think that’s funny.
What the fuck??? Sanders and his 800 yards rushing and 3 TD's is a franchise back??
Using that kind of reasoning, there are 40 franchise backs in the NFL. This is bonkers
I did a search on threads about “positional value”. The term turned up 8 threads between 2010 and 2018.
From 2018 to now there are 32 threads.
I think that’s funny.
the best is that even 3 years later there's no obvious alternative selection (except the trade down unicorn). the positional value of drafting a guard that high is the same as a RB and while Chubb may be a solid player he is not yet anywhere near approaching the all pro difference maker level Nelson/Barkley have been on since day 1.
I did a search on threads about “positional value”. The term turned up 8 threads between 2010 and 2018.
From 2018 to now there are 32 threads.
I think that’s funny.
You did a search on that? You’re a very disturbed man. I like it. :)
Quote:
Prior to the 2018 draft, but it’s been rampant since, and has become part of the lexicon.
I did a search on threads about “positional value”. The term turned up 8 threads between 2010 and 2018.
From 2018 to now there are 32 threads.
I think that’s funny.
You did a search on that? You’re a very disturbed man. I like it. :)
I had to see for myself, with all of this no brainer, everybody knows positional value talk.
;)
Quote:
Prior to the 2018 draft, but it’s been rampant since, and has become part of the lexicon.
I did a search on threads about “positional value”. The term turned up 8 threads between 2010 and 2018.
From 2018 to now there are 32 threads.
I think that’s funny.
the best is that even 3 years later there's no obvious alternative selection (except the trade down unicorn). the positional value of drafting a guard that high is the same as a RB and while Chubb may be a solid player he is not yet anywhere near approaching the all pro difference maker level Nelson/Barkley have been on since day 1.
Oh, the current combo du jour is Nelson/Chubb because raccoons like shiny objects.
Right all i'm saying is that alternative universe doesn't even solve the positional value aspect. And in a way it proves that positional value is less important than just getting the best players.
Quote:
Myles Sanders went in the 2nd round last year, I believe he has to be considered a franchise back.
What the fuck??? Sanders and his 800 yards rushing and 3 TD's is a franchise back??
Using that kind of reasoning, there are 40 franchise backs in the NFL. This is bonkers
Wrong.
Philly, for whatever reason, didn't fully commit to Sanders until the 2nd half of the season. Sanders was clearly one of the best backs in the league from that point on. He's not Saquon but he's a franchise back. Sanders averaged 4.5 yds per carry and 10.0 yards per reception. That compares pretty favorably to Saquon's rookie year of 5.0 yards per carry and 8.0 per reception.
Sanders is clearly a top 10 back in the league and probably headed higher up that list.
Which is why the tiers come into play grouping similar rated guys across all positions. Then teams probably have a myriad of other factors that determine "their best player" to choose within that tier (including need). Those factors are mostly likely weighted differently by every GM/franchise.
Best is not just easily apparent.
the best is that even 3 years later there's no obvious alternative selection (except the trade down unicorn). the positional value of drafting a guard that high is the same as a RB and while Chubb may be a solid player he is not yet anywhere near approaching the all pro difference maker level Nelson/Barkley have been on since day 1.
I'd take Saquon over Chubb but to say he's "not anywhere near" Saquon is a stretch. Have you ever seen Chubb play? He's a beast.
Quote:
Prior to the 2018 draft, but it’s been rampant since, and has become part of the lexicon.
I did a search on threads about “positional value”. The term turned up 8 threads between 2010 and 2018.
From 2018 to now there are 32 threads.
I think that’s funny.
the best is that even 3 years later there's no obvious alternative selection (except the trade down unicorn). the positional value of drafting a guard that high is the same as a RB
is that a fact? lol...
I did a search on threads about “positional value”. The term turned up 8 threads between 2010 and 2018.
From 2018 to now there are 32 threads.
I think that’s funny.
well that certainly says something about BBI....but not what you think it does.
Quote:
whoa whoa!
Quote:
Myles Sanders went in the 2nd round last year, I believe he has to be considered a franchise back.
What the fuck??? Sanders and his 800 yards rushing and 3 TD's is a franchise back??
Using that kind of reasoning, there are 40 franchise backs in the NFL. This is bonkers
Wrong.
Philly, for whatever reason, didn't fully commit to Sanders until the 2nd half of the season. Sanders was clearly one of the best backs in the league from that point on. He's not Saquon but he's a franchise back. Sanders averaged 4.5 yds per carry and 10.0 yards per reception. That compares pretty favorably to Saquon's rookie year of 5.0 yards per carry and 8.0 per reception.
Sanders is clearly a top 10 back in the league and probably headed higher up that list.
Dude. To be a franchise back, you have to actually prove it. Sanders wasn't "clearly" one of the best backs in the league. Again - he played in all 16 games last season. Started 11 games. And had 800 yards. Why don't we just call Raheem Mostert a franchise back now too? Austin Ekeler. Let's give the nod to Kenyan Drake.
It is odd to lecture about the idea of positional value when it doesn't seem like you know much about the player's actual value.
Dude. To be a franchise back, you have to actually prove it. Sanders wasn't "clearly" one of the best backs in the league. Again - he played in all 16 games last season. Started 11 games. And had 800 yards. Why don't we just call Raheem Mostert a franchise back now too? Austin Ekeler. Let's give the nod to Kenyan Drake.
I don’t know what is the exact right label for those guys
I do know that you can win with that level of talent at the RB position.
Quote:
Dude. To be a franchise back, you have to actually prove it. Sanders wasn't "clearly" one of the best backs in the league. Again - he played in all 16 games last season. Started 11 games. And had 800 yards. Why don't we just call Raheem Mostert a franchise back now too? Austin Ekeler. Let's give the nod to Kenyan Drake.
I don’t know what is the exact right label for those guys
I do know that you can win with that level of talent at the RB position.
You could say that about a lot of positions.
“You dont need ‘great’ just a bunch of ‘good’”.
It still helps to have great players.
Quote:
Dude. To be a franchise back, you have to actually prove it. Sanders wasn't "clearly" one of the best backs in the league. Again - he played in all 16 games last season. Started 11 games. And had 800 yards. Why don't we just call Raheem Mostert a franchise back now too? Austin Ekeler. Let's give the nod to Kenyan Drake.
It is odd to lecture about the idea of positional value when it doesn't seem like you know much about the player's actual value.
Wrong again.
You keep throwing out 800 yards rushing yet conveniently omitting the 500 yards receiving. Those 1300 yards put Sanders 16th in total yards from scrimmage last season. Had he been deemed the starter from the outset, he would likely have VERY conservatively added another 200 yards which would have put him in the Top 10. Sanders is one of the top backs in the league.
So, back to the original point of my mentioning Sanders, you don't need to spend a 1st round pick, especially a very high 1st round pick, to acquire a dominant RB. That point can be proven time and time again with many different examples so I won't spend any more time debating you on this subject
Quote:
In comment 14976010 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
Prior to the 2018 draft, but it’s been rampant since, and has become part of the lexicon.
I did a search on threads about “positional value”. The term turned up 8 threads between 2010 and 2018.
From 2018 to now there are 32 threads.
I think that’s funny.
the best is that even 3 years later there's no obvious alternative selection (except the trade down unicorn). the positional value of drafting a guard that high is the same as a RB
is that a fact? lol...
Tend to agree with a facetious Enzo here. Not only is it not a fact, its most likely the reverse.
I don't think ever, although probably a bunch of OTs were and then were converted to Guard.
Not sure Top 5 picks is the only barometer here.
Do you think Quinton Nelson drafted #6 was drafted too high? Its only one spot off of the top 5 and he is you know...great.
Quote:
In comment 14976033 BlueVinnie said:
Quote:
Dude. To be a franchise back, you have to actually prove it. Sanders wasn't "clearly" one of the best backs in the league. Again - he played in all 16 games last season. Started 11 games. And had 800 yards. Why don't we just call Raheem Mostert a franchise back now too? Austin Ekeler. Let's give the nod to Kenyan Drake.
It is odd to lecture about the idea of positional value when it doesn't seem like you know much about the player's actual value.
Wrong again.
You keep throwing out 800 yards rushing yet conveniently omitting the 500 yards receiving. Those 1300 yards put Sanders 16th in total yards from scrimmage last season. Had he been deemed the starter from the outset, he would likely have VERY conservatively added another 200 yards which would have put him in the Top 10. Sanders is one of the top backs in the league.
So, back to the original point of my mentioning Sanders, you don't need to spend a 1st round pick, especially a very high 1st round pick, to acquire a dominant RB. That point can be proven time and time again with many different examples so I won't spend any more time debating you on this subject
Sanders isn't a dominant back. And you know you can say the same about every position on the field. You don't need to spend a high draft pick to find a good WR, a good G, a good LB, the list goes on.
Quote:
In comment 14976063 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
Dude. To be a franchise back, you have to actually prove it. Sanders wasn't "clearly" one of the best backs in the league. Again - he played in all 16 games last season. Started 11 games. And had 800 yards. Why don't we just call Raheem Mostert a franchise back now too? Austin Ekeler. Let's give the nod to Kenyan Drake.
I don’t know what is the exact right label for those guys
I do know that you can win with that level of talent at the RB position.
You could say that about a lot of positions.
“You dont need ‘great’ just a bunch of ‘good’”.
It still helps to have great players.
that is true
I have not looked up RB’s drafted in the top 5 but have to believe it would be significantly more frequent, so I’m curious about your belief that the opposite would be true.
Drafting a OT and moving him to G because he failed at tackle is a different conversation and not related to positional value.
Imv, changes in how the game has evolved has pushed Guard to be more valuable over time - QBs getting rid of the ball quicker than ever, # of Defensive lineman that are both big and fast and now play inside, creative line stunting and blitz packages thought up by DCs, OCs that get their lineman on the move with running schemes.
The cost benefit is also a factor as Guards arguably have a longer life cycle than running backs. As well as the volume of NFL-ready running backs as rookies are far more plentiful than plug-n-play NFL ready Guards.
Fairly comfortable suggesting the number of running backs taken in the first round has probably dropped over past few decades if plotted. That's not because there are less valuable running backs around today versus a decade, its because the other positions have become more valuable. And imv, one of those is Guard.
He isn't to blame for everything, nor can he take credit for everything, but the buck stops at his desk, so he'll be judged a failure or success by the results. Until the results prove to be positive, he's leaning failure.
DG has done what a lot of bad GM's have done- get some right, some wrong, spent money on free agents who are not difference makers and gone nowhere. This team has no identity on offense and a bad defense. We've won 9 games in the last two years and the last time we beat a team that finished .500 or above was the Bears in 2018. At least three of the wins have come against teams with backup qb's starting.
The other night, we got the ball on the 3 and "cashed in" for 3 points, scored 10 points to go up 10-3 and then gave up 23 straight points to a team guided by a 400 year old qb who hadn't played in a year and the backup running back- at home.
This is not progress; this is the 70's all over again. Goodbye Dave and stay well; let's move on.
With that said, and I mentioned this the other day, I would have probably taken Saquon Barkley straight up over Quentin Nelson at #2 as well.
But if given a potential deal to trade back to #4 and pick up some extra draft collateral as well (the rumored Cleveland Brown offer), I make that deal every day of the week and pick Q Nelson at #4.
Quote:
In comment 14976010 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
Prior to the 2018 draft, but it’s been rampant since, and has become part of the lexicon.
I did a search on threads about “positional value”. The term turned up 8 threads between 2010 and 2018.
From 2018 to now there are 32 threads.
I think that’s funny.
the best is that even 3 years later there's no obvious alternative selection (except the trade down unicorn). the positional value of drafting a guard that high is the same as a RB
is that a fact? lol...
same as a RB in that neither is considered a premium position.
Assume a few things were true 1) general management believed the roster was in tatters 2) Barkley was in fact a rare commodity, or as Gettleman claimed, the highest rated player in 2 decades.
If the front office is right on both accounts, the demand for Barkley should be high. He’s not mind you the best player in the draft, he’s the best player in many drafts. And the Giants are both far from contention and in need of many, new good players.
If the Giants rating on Barkley was roughly the consensus, I’d expect the demand would be high. There’s an element of scarcity. If he was so coveted, some attractive trade would be available, no?
The Giants got a great player. Undeniable. The Giants 3 years on are on coach number 2, left tackle number 2, center number 3, middle linebacker number 2, left guard number 3, right tackle number 3.
The argument for opting for many better players over one great one isn’t a sensibility defying argument.
I wanted a tradedown in 2018, and frankly wanted one in 2019 too.
but just because I wanted a tradedown doesn't make the pick bad or that we needed to do something different.
It just means that they did something that I wouldn't have. Some hold that against the team.
Quote:
In comment 14976016 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
In comment 14976010 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
Prior to the 2018 draft, but it’s been rampant since, and has become part of the lexicon.
I did a search on threads about “positional value”. The term turned up 8 threads between 2010 and 2018.
From 2018 to now there are 32 threads.
I think that’s funny.
the best is that even 3 years later there's no obvious alternative selection (except the trade down unicorn). the positional value of drafting a guard that high is the same as a RB
is that a fact? lol...
same as a RB in that neither is considered a premium position.
the concept is slightly more complicated than that....
While it may have been leaked that the Giants liked Darnold amongst the QBs, he didn't seriously enter into the fray at all because the job was already Eli Manning's and DG wasn't rebuilding yet, he was competing and needed an immediate splash in Barkley. The selection of Hernandez in Rd 2 is interesting because it tells you more OL investment is on their mind and in a trade down with Cleveland they may have targeted top lineman like Q Nelson or M McGlinchey.
You see that QB urgency appear the very next year in 2019 as DG grappled with taking the DE Josh Allen at #6 instead of Daniel Jones, but fell to the pressure of now needing a QB because he was in rebuild mode. But by Draft Day he became too concerned that Jones wouldn't last long enough to make it to #17, so he jumps early on Jones at #6 instead. In full deal mode because he still really covets pass rusher Josh Allen and has a lot of draft picks that year to play with, DG immediately tries to move up from #17 to pick but as soon as JAX takes him with the next pick, Gettleman stands down.
Probably still in deal mode with all his extra picks and missing out on Josh Allen to help the defense, DG burns 4th & 5th round picks to move up seven spots to #30 when he sees Deandre Baker still available who is high on his board.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. Barkley had such a rare grade, there was effectively no choice.
But if it’s true, and Barkley was the best player not just in that, but decades worth of drafts, I’d expect high demand for a trade.
Point being 1) the option just wasn’t quarterback or Barkley 2) there’s some nuance to the claim picking Barkley was unequivocally the right choice.
Things we’ve learned since:
- The Jets actually will trade with the Giants
- The Giants arguably have the best RB in the league
- In that time they’ve been no better than 19th in the league in rushing
- In their opening salvo against the Steelers (who we were reminded quite directly are no 85 Bears), the center over to the right tackle struggled mightily and Barkley rushed for 7 yards on 15 carries
He is not heads and shoulders above the other top guys and cases can be made that others are better, at least more effective and instrumental to winning games.
same as a RB in that neither is considered a premium position.
the concept is slightly more complicated than that....
Not really - it's pretty easy to look up how each position is valued, quite literally. As it happens, the average salaries of the top 10 players at each position are almost identical:
Top 10 G AAV = 12.6m
Top 10 RB AAV = 12.6m
Both are behind the AAV of QB (#1), DE (#2), WR (#3), CB (#4), OT (#5), DT (#6), and LB (#7).
The positions of less value include just TE & S.
Things we’ve learned since:
- The Jets actually will trade with the Giants
- The Giants arguably have the best RB in the league
- In that time they’ve been no better than 19th in the league in rushing
- In their opening salvo against the Steelers (who we were reminded quite directly are no 85 Bears), the center over to the right tackle struggled mightily and Barkley rushed for 7 yards on 15 carries
I think we've learned much more important things than those:
- As bad as the team was in 2017, 2018 was more of the same and really a waste of time except for adding a top shelf running back. Although his additional presence on the roster hasn't resulted in any incremental wins.
- Unless Blake Martinez and James Bradberry shine, Free Agency under Gettleman for 3 consecutive years has been a disaster.
- Gettleman may very well have found a franchise QB where many others didn't see it.
- The continued inability of this franchise to stabilize the Offensive Line is a coach and GM killer.
Quote:
has said many times that the choice would've been Darnold or Chubb most likely if it weren't Saquon but the grade of Barkley was too hard to pass on.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. Barkley had such a rare grade, there was effectively no choice.
But if it’s true, and Barkley was the best player not just in that, but decades worth of drafts, I’d expect high demand for a trade.
Point being 1) the option just wasn’t quarterback or Barkley 2) there’s some nuance to the claim picking Barkley was unequivocally the right choice.
Things we’ve learned since:
- The Jets actually will trade with the Giants
- The Giants arguably have the best RB in the league
- In that time they’ve been no better than 19th in the league in rushing
- In their opening salvo against the Steelers (who we were reminded quite directly are no 85 Bears), the center over to the right tackle struggled mightily and Barkley rushed for 7 yards on 15 carries
Wishcasting for a trade offer that there's no evidence existed isn't exactly credible. Per Albert Breer:
I am 100% in agreement with anyone who would have preferred getting the exact offer the Colts received for our higher pick (or similar from another team) and doing that. But just like they were openly trying to get someone to trade with them this year, wanting something and getting another team to want something are 2 different things. There hasn't been another Ricky Williams trade for a reason.
However in absence of that trade even today knowing all we know I take Barkley over Nelson and Chubb (and of course Darnold given how things turned out).
Nelson is the only temptation since he has similarly been an all pro contender from day 1 and the longevity of a guard is typically better than a RB. But using the game this weekend as an example, if I had to choose which player to bring to Chicago to win the game, I'm probably choosing Saquon.
Here's the Jets surprisingly logical reason for not calling Giants about No. 2 draft pick - ( New Window )
You can't just discard every player due to contracts. You can't just walk away from Eli without having a backup. As it is, we were left with a lot of dead money, but that was going to be dead money if he turned over the roster immediately too.
Plus, what if he replaced Eli with Darnold or Rosen?
The idea that he set the team back significantly because of his first year is a myth. He still got his franchise RB and what looks like a great choice at QB.
It's not that he hasn't tried or that he doesn't make moves; they just are not working out.
And I will say it because what the hell; it is looking like the opinions of some commentators that Jones was Tannehill v.2 may be correct. Looks great against stiff teams, looks mediocre at best against good teams. We may be seeing what he is at this point. Obviously, Pittsburgh wasn't worried as by their own admission, they went all out to stop Barkley. It's early yet, I suppose but this "stud" talk is BS at this point.
1) if the league regarded Barkley in the same light, I’m surprised there wasn’t more of a trade market (or maybe there was).
2) the Jets and Giants were able to conduct business in good faith the next year, so that part feels a little silly in retrospect.
All we really do know is 2/5 into his rookie deal, the Giants have had neither a good running game or offense. And one game into the season, the Giants got taken behind the shed in the run game.
1) if the league regarded Barkley in the same light, I’m surprised there wasn’t more of a trade market (or maybe there was).
2) the Jets and Giants were able to conduct business in good faith the next year, so that part feels a little silly in retrospect.
All we really do know is 2/5 into his rookie deal, the Giants have had neither a good running game or offense. And one game into the season, the Giants got taken behind the shed in the run game.
In regards to the jets, there is a difference between making a franchise 1st round quarterback trade (that they wanted) and trading a player that they didn't want.
Gettleman had close ties to Brandon Beane (buffalo bills GM) who also coveted a quarterback. The jets were not going to tip their hand to the giants and risk word getting out.
Or there has been a shift in the way that many football teams (and fans) view roster construction efficiency?
Nah, couldn't possibly be the evolution of discourse.
Dave Gettleman: Giants had one “very reasonable offer” for No. 2 pick - ( New Window )
That's completely fair - without knowing what the offer was I don't know how to say it was or wasn't a mistake to pass though. Let's say it was the Bills who were clearly in the QB market, had a ton 10 pick, and had a good relationship with DG. Sliding down to #7 likely means they are picking from Roquan Smith or McGlinchey. Or Vea/Payne. All solid players I'd be happy with in addition to extra picks but none are Barkley/Nelson.
Quote:
And perpetuate narratives that fit their personal biases?
Or there has been a shift in the way that many football teams (and fans) view roster construction efficiency?
Nah, couldn't possibly be the evolution of discourse.
Well we're talking about Running backs and positional value, correct? Considering there have been 3 RB's taken in the Top 5 in the past 5 years, I would say there isn't any evidence of teams shifting the way they view roster construction.
Fans, on the other hand, as I said....
Mentioned number of running backs taken in first round have seen a precipitous decline over the past years. In fact, this attached article from 2019 goes thru that concept very clearly, and even mentions it has dropped moreso than any other position.
https://qz.com/1602987/nfl-draft-order-2019-first-round-running-backs-are-rare/
Further, from a compensation perspective PFF also listed the average per year salary of the 10 highest-paid players at each position in the NFL. Running back at the bottom of the list only ahead of Tight End.
Position Top-10 Salary APY
QB $31,988,400
ED $18,867,133
WR $18,052,100
DI $17,401,867
OT $16,250,000
CB $14,524,333
LB $13,254,000
IOL $12,827,350
S $12,633,200
RB $10,461,244
TE $8,720,040
Quote:
In comment 14976056 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
And perpetuate narratives that fit their personal biases?
Or there has been a shift in the way that many football teams (and fans) view roster construction efficiency?
Nah, couldn't possibly be the evolution of discourse.
Well we're talking about Running backs and positional value, correct? Considering there have been 3 RB's taken in the Top 5 in the past 5 years, I would say there isn't any evidence of teams shifting the way they view roster construction.
Fans, on the other hand, as I said....
You don't need new events to happen to evolve the discussion about past events, do you? Aren't you a teacher?
Quote:
In comment 14976649 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14976056 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
And perpetuate narratives that fit their personal biases?
Or there has been a shift in the way that many football teams (and fans) view roster construction efficiency?
Nah, couldn't possibly be the evolution of discourse.
Well we're talking about Running backs and positional value, correct? Considering there have been 3 RB's taken in the Top 5 in the past 5 years, I would say there isn't any evidence of teams shifting the way they view roster construction.
Fans, on the other hand, as I said....
You don't need new events to happen to evolve the discussion about past events, do you? Aren't you a teacher?
And wouldn't the LACK OF data points serve to reinforce my point anyway?
Don't worry about responding, we both know the answer.
Nothing for certain, but there were reports back then that the team’s interested in Giants #2 pick could have been Cleveland, Buffalo and/or Denver. Cleveland had plenty of draft collateral to make a deal with the #4 pick and two early second round picks. Not sure what the other two teams had to make it worth DG’s while.
It can’t be said enough a trade down and Barkley would have been a no arguments great move. I think that’s the problem with DG that a lot of people just don’t seem to grasp. How the moves add up is important, it’s everything. Being able to rationalize a thought process that a smart person like DG went through is an easy activity (alarmingly not all the time see LW, Solder, etc) but it’s very different than collecting surplus value relative to your competitors on the aggregation of your moves.
Mentioned number of running backs taken in first round have seen a precipitous decline over the past years. In fact, this attached article from 2019 goes thru that concept very clearly, and even mentions it has dropped moreso than any other position.
https://qz.com/1602987/nfl-draft-order-2019-first-round-running-backs-are-rare/
Further, from a compensation perspective PFF also listed the average per year salary of the 10 highest-paid players at each position in the NFL. Running back at the bottom of the list only ahead of Tight End.
Position Top-10 Salary APY
QB $31,988,400
ED $18,867,133
WR $18,052,100
DI $17,401,867
OT $16,250,000
CB $14,524,333
LB $13,254,000
IOL $12,827,350
S $12,633,200
RB $10,461,244
TE $8,720,040
Add in the recent extensions to CMC, Kamara, Henry, Cook, and Drake and the RB top 10 number is closer to $13m now.
Quote:
In comment 14976659 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
In comment 14976649 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14976056 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
And perpetuate narratives that fit their personal biases?
Or there has been a shift in the way that many football teams (and fans) view roster construction efficiency?
Nah, couldn't possibly be the evolution of discourse.
Well we're talking about Running backs and positional value, correct? Considering there have been 3 RB's taken in the Top 5 in the past 5 years, I would say there isn't any evidence of teams shifting the way they view roster construction.
Fans, on the other hand, as I said....
You don't need new events to happen to evolve the discussion about past events, do you? Aren't you a teacher?
And wouldn't the LACK OF data points serve to reinforce my point anyway?
Don't worry about responding, we both know the answer.
The only data point you need to know is that between 2010 and 2018, there were a total of 8 threads that mentioned the term "positional value". Between the beginning of 2018 and June of this year, there are 32. So 32 in less than three years.
What a coincidence that this "evolution" of discussion occurred around the 2018 draft.
Quote:
same as a RB in that neither is considered a premium position.
the concept is slightly more complicated than that....
Not really - it's pretty easy to look up how each position is valued, quite literally. As it happens, the average salaries of the top 10 players at each position are almost identical:
Top 10 G AAV = 12.6m
Top 10 RB AAV = 12.6m
Both are behind the AAV of QB (#1), DE (#2), WR (#3), CB (#4), OT (#5), DT (#6), and LB (#7).
The positions of less value include just TE & S.
What are their respective franchise tag values? You were a big proponent of using the tag on LW, so I know you know it. Go ahead and let us know the respective franchise tag values for OG and RB.
Quote:
In comment 14976685 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14976659 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
In comment 14976649 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14976056 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
And perpetuate narratives that fit their personal biases?
Or there has been a shift in the way that many football teams (and fans) view roster construction efficiency?
Nah, couldn't possibly be the evolution of discourse.
Well we're talking about Running backs and positional value, correct? Considering there have been 3 RB's taken in the Top 5 in the past 5 years, I would say there isn't any evidence of teams shifting the way they view roster construction.
Fans, on the other hand, as I said....
You don't need new events to happen to evolve the discussion about past events, do you? Aren't you a teacher?
And wouldn't the LACK OF data points serve to reinforce my point anyway?
Don't worry about responding, we both know the answer.
The only data point you need to know is that between 2010 and 2018, there were a total of 8 threads that mentioned the term "positional value". Between the beginning of 2018 and June of this year, there are 32. So 32 in less than three years.
What a coincidence that this "evolution" of discussion occurred around the 2018 draft.
Go check the Google search history for "covid" before 2020.
That doesn't mean it's been a figment of anyone's argument since then. It means that the discussion evolved.
I'll ask again, aren't you a teacher?
Are we sharing resumes? What’s yours?
Or is the part well you tell me you feel sorry for my students because I haven’t elevated myself to your higher level thinking on a football message board?
Are we sharing resumes? What’s yours?
Or is the part well you tell me you feel sorry for my students because I haven’t elevated myself to your higher level thinking on a football message board?
No, it's not about trading resumes, although I'd be perfectly fine with sharing mine with you so you don't think I'm just being a dick for the sake of it.
The point of me asking twice now whether you're a teacher is because I would think that any teacher who embraces the educational process would also recognize that the information which is being taught is constantly evolving, sometimes slowly and other times rapidly, but always evolving. Certainly nothing you've ever taught is completely static, right?
Anyway, let me know where I can send my resume so you can vet my bona fides.
It’s just us.
All of my buddies, fans of multiple teams (none Giants fans), think Saquon is an awesome player they would never trade or let walk.
But you actually don’t need to get that far. Why don’t you draft a center or a guard in the top 5? Why don’t you pay a safety as much as a corner? Why are left tackles paid more than right tackles? Why would you never draft a fullback in the first round? Why are outside linebackers paid more than middle linebackers?
Positional value, even if that’s not what it was called, has guided roster decisions for decades.
But you actually don’t need to get that far. Why don’t you draft a center or a guard in the top 5? Why don’t you pay a safety as much as a corner? Why are left tackles paid more than right tackles? Why would you never draft a fullback in the first round? Why are outside linebackers paid more than middle linebackers?
Positional value, even if that’s not what it was called, has guided roster decisions for decades.
That's all true, but let's be real here. The laser like focus HERE, on this site, on that term, is because a bunch (not all, but the majority) of people going on and on about it going on three years now, even with hindsight showing it as not an over the top egregious move, is simply because they want to bash the GM over it.
The league wide consensus is that Saquon is a very good player and I doubt there are many who think the Giants made a mistake in taking him, outside of a handful of Giants fans (who just happen to be very vocal on this site).
You want to bash DG over Solder? Fine. Williams, okay fine (even though that book hasn't been written).
But the fact that so much time is spent arguing whether he got the Barkley pick wrong is getting old. Jones and Barkley are home runs.
Really?
It's often discussed in the media when analyzing the NFL draft - both before and after the draft takes place. I don't think the term itself was used often until the last few years but the concept has always been discussed.
Quote:
discuss positional value? I’ve never heard that term uttered by another human being outside the confines of this board, or the internet.
Really?
It's often discussed in the media when analyzing the NFL draft - both before and after the draft takes place. I don't think the term itself was used often until the last few years but the concept has always been discussed.
Yes, I acknowledged to christian that it is a real concept, I think we all know that.
But here, for all intents and purposes, that concept has been overblown to an exponential degree.
My point about discussing it with my friends, who have all been die hard fans that watch every draft, and follow all of their teams' moves with the same rigor that we do here, don't speak of that term ad nauseum, or ever really.
That term has been WAY overdone on this site, for specific purpose. That's all I'm saying. It's a real concept, but not to the degree it's beaten over our heads, here.
2) Or does it really mean how hard it is to select and develop an average ( much less a better than average) NFL player at the position who lasts past first contract?
I think its a mix of both but I think its largely number 2 ( witness the flush rate of 1st round QB's versus RB or the number of 1st round OT's who cant get to average at NFL tackle.
To a team, an average QB or better on a rookie contract is a godsend. Ditto LT or RT. IS that about the position or the smaller/rarer talent pool?
Call what like it is? The only agenda someone seems to be pushing here is you.
The thread is about whether DG has made the right calls. The early first rounds picks this team has had over the past 3 years and how they used them are one of, if not the most important thing that occurred with this franchise since hitting rock bottom in 2017.
Posters are discussing if he made the right calls with them. And until the team starts winning, the question is pretty damn valid.
The RB franchise tag was $10.2 but 2 of the 3 highest paid RB's in the NFL signed their deals this offseason, after this year's franchise tags were calculated.
The average of the top 5 for each position right now is:
Top 5 G AAV = $14.216m
Top 5 RB AAV = $14.425m
2) Or does it really mean how hard it is to select and develop an average ( much less a better than average) NFL player at the position who lasts past first contract?
I think its a mix of both but I think its largely number 2 ( witness the flush rate of 1st round QB's versus RB or the number of 1st round OT's who cant get to average at NFL tackle.
To a team, an average QB or better on a rookie contract is a godsend. Ditto LT or RT. IS that about the position or the smaller/rarer talent pool?
I think you're right about the combination of 1 vs. 2, with a greater weight to factor 2.
That said, the Barkley discussion, I think, does include elements of both. For factor 1, even leaving aside valuation of the RB position in and of itself, there is a very obvious observation that a RB cannot be especially productive on his own; he needs at least a competent OL in order to add value to his team. To use a more extreme example, it would be like investing a very high pick in a WR while you have a QB who is physically incapable of throwing the football. There is no way to get your money's worth (or draft pick's worth) from that WR without a QB to throw him the football, just as there is a wastefulness in putting Barkley behind this OL.
To the second element of positional value, it becomes an extension of the first. If you cannot get value from a particular position (in this case, RB) without first establishing a level of competency from another (in this case, OL), and there is historically a generally easier path to finding at least an average player at the dependent position (RB) without expending significant resources to do so, then the use of those resources on even the most talented player of all time at the dependent position (RB) before establishing the independent position (OL) can be viewed as inefficient if not downright frivolous.
Unfortunately, these debates invariably devolve into an argument about whether or not Barkley is a great player (he is) or whether he was worth the #2 pick in the draft (objectively, I would argue that he was worthy of that selection on talent alone). IMO, it's not about whether Barkley is great or if he was worthy of being picked #2. It is about his talent going to waste because he was picked by the team that is probably least able to take advantage of his skills in all of the NFL.
We wasted the first half of his rookie contract and probably at least 20-25% of his prime with the worst OL coach in the NFL, and a collection of mediocrity within the OL group. It's not that Barkley is a bad player, and it's not that he was a bad pick at #2. It's that he has gone to waste on this team because of DG's failure to build the OL into just even being not a massive weakness of the roster.
The RB franchise tag was $10.2 but 2 of the 3 highest paid RB's in the NFL signed their deals this offseason, after this year's franchise tags were calculated.
The average of the top 5 for each position right now is:
Top 5 G AAV = $14.216m
Top 5 RB AAV = $14.425m
I know the tag rules, which is why I asked you for their respective tag numbers.
All good you feel that way. Others don’t, and this seems like yet again a topic you don’t like engaging in, then do, then get upset.
- Barkley is statistically 1/3 of the way through his highly productive years
-Take a look at how many RBs have been top 10 in rushing and scrimmage yards after 1800 career carries this century
- Take a look at the contracts of all the recent running back extensions and see where after year 6, virtually all are designed to cut the RB loose
- The Giants have been 19 and 24th respectively in rushing with Barkley
- Over half his career carries have been 1 or less yards
- 37% of his production has come on 22 carries
Now I want Barkley and the Giants to succeed. I hope he puts up 200 today. He can. I want the next 4 years to be a championship window, where Barkley’s prime and Jones’s emergence intersect. It can. But the Giants need to hurry the other the fuck up.
2) Or does it really mean how hard it is to select and develop an average ( much less a better than average) NFL player at the position who lasts past first contract?
I think its a mix of both but I think its largely number 2 ( witness the flush rate of 1st round QB's versus RB or the number of 1st round OT's who cant get to average at NFL tackle.
To a team, an average QB or better on a rookie contract is a godsend. Ditto LT or RT. IS that about the position or the smaller/rarer talent pool?
jmo but it's both because 1 impacts the other (S&D). It being easier to find and develop players at given position puts more of those players in the talent pool and brings the costs down to acquire those players because there are simply more alternatives available. Both guard and running back fit that category. So as it turns out the higher positional value spots are both harder positions to play due to the necessity of rarer talents are the harder positions to find.
So on the flip side with there being fewer human beings with the raw size and athleticism generally necessary to play LT, CB, DE, and of course all the intangibles required for QB's, there is significantly more demand for those that pass the quality threshold and the elites are only ever available at an extreme premium.
Separately when discussing positional value as it relates to the draft, bust rate is involved, but that's case by case and not entirely positional in nature bc it's also impacted by other factors (large school vs. small school competition level, age, track record, injury history, etc). At least for all the non-QB positions. QB bust rates are so high and the demand on the position is so high it really needs to be a prospect the org is all in on (imo). In the case of Barkley and Nelson, bust rate worked in both prospect's favor relative to every other player in that draft in that those positions are usually a pretty safe projection to be quality players and they were both exceptionally clean prospects. I'd probably put a small edge towards Nelson because of the average career length of a G vs. RB, but a slightly larger edge towards Barkley in that a gamechanging weapon generally holds more value than an interior G. Barkley will get 20+ chances to make a play to win the game for us today and it could happen from anywhere on the field. No offensive G can do the same.
Another example of bust rate not necessarily being positional is Andrew Thomas vs. Wirfs vs. Becton vs. Wills. All 4 were in consideration to be the NYG LT of the future but despite playing the same position the bust rate calculation was very dynamic since they had different attributes and track records, some never or only rarely having even played LT.
2) Or does it really mean how hard it is to select and develop an average ( much less a better than average) NFL player at the position who lasts past first contract?
I think its a mix of both but I think its largely number 2 ( witness the flush rate of 1st round QB's versus RB or the number of 1st round OT's who cant get to average at NFL tackle.
To a team, an average QB or better on a rookie contract is a godsend. Ditto LT or RT. IS that about the position or the smaller/rarer talent pool?
QB is strictly for the money, but I'd imagine having dogshit on the outside lining up for the NYG has skewed your opinion on comparing T to QB. From a money standpoint Edge would be next in value, but there is something to be said about position scarcity. And I was one of those people that thought a lot of these tackles were going too high starting 5+ years ago. But teams need to overdraft from a pure talent standpoint because you can't have your QB vulnerable on his blind side if you want to accomplish anything as a football team.
But the point is to win football games, right? Or is it just to compile gaudy stats?
Even in 2018, a season in which Barkley's aggregate stats suggest that he was highly productive, he still had less than 70 yards rushing in half of his games, totaling 342 yards on 118 carries (2.9 YPC) in those games. Now, we all know that only tells half the story, because SB is such a dynamic receiver as well. But he wasn't drafted to become the next Larry Centers or Darren Sproles; he's a special talent because he is supposed to be a great receiver on top of also being a great runner. And the OL's mediocrity led to SB being fairly inconsistent even in a season that was very productive overall.
Consider this - despite his amazing physical talent, 70% of his carries in 2018 were for two yards or less (TDs removed from the calculation). 39% of his carries were for one yard or less (TDs removed). 23% were for zero or negative yards.
And the most important metric of all: we won five games. Part of that is a result of the game flow being unfavorable for a RB when their team is losing - obviously teams will throw downfield more often when they're behind - but that also contributes to a RB being less valuable on a bad team than he is on a good team, just like a RB is less valuable behind a crappy OL than he is behind even an average OL.
So to answer that question, if Barkley's 2018 season is an example of a productive season in spite of the OL, how many wins is that worth?
So to answer that question, if Barkley's 2018 season is an example of a productive season in spite of the OL, how many wins is that worth?
or Joey Bosa last year because the Chargers stunk?
Barkley was one of the best offensive players in football in 2018 as a rookie, and the Giants offense as a result was actually half way decent (14th in yards per play, 16th in points scored, 10th in y/a rushing).
Pat Shurmur being a terrible as a head coach and the defense being god awful doesn't mean Saquon wasn't valuable.
The Giants started Solder/Hernandez/Pulley/Brown/Wheeler for the last 8 games of 2018 and Barkley had his best stretch on the ground. That was a functional offensive line by all measures.
During that stretch he averaged 98.5 YPG and scored 5 TDs. That not surprisingly corresponded with Manning’s best stretch and a few wins.
The Giants haven’t had an offensive line that functioned that well since. When they do, Barkley will return to form.
or Joey Bosa last year because the Chargers stunk?
Barkley was one of the best offensive players in football in 2018 as a rookie, and the Giants offense as a result was actually half way decent (14th in yards per play, 16th in points scored, 10th in y/a rushing).
Pat Shurmur being a terrible as a head coach and the defense being god awful doesn't mean Saquon wasn't valuable.
It actually does mean exactly that. When your offensive line can't open holes for your RB to sustain drives and keep your own D off the field, and your defense can't get themselves off the field, you have effectively wasted the talent of your RB as a function of the way the rest of the roster is built.
17-0 Bears. Trubisky throwing ducks yet still get completed for first downs all over the field. No offense. Daniel Jones still turning the ball over. And now injuries to best players.
All 6 times Barkley actually had space to run in, he looked like an uncaged animal.
It really is criminal/tragic what is happening to him.
Quote:
1) Does "positional value" mean the position is more valuable?
2) Or does it really mean how hard it is to select and develop an average ( much less a better than average) NFL player at the position who lasts past first contract?
I think its a mix of both but I think its largely number 2 ( witness the flush rate of 1st round QB's versus RB or the number of 1st round OT's who cant get to average at NFL tackle.
To a team, an average QB or better on a rookie contract is a godsend. Ditto LT or RT. IS that about the position or the smaller/rarer talent pool?
I think you're right about the combination of 1 vs. 2, with a greater weight to factor 2.
That said, the Barkley discussion, I think, does include elements of both. For factor 1, even leaving aside valuation of the RB position in and of itself, there is a very obvious observation that a RB cannot be especially productive on his own; he needs at least a competent OL in order to add value to his team. To use a more extreme example, it would be like investing a very high pick in a WR while you have a QB who is physically incapable of throwing the football. There is no way to get your money's worth (or draft pick's worth) from that WR without a QB to throw him the football, just as there is a wastefulness in putting Barkley behind this OL.
To the second element of positional value, it becomes an extension of the first. If you cannot get value from a particular position (in this case, RB) without first establishing a level of competency from another (in this case, OL), and there is historically a generally easier path to finding at least an average player at the dependent position (RB) without expending significant resources to do so, then the use of those resources on even the most talented player of all time at the dependent position (RB) before establishing the independent position (OL) can be viewed as inefficient if not downright frivolous.
Unfortunately, these debates invariably devolve into an argument about whether or not Barkley is a great player (he is) or whether he was worth the #2 pick in the draft (objectively, I would argue that he was worthy of that selection on talent alone). IMO, it's not about whether Barkley is great or if he was worthy of being picked #2. It is about his talent going to waste because he was picked by the team that is probably least able to take advantage of his skills in all of the NFL.
We wasted the first half of his rookie contract and probably at least 20-25% of his prime with the worst OL coach in the NFL, and a collection of mediocrity within the OL group. It's not that Barkley is a bad player, and it's not that he was a bad pick at #2. It's that he has gone to waste on this team because of DG's failure to build the OL into just even being not a massive weakness of the roster.
CORRECTION TO THE ABOVE: WE MAY WELL HAVE NOW WASTED THE ENTIRETY OF SAQUON BARKLEY'S PRIME.
Keep slurping, kiddos.