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.
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.