I posted this in another thread, but I thought it deserved it’s own.
I could not be more impressed with Nick Gates this season. What a player. For a guy who never played a snap at the center position, to come in and be as solid as he was...very impressive. Sure, there were some bumps in the road early on, but overall, he improved each and every week throughout the year. One of my favorite players on this roster. I’m pretty sure he did not miss a single snap this season.
I made the argument throughout the season that Engram is not a winning player. He makes mistakes and does things that lose games. Gates is the anti-Engram....outperformed his draft position (undrafted) and his contract (rookie deal) to earn an extension, and simply gets the job done week in, week out.
He was not only the best and most consistent lineman this season, but the best player on offense. To come into the league undrafted as a tackle from Nebraska, move to guard, move back to tackle, and now center is amazing. He was probably the best lineman on last year’s team as well! He may very well be a top 10 center in the league already.
He is tough as nails, plays with a mean streak, is very intelligent, supports his teammates, and just gets it done. He is a leader, and it wouldn’t surprise me to see a “C” on his jersey at some point in his career.
Had he not signed that extension he'd have probably hit FA with a 2nd round tender this offseason and UFA next year.
+1
He's the Iron Man - the new Mel Hein!
remember when his extension was an "unforced error"?
Me too. We'll be going into '21 set at center and left tackle.
And still developing, both physically and in his skill set. Seems determined to be dominant.
I hope he hit some of the incentives in his deal, he deserves it.
I was impressed by Gates' performance at both guard and tackle in 2019 which is why I was excited about him moving to center because I knew that he had the physical talent to be a solid center. The only question was whether or not he could handle the position mentally which he clearly proved that he can.
The fact that an odds against transition to a new position, and rapid development occurred, doesn't mean that the plan was poor.
If you have $1000 left to you name, and you walk into a casino and put it all on 00. Do you think that is a "good plan"?
Just because once in a while somebody gets lucky, doesn't mean it was good.
THat said, I do very much appreciate the improvement that Gates has made. He looks like a true professional OC at this point, which is orders of magnitude better than Halapio, who when DG said he was good, you went along on that ride. DG gets no benefit of the doubt in this case after what he did to the OC position for 2 years.
What are you basing your opinion on. Gates seemed to have the ability to back up multiple positions in the line. Trying him there in a rebuild year to see what you have isn’t s horrible plan when you did have a veteran behind him and options like halapio there. in the background.
At very least we need a backup Center.
Quote:
the turnaround from week 1 where it was a "fireable offense" to not have a plan at Center!
The fact that an odds against transition to a new position, and rapid development occurred, doesn't mean that the plan was poor.
If you have $1000 left to you name, and you walk into a casino and put it all on 00. Do you think that is a "good plan"?
Just because once in a while somebody gets lucky, doesn't mean it was good.
THat said, I do very much appreciate the improvement that Gates has made. He looks like a true professional OC at this point, which is orders of magnitude better than Halapio, who when DG said he was good, you went along on that ride. DG gets no benefit of the doubt in this case after what he did to the OC position for 2 years.
hmm, so what was halapio? putting money all over the board and not hitting a single number?
I think there was a little more involved than just luck with Gates. I think the FO knew enough about him that putting him at center wouldn't be much worse than say Pio.
Quote:
WASN'T
What are you basing your opinion on. Gates seemed to have the ability to back up multiple positions in the line. Trying him there in a rebuild year to see what you have isn’t s horrible plan when you did have a veteran behind him and options like halapio there. in the background.
First, let me say I don't have a problem with the experiment.
I take issue that the plan about what to do if the experiment failed like it did with Halapio. In 2018 and 2019 DG relied entirely on Halapio being able to become a viable NFL OC after he had never played the position (or had little experience by 2019). He traded away Brett Jones (who is not great by any measure, but at least he was a profession OC). His building for the position was based in faith and hope and not in sound planning.
As for 2020, Halapio is terrible, was never a decent veteran center as an option, plus he was never coming back this year from that injury. The only backup was Pulley. If Gates had not worked out, then we would have run an even higher risk of having our potential franchise QB injured or David Carred... I don't see Pulley as a good backup plan either.
Just because it worked out, doesn't mean it was a good plan. It was 2018 all over again, building the position with hope and faith. Sometimes hope and faith are rewarded, usually it's not. Thank god it was this time.
Quote:
the turnaround from week 1 where it was a "fireable offense" to not have a plan at Center!
The fact that an odds against transition to a new position, and rapid development occurred, doesn't mean that the plan was poor.
If you have $1000 left to you name, and you walk into a casino and put it all on 00. Do you think that is a "good plan"?
Just because once in a while somebody gets lucky, doesn't mean it was good.
THat said, I do very much appreciate the improvement that Gates has made. He looks like a true professional OC at this point, which is orders of magnitude better than Halapio, who when DG said he was good, you went along on that ride. DG gets no benefit of the doubt in this case after what he did to the OC position for 2 years.
You keep using the term "getting lucky" as if they didn't at least have some idea what they had in Gates.
Meanwhile, you sat on your fucking coach and assessed the "mental acuity" of the previous C.
And of course you will call it lucky. You were part of the group tearing apart Gates and the Giants FO for putting him at C. All while still patting yourself on the back for Pio.
Cuts both ways, Ace.
Quote:
In comment 15117469 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
the turnaround from week 1 where it was a "fireable offense" to not have a plan at Center!
The fact that an odds against transition to a new position, and rapid development occurred, doesn't mean that the plan was poor.
If you have $1000 left to you name, and you walk into a casino and put it all on 00. Do you think that is a "good plan"?
Just because once in a while somebody gets lucky, doesn't mean it was good.
THat said, I do very much appreciate the improvement that Gates has made. He looks like a true professional OC at this point, which is orders of magnitude better than Halapio, who when DG said he was good, you went along on that ride. DG gets no benefit of the doubt in this case after what he did to the OC position for 2 years.
hmm, so what was halapio? putting money all over the board and not hitting a single number?
I think there was a little more involved than just luck with Gates. I think the FO knew enough about him that putting him at center wouldn't be much worse than say Pio.
Good lord, do you realize just how awful Pio was. Going into the season with that as a reasonable possible outcome, and only Pulley, who is marginally better than Pio, is a terrible plan. DG should have brought in a better vet OC, or drafted one, just in case it didn't work.
I'm not saying that the staff didn't see something with Gates. Clearly they did. But this was a position change to a very different position that OT. Reading the defense, calling the blocking schemes is not a trivial task that the OC needs to perform. On top of that the types of blocks, the techniques, and the responsibility of an OC are very different than an OT. Just because he flashed potential at OT, doesn't mean it was going to translate to OC. That was a gamble.
Quote:
In comment 15117469 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
the turnaround from week 1 where it was a "fireable offense" to not have a plan at Center!
The fact that an odds against transition to a new position, and rapid development occurred, doesn't mean that the plan was poor.
If you have $1000 left to you name, and you walk into a casino and put it all on 00. Do you think that is a "good plan"?
Just because once in a while somebody gets lucky, doesn't mean it was good.
THat said, I do very much appreciate the improvement that Gates has made. He looks like a true professional OC at this point, which is orders of magnitude better than Halapio, who when DG said he was good, you went along on that ride. DG gets no benefit of the doubt in this case after what he did to the OC position for 2 years.
You keep using the term "getting lucky" as if they didn't at least have some idea what they had in Gates.
Meanwhile, you sat on your fucking coach and assessed the "mental acuity" of the previous C.
And of course you will call it lucky. You were part of the group tearing apart Gates and the Giants FO for putting him at C. All while still patting yourself on the back for Pio.
Cuts both ways, Ace.
I never tore Gates apart... I did say, and I still say that it was a gamble to think that what they saw would translate to OC. IMO an unacceptable gamble with the health and development of our young QB.
And yes, I can sit on my couch and make that assessment. Sy made the same assessment. So if you think it is wrong, argue with Sy.