|
|
|
| Quote: |
| What you want, what you need and what you realistically can have are all about to collide when it comes to the Giants and their desire to keep Leonard Williams and Dalvin Tomlinson as stalwarts on their defensive line. They want both of them. They need both of them. Realistically, though, can they keep both of them? |
I really hope they keep both.
Thrives at another organization.
Regret ensues, cap is ignored, fans blame the GM.
Sounds to me like it’s a good problem to have given we’ve done this several times over in the past 10 years or so and usually come away finding a good DT to backfill the guy that got paid.
I really like Tomlinson, basically everything about him on and off the field. But we’ve got a track record of finding players like him and do not have a great track record getting guys with LWs skillset.
This comes down to what they will be commanding/making - and there’s a tipping point for both players. I don’t have a preferred strategy, not without know the actual ballpark figures for both players.
Would you suggest DG lets both of them walk? Isn't that what the Ravens game indicated? Though it was, as noted by others above, an outlier example.
Here's a tautology from science: never let outlier data dictate your hypothesis!
And not surprisingly, one of them was Williams weakest game of the season.
We can continue to put draft resources into that position, but it seems like we'll never get to addressing our other needs if every other year, we're using one of our day 1 or 2 picks on DT.
Why not wrap up the best of the bunch to a long term deal and address WR or corner or edge? We'd end up paying 10 mill a year to keep our best possible outcome for a DL pick and still have an opportunity to hit on a higher valued position in the draft?
Quote:
In comment 15118330 shyster said:
Quote:
Bottom line to me is: if the DL as constituted is helpless to prevent you from giving up 250 yards rushing to a playoff caliber team, then you have to face the hard decisions that a cap system requires you to make regarding overall team competence.
I remember the 2008 season when the Giants ripped off 200 yard rushing without a running QB against the Ravens who had Trevor Pryce, Haloti Ngata, Ray Lewis, Bart Scott, and Terrell Suggs in the front seven. In that case, should giving up that many rushing yards to a playoff team make Baltimore face hard decisions about their cap allocations and not bring back some of the defense?
A defense which incidentally was good enough that year to get them to the AFC title game despite giving up 200 yards rushing to the Giants earlier in the year...
If the Giants see themselves as contenders (at least for the NFCE title) next year, they might think about franchise tagging (again) itone of LW and DT, signing the other long term, and keeping an eye on how BJ develops during year four.
LW was a third.
Hill was a third.
DT was a second.
Lawrence was a first.
Each over the last four years. And it goes back further. Yes we hit on each pick. But we also failed to hit on another position.
DT isn't a premium position unless they rush like LW. I understand that, which is why he's priority. But it just seems like we need to address other spots (and at premium positions) on the team with draft resources.
It's not as though we have multiple plus-players gobbling up huge amounts of cap. Indeed, we have several positions that need serious upgrading:
(1) WR (maybe 2)
(2) Edge presence
(3) 2-way TE
(4) CB opposite Bradberry
(5) OL
(5) ILB
With so many needs, 2021 is another stepping stone season with the hope of playing .500 ball over the course of 16 games.
It won't be easy.
IF you are all in on a player, as it appears they were with LW, it is better to cave instead of slapping the tag. If Giants had paid him last year, they'd probably have a lower contract than he is going to command now, and they wouldn't have added in the 16 mil guaranteed from the tag.
I get it if you are unsure of a player. It's risky to shell out top dollars. But that wasn't the case with LW. Good was the reasonably expected floor. If he achieved that likely goal, he repeats his demands from last year. If he exceeds that, as he did, now his demands go up, and we've added to the guarantee total (guaranteed tag plus guarantee from the new contract), which is the most important figure of a contract.
Great find, but a fail in first, not having an extension in place when the deal was made, and second, not getting a new deal done after the season.
LW was a third.
Hill was a third.
DT was a second.
Lawrence was a first.
Each over the last four years. And it goes back further. Yes we hit on each pick. But we also failed to hit on another position.
DT isn't a premium position unless they rush like LW. I understand that, which is why he's priority. But it just seems like we need to address other spots (and at premium positions) on the team with draft resources.
Williams was not a third. He was Round 1, 6th overall.
Quote:
do we back up the Brinks Truck for a guy who finally had a career year or invest money for a QB who looks like a game manager for an offense that can’t break 18ppg.?
Let LW go...
I respect your opinions around here - but that line about LW's career year is just lazy.
His sack number was a career high - but all the rest of his numbers are in-line with what he's done in the past.
Pay the man - pay him his money.
He's also just entering his prime at 26. He should still be honing his craft and getting better. Besides, as you point out it's a marginal improvement above his career averages, not a "walk year" season like Bud Dupree (2019) or Haason Reddick where it's a complete anomaly (2019 Dupree doubled his career high in sacks, 50% more tackles, 25% more TFL and QBHits; Reddick had more sacks in 2020 than his previous 3 seasons combined even ignoring the game against the Giants. Ditto his QBHits and he doubled his high in TFL).
Quote:
In comment 15118330 shyster said:
Quote:
in the next to last game of the season.
Even if you subtract Lamar, they gave up 170 yards at 6+ ypc.
The notion of a dominating DL that has to be kept together is a mirage.
Here's a prime example of stats telling you one thing, but if you watched the game you saw something else entirely.
The Ravens got a huge amount of their rushing yardage around the edge in their domination of the Giants vs the Giants third string edge players. From the getgo that game the Giants were way overmatched on the edges. Hell I called thst BEFORE the game and there was at least one thread specifically about that immediately after the gamd.
It's inaccurate to pin that on the Giants DL without talking about the edge players, or for that matter Tae Crowder, the Giants' Mr Irrelevan LB, who showed a LOT of return on the investment placed in him, but still, not so much in that game.
The difference between football and baseball is that there is always someone else to blame, so no one's opinion about a player (or, in this case, unit) can ever be proven wrong.
Bottom line to me is: if the DL as constituted is helpless to prevent you from giving up 250 yards rushing to a playoff caliber team, then you have to face the hard decisions that a cap system requires you to make regarding overall team competence.
The Steelers gave up 265 yards rushing in their first match up with the Ravens.
Does their defensive front suck? Pretty sure it's one of the best in football.
The Browns gave up 231 yards rushing in week 14 to the Ravens. And yesterday the Titans gave up 236 rushing yards to the Ravens. They ran for more than 400 against the Bengals in week 17.
It's not meaningful that the Giants gave up 249 yards rushing to the best running team in the league. The Ravens set the all-time season rushing record last season and this season approached their new record again.
What the Ravens did against the Giants should have no influence on their off-season strategy.
Quote:
do we back up the Brinks Truck for a guy who finally had a career year or invest money for a QB who looks like a game manager for an offense that can’t break 18ppg.?
Let LW go...
I respect your opinions around here - but that line about LW's career year is just lazy.
His sack number was a career high - but all the rest of his numbers are in-line with what he's done in the past.
Pay the man - pay him his money.
I really don't know how any fair minded view of LW's 2020 season can be seen as anything other than career year.
His sacks number soared. And, frankly, I don't buy this theme that pressures are just as important as sacks. A sack is a finish. It's a momentum changer. Do we remember LT for the near misses or for the times he drove the QB into the turf like a lawn dart?
That's why this was a career year for LW. He finished.
2) Drop Tate, Fackerel and Zeitler.
3) Solve for LW
4) Pre plan how to solve for 2nd Cb and christian's point above
5) Solve for DT
Solve offense via draft
Largely agree. Only 'issue' is Fackrell is a FA so no need to do anything there. Unless they think WH or Lemieux can slide over and start at RG, I'd actually extend Zeitler by 1-2 years and convert most of the base he's due this season to a bonus. Zeitler gets some new money plus an increase in the gtd $$, Giants can probably free >$6M in cap space without creating a gaping hole at RG.
I'd also add that my reading between the lines shows the Giants don't view Hernandez/Lemiuex as RG options or at least don't think they are close yet to Zeitler. He played every snap at RG the last 5(?) games and only missed time due to minor injuries.
Quote:
do we back up the Brinks Truck for a guy who finally had a career year or invest money for a QB who looks like a game manager for an offense that can’t break 18ppg.?
Let LW go...
The article and topic has nothing to do with Jones. Get a grip
It's seeing the bigger picture of the team's needs.
Not sure why that's so challenging. In a perfect world - IMV - there is no cap and we can pay whatever we want. But the NFL has in large measure a hard cap. So every dollar counts.
?
It seems to be a lost point on many here, who lump run stopping DTs into a category "easy to replace." The Giants have consistently used day 2 picks to draft these guys, and plenty of the 3rd rounders proved to be busts compared against the 2nd round selections.
You could argue they have had as much success drafting ERs on the second day (Osi and Tuck, even if we've yet to see Carter and Ximines pan out), as they have drafting "run stuffing" DTs.
As opposed to developing a solid strategy of how they should best use their dollars/picks to improve the roster the most, and then determine whether or not signing Williams is part of that design.
And there is a difference.
As for Tomlinson, re-signing him likely means they don't envision Hill as a starter. If they feel Hill can handle 60%+ of the snaps (likely as a 34DE with Lawrence sliding inside, IMO) then they'll let Tomlinson walk and probably add some depth on Day 2.
And you can't franchise Tomlinson. I like him, but he's no where close to a $15M per year player.
Quote:
In comment 15118311 bw in dc said:
Quote:
do we back up the Brinks Truck for a guy who finally had a career year or invest money for a QB who looks like a game manager for an offense that can’t break 18ppg.?
Let LW go...
I respect your opinions around here - but that line about LW's career year is just lazy.
His sack number was a career high - but all the rest of his numbers are in-line with what he's done in the past.
Pay the man - pay him his money.
I really don't know how any fair minded view of LW's 2020 season can be seen as anything other than career year.
His sacks number soared. And, frankly, I don't buy this theme that pressures are just as important as sacks. A sack is a finish. It's a momentum changer. Do we remember LT for the near misses or for the times he drove the QB into the turf like a lawn dart?
That's why this was a career year for LW. He finished.
I'm not denying that sack number is an outlier - and if you don't think that QB hurries are an important stat - I don't know what to tell you.
I don't know LW personally -so I'm not going to say that he's the kind of guy that's going to work super hard, get that fat paycheck and then pack it in.
What I will tell you is that he is the guy that makes that defense go. Go back and look at where the Giants were and the progress they made when LW came on board - especially against the run.
We saw what the defensive front was like prior to his arrival - we still have all of them - it wasn't pretty. LEtting him walk would be a huge step back. He's been an elite player since joining the Giants - pay him.
It can't possibly be because they are using analytics that show teams are passing the ball faster (e.g. Big Ben's avg release time is 2.17 seconds) and that strong CB play combined with an interior pass rush is the best counter?
What also happened to the old adage about building on your team's strengths?
By the way, the Rams, Ravens, and Steelers spend the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th most on their interior DL yet they seem to have no problems with sustained success (Bills are 6th).
The pressures were always there. The play on the back end this year was finally strong enough to let him seal the deal more often.
I think he's a guy.
They desperately need some more edge presence to even further unlock him.
What I will tell you is that he is the guy that makes that defense go. Go back and look at where the Giants were and the progress they made when LW came on board - especially against the run.
IMO, the biggest beneficiary of LW has been the other subject of this thread: Tomlinson. Pre-LW how many on this board felt DT was a bust or at least not worth extending? Now, everyone thinks he's the next Joseph.
Tomlinson's was an underrated run stuffer and did a lot of the dirty work pre-LW, but with LW blowing up plays and commanding doubles (plus Lawrence), DT has made a lot more "flash" plays.
DT 2019 w/o LW: 8 games 1.5 sacks 1 hrry 2 QBKD 5 prss 20 tackles
DT 2019 w/ LW: 8 games 2 sacks 3 hrry 3 QBKD 8 prss 29 tackles
Not a stark difference in stats since a NT's primary responsibility is occupying blockers, but DT's play picked up across the board after the LW addition (and he set career highs in sacks (tied), TFL, and QBHits this season.
Let LW go...
WTF does one have to do with the other?
It's about how good the Giants think Tomlinson really is. I don't think he's a great player. I don't think he's a difference maker. He's a good player. Great off the field. Good on it. Young. Stays healthy. But he's not a difference maker. I'd keep him if his deal doesn't resemble that of a difference making player.
Don't be scared of paying great players great money. More often than not you're better off paying than letting the guy get away.
The trade was weird and not getting a deal signed last year was a mistake, but the guys is producing and all things equal should be very productive the next 3 years.
His contemporaries signed what amounted to 2-year deals with ~39M guaranteed last year. With the declining cap and the Giants cap situation that's not happening.
I'm hoping the Giants go the Bradberry/Martinez route, go three years, go high guarantees and avoid the charade of AAV with meaningless years at the end.
3/55M 45M fully guaranteed (30M signing bonuses)
21 7.5M salary/10M bonus (both guaranteed)
22 7.5M salary/10M bonus (both guaranteed)
23 10M salary/10M bonus (bonus guaranteed)
He has always been a interior DL who gets pressure, hits the QB and gets tackles for loss. he is the guy always double teamed and they guy they generally run away from. He makes the others better
You don't let a guy this good, this young, and healthy leave - you make him a core piece
Finding a competent DT has not been a problem for the Giants
That shouldn't even entire the minds of the Giants FO as they begin to negotiate LW's new contract.
Quote:
do we back up the Brinks Truck for a guy who finally had a career year or invest money for a QB who looks like a game manager for an offense that can’t break 18ppg.?
Let LW go...
WTF does one have to do with the other?
You need to look at these situations holistically. Not in a vacuum of: "LW is just such a great player. So sign him because we need more great players..."
The offense has a lot more holes than the defense - by far. And with cap limitations, you have to be more measured with investments. I maintain that we could still be a good D without LW due to Graham. I trust his schemes and trust that we would still have a good DL group without LW. We would need a guy Tomlinson to step up and maybe add another quality corner.
Look, we need to score more points. So if you want Jones to have a chance to possibly be more effective we need to invest more money for him. Because right now he doesn't appear to be in the same stratosphere as a Mahomes-type who makes the offense better merely by his play.
I know you think the cap is just an imaginary concept that can always be bent and twisted to make anything work. But I think it's a bit more complicated than that...
Quote:
In comment 15118311 bw in dc said:
Quote:
do we back up the Brinks Truck for a guy who finally had a career year or invest money for a QB who looks like a game manager for an offense that can’t break 18ppg.?
Let LW go...
WTF does one have to do with the other?
You need to look at these situations holistically. Not in a vacuum of: "LW is just such a great player. So sign him because we need more great players..."
The offense has a lot more holes than the defense - by far. And with cap limitations, you have to be more measured with investments. I maintain that we could still be a good D without LW due to Graham. I trust his schemes and trust that we would still have a good DL group without LW. We would need a guy Tomlinson to step up and maybe add another quality corner.
Look, we need to score more points. So if you want Jones to have a chance to possibly be more effective we need to invest more money for him. Because right now he doesn't appear to be in the same stratosphere as a Mahomes-type who makes the offense better merely by his play.
I know you think the cap is just an imaginary concept that can always be bent and twisted to make anything work. But I think it's a bit more complicated than that...
Now on this I agree with you - and part of me really wants to hand a big contract to LW b/c I like that more than giving DJ or SB big contracts in a couple of years.
Something the Giants may not be able to do with so much money tied up in LW.
I do not think there is any possibility that LW is not back. Worse case, he gets tagged again.
As for Tomlinson, include me in the group that appreciates him, but doesn't see him as enough of a difference-maker, especially given depth at the position. And I could be wrong, but I suspect he is standing in the way of Lawrence's full development. That being said, it's hard to know what Tomlinson's market value will be. Are there going to be teams willing to pay him $10M+/year?
Quote:
That's a day 1 or 2 pick every year not just every other year.
LW was a third.
Hill was a third.
DT was a second.
Lawrence was a first.
Each over the last four years. And it goes back further. Yes we hit on each pick. But we also failed to hit on another position.
DT isn't a premium position unless they rush like LW. I understand that, which is why he's priority. But it just seems like we need to address other spots (and at premium positions) on the team with draft resources.
Williams was not a third. He was Round 1, 6th overall.
We traded a third.
Let's hope we are in an era where the Giants are drafting well enough that their players coming off of rookie deals are frequently poised to make the big money. That would be a symptom of something good.
In a world where I need to watch some of them leave and play elsewhere, let it be my 2-down interior DL and not, say, my starting offensive tackle, edge rusher, or play-making DB.
what is wise vs what is possible, just because you can doesn't mean you should, etc etc.
Quote:
In comment 15118311 bw in dc said:
Quote:
do we back up the Brinks Truck for a guy who finally had a career year or invest money for a QB who looks like a game manager for an offense that can’t break 18ppg.?
Let LW go...
WTF does one have to do with the other?
You need to look at these situations holistically. Not in a vacuum of: "LW is just such a great player. So sign him because we need more great players..."
The offense has a lot more holes than the defense - by far. And with cap limitations, you have to be more measured with investments. I maintain that we could still be a good D without LW due to Graham. I trust his schemes and trust that we would still have a good DL group without LW. We would need a guy Tomlinson to step up and maybe add another quality corner.
Look, we need to score more points. So if you want Jones to have a chance to possibly be more effective we need to invest more money for him. Because right now he doesn't appear to be in the same stratosphere as a Mahomes-type who makes the offense better merely by his play.
I know you think the cap is just an imaginary concept that can always be bent and twisted to make anything work. But I think it's a bit more complicated than that...
PG is going to have a harder time replicating the results of this D without an interior disruptor like LW than what Tomlinson brings. I’d much more inclined to say DT benefited more from LWs presence then other way around. DT is exactly the type of guy good organizations let walk because of their strength at the position. Been a while since we’ve even had to make a call like this.
The decision on these two will come directly from the coaches IMO. We’ll see which one they value more.
To accomplish this, I...
1. Released Solder and Tate.
2. Traded Engram for an industrial strength leaf blower.
3. Extended Bradberry, Martinez, and Peppers.
4. Extended Zeitler without giving him more money (converting his $12M salary into an $11M signing bonus and $1M salary and adding two non-guaranteed years to his current deal).
$26.4M is enough cap room to get things done in free agency if the value is there.
We'll probably be picking an DL in the draft somewhere anyway......
Most importantly, need to get a #2 corner and a player who can generate a pass rush.
Quote:
In comment 15118489 adamg said:
Quote:
That's a day 1 or 2 pick every year not just every other year.
LW was a third.
Hill was a third.
DT was a second.
Lawrence was a first.
Each over the last four years. And it goes back further. Yes we hit on each pick. But we also failed to hit on another position.
DT isn't a premium position unless they rush like LW. I understand that, which is why he's priority. But it just seems like we need to address other spots (and at premium positions) on the team with draft resources.
Williams was not a third. He was Round 1, 6th overall.
We traded a third.
ah, gotcha
To accomplish this, I...
1. Released Solder and Tate.
2. Traded Engram for an industrial strength leaf blower.
3. Extended Bradberry, Martinez, and Peppers.
4. Extended Zeitler without giving him more money (converting his $12M salary into an $11M signing bonus and $1M salary and adding two non-guaranteed years to his current deal).
$26.4M is enough cap room to get things done in free agency if the value is there.