Talent doesnt exist in a vacuum, and there's a really good chance that a guy who demands a position switch or trade isn't going to fit into the culture they're trying to develop here. It would at least have to be looked into. Im not saying they want 53 boy scouts, but they do want team first guys.
Talent doesnt exist in a vacuum, and there's a really good chance that a guy who demands a position switch or trade isn't going to fit into the culture they're trying to develop here. It would at least have to be looked into. Im not saying they want 53 boy scouts, but they do want team first guys.
Agreed.
RE: Tbh Id go for the trade he suggested but for one sticking point
Talent doesnt exist in a vacuum, and there's a really good chance that a guy who demands a position switch or trade isn't going to fit into the culture they're trying to develop here. It would at least have to be looked into. Im not saying they want 53 boy scouts, but they do want team first guys.
+1 and he looks to be the kind looking for a big deal. You do a trade like this and you better have a deal agreed. Hope we learned that.
For Orlando Brown (give up picks) but then you have to pay him big time money. We would be wasting resources on a guy that doesn’t have a higher ceiling that Thomas. A guy we spent the 4th overall pick on. The guy who has excellent in the second half of last season.
For Orlando Brown (give up picks) but then you have to pay him big time money. We would be wasting resources on a guy that doesn’t have a higher ceiling that Thomas. A guy we spent the 4th overall pick on. The guy who has excellent in the second half of last season.
Excellent? No. Did he improve? Yes. I am high on Thomas but I don't think you have any idea how good Brown is.
For Orlando Brown (give up picks) but then you have to pay him big time money. We would be wasting resources on a guy that doesn’t have a higher ceiling that Thomas. A guy we spent the 4th overall pick on. The guy who has excellent in the second half of last season.
Excellent? No. Did he improve? Yes. I am high on Thomas but I don't think you have any idea how good Brown is.
I know exactly how good Orlando Brown is. I think Thomas can be even better. How am I saying something ridiculous?
If you believe Thomas can be better then great. The ridiculous thing you posted was he was excellent last year in the second half of the year.
And, my mentality is LT and RT is mostly bullshit in today's NFL. The Eagles had one of the best OL in the NFL for a handful of years and Lane Johnson was probably their best. He plays RT. Defenses move players all around so there is no difference between the two. Then you get into the blindside conversation which is so minimal in today's NFL. When QBs played under center most of the game and ran playaction a ton it mattered. With QBs mostly in the gun it is pretty much irrelevant. So, the conversation isn't about who will be better between Brown and Thomas. The conversation is how much do you believe in Peart. If you believe Peart is the answer then you don't make the trade. If you believe Brown is that much better then you entertain a trade. Considering we know exactly what Brown is then it is hard to not look into this. Thomas and Peart are projections. I like both players but they are guys you have to keep your fingers crossed for.
DG did a much lesser trade for L.Williams and got killed
If you believe Thomas can be better then great. The ridiculous thing you posted was he was excellent last year in the second half of the year.
And, my mentality is LT and RT is mostly bullshit in today's NFL. The Eagles had one of the best OL in the NFL for a handful of years and Lane Johnson was probably their best. He plays RT. Defenses move players all around so there is no difference between the two. Then you get into the blindside conversation which is so minimal in today's NFL. When QBs played under center most of the game and ran playaction a ton it mattered. With QBs mostly in the gun it is pretty much irrelevant. So, the conversation isn't about who will be better between Brown and Thomas. The conversation is how much do you believe in Peart. If you believe Peart is the answer then you don't make the trade. If you believe Brown is that much better then you entertain a trade. Considering we know exactly what Brown is then it is hard to not look into this. Thomas and Peart are projections. I like both players but they are guys you have to keep your fingers crossed for.
Well it’s certainly not bullshit to the players. Brown wants out of Baltimore because he wants Top LT money. The Ravens already have a LT in Ronnie Stanley that is being paid Top LT money.
If you want to use draft capital and plus big time cap resources on Brown, fine. But I don’t think we are in the position to do that when we are short on talent and short on immediate cap space.
Yes, LTs get paid more hence why he wants to play there.
But in terms of the different between the two positions you are missing the point. They are both very important. I'm not downgrading LT. I am pumping up RT. There is no shame in being a RT and it is critical to an effective OL.
If you want to use draft capital and plus big time cap resources on Brown, fine. But I don’t think we are in the position to do that when we are short on talent and short on immediate cap space.
I agree. I am not gung ho about giving up picks. I am about adding talent. Brown is worth more than that price tag. That is all I am saying. I am high on both Thomas and Peart. I hope they work out. It is just a lot of projections. Imo, we need tangible results and the reason I would do this trade is because it instantly makes our team better. At the same time if we don't make a trade like this I am still cautiously optimistic with our OT. I'm less optimistic about our OG.
Baltimore want Engram. They have a much better TE in Mark Andrews.
While I agree with that, they drafted Hurst and Andrews in the same draft. They like having two TE sets. With that said, I don't know if they have a second TE they like since Hurst left.
but giving up a 2nd and 3rd in 2022 with our need for playmakers on both sides of the ball doesn’t make sense. Nothing against Brown, but he will want a monster contract and he is insistent on playing LT. Which means you now move Thomas to RT which doesn’t seem like his natural fit.
I think the best strategy for the Giants is to resign LW, try to resign Tomlinson, and grab at least one FA receiver. Maybe Corey Davis? That opens up the draft to go full BPA. I really don’t feel like we are that far from being a playoff team, especially in the NFC East.
But in terms of the different between the two positions you are missing the point. They are both very important. I'm not downgrading LT. I am pumping up RT. There is no shame in being a RT and it is critical to an effective OL.
We need to see what we have in Peart before committing huge resources on another player. Peart seemed like a capable starter before he got COVID last season. Im not dismissing Brown’s talent. He’s a better player than both Thomas and Peart right now, but bringing him on just doesn’t make sense to me. I’ve already explained why.
I do disagree with saying we need to see what we have in Peart first. Competition breeds success. We fell into this hole too many times with giving players jobs without them earning it. I'm not saying Peart hasn't earned it. I'm just saying there is nothing wrong with trying to improve our team at any position. Nobody should be given anything. And that is what we all love about Judge. If we don't start seeing tangible results then that leads to people getting fired. I hope Peart is the answer. He's a beast. I hope it works out.
Consider the beating he's taking for picking Saquon that high in the draft. Now, if anyone last year said 'we need to grab our RIGHT tackle of the future with the #4 overall pick' - you could then make the same kind of argument. "You don't pick the RT of the future with that pick..."
Consider the beating he's taking for picking Saquon that high in the draft. Now, if anyone last year said 'we need to grab our RIGHT tackle of the future with the #4 overall pick' - you could then make the same kind of argument. "You don't pick the RT of the future with that pick..."
Coopcomic - What are you trying to say here regarding Gettleman, Saquon and the OTs? Don't follow the thought process in the few lines.
RE: RE: Tbh Id go for the trade he suggested but for one sticking point
In comment 15162836 Peter from NH (formerly CT) said:
Quote:
In comment 15162833 j_rud said:
Quote:
Talent doesnt exist in a vacuum, and there's a really good chance that a guy who demands a position switch or trade isn't going to fit into the culture they're trying to develop here. It would at least have to be looked into. Im not saying they want 53 boy scouts, but they do want team first guys.
+1 and he looks to be the kind looking for a big deal. You do a trade like this and you better have a deal agreed. Hope we learned that.
+2.
RE: RE: RE: Tbh Id go for the trade he suggested but for one sticking point
In comment 15162836 Peter from NH (formerly CT) said:
Quote:
In comment 15162833 j_rud said:
Quote:
Talent doesnt exist in a vacuum, and there's a really good chance that a guy who demands a position switch or trade isn't going to fit into the culture they're trying to develop here. It would at least have to be looked into. Im not saying they want 53 boy scouts, but they do want team first guys.
+1 and he looks to be the kind looking for a big deal. You do a trade like this and you better have a deal agreed. Hope we learned that.
+2.
Yea both solid points.
Further, there is a certain point when you have to properly evaluate what you have amd what you need. What we HAVE are two 2nd year tackles, both of whom showed quite a bit of promise after an extremely limited offseason.
What we NEED are players all over the place. If we sign LW we most likely are going to need a WR no later than the 2nd. We need another corner. We need at least one more running back. We need another Guard due to the fact that WH might be gone after next year in addition to being inconsistent and Zeitler is a question mark.
Sure Brown is a wonderful tackle, but he sounds awfully demanding and will restrain us from adding much more to the team. I think it is irressponsible to trade assets for a better player when we havent finished evaluating current players. If it were Engram and either Thomas or Peart, I would be more amenable to dealing for Brown.
RE: RE: This would be major fodder to criticize DG
Consider the beating he's taking for picking Saquon that high in the draft. Now, if anyone last year said 'we need to grab our RIGHT tackle of the future with the #4 overall pick' - you could then make the same kind of argument. "You don't pick the RT of the future with that pick..."
Coopcomic - What are you trying to say here regarding Gettleman, Saquon and the OTs? Don't follow the thought process in the few lines.
Ok, fair enough. Given the history of the board comments, I thought that would be a given. The point was DG was crushed for stupidity of taking a RB as the #2 overall pick. The critique has stood (and depending where you stand, it's a reasonable argument) - you can't take a RB at #2 because the value doesn't match, the longevity doesn't justify it, there's talent you can find later in the draft...So, now cut to last year. Everyone agreed Solder was putrid, and a new LT needed to be found. Thomas was a justifiable pick at #4 as a LEFT tackle. They are valued more. Same metrics as why a RB isn't valued as a #2 overall pick. The article here would make Thomas your theoretical long term Right Tackle. I'm saying, if Thomas was picked as your long term Right Tackle - again, DG would be skewered for that because of the value of that draft pick. You don't select a RT at the #4 spot of the draft. Add more to that - you throw in that many hated the D. Jones pick at #6 (b/c of how high it was) - now you have every top draft pick being a mistake.
- You get an immensely talented young player. Possible Pro-Bowl LT
- You have 3 young tackles that could be good to great.
Cons
- You have to give up draft capital
- You have to allocate major cap capital to this player
- You may upset your current LT Andrew Thomas by essentially demoting hit to RT
- You don’t know how this player will mesh with the Team first culture you are trying to build.
You have to pay him top of the market 'Left Tackle' money
AND trade Engram, a 2 and 3... Hell no. We could have drafted this fucking guy instead of those JAGs Lorenzo Carter and BJ Hill... God damn it... ok I'm done
RE: RE: RE: This would be major fodder to criticize DG
Consider the beating he's taking for picking Saquon that high in the draft. Now, if anyone last year said 'we need to grab our RIGHT tackle of the future with the #4 overall pick' - you could then make the same kind of argument. "You don't pick the RT of the future with that pick..."
Coopcomic - What are you trying to say here regarding Gettleman, Saquon and the OTs? Don't follow the thought process in the few lines.
Ok, fair enough. Given the history of the board comments, I thought that would be a given. The point was DG was crushed for stupidity of taking a RB as the #2 overall pick. The critique has stood (and depending where you stand, it's a reasonable argument) - you can't take a RB at #2 because the value doesn't match, the longevity doesn't justify it, there's talent you can find later in the draft...So, now cut to last year. Everyone agreed Solder was putrid, and a new LT needed to be found. Thomas was a justifiable pick at #4 as a LEFT tackle. They are valued more. Same metrics as why a RB isn't valued as a #2 overall pick. The article here would make Thomas your theoretical long term Right Tackle. I'm saying, if Thomas was picked as your long term Right Tackle - again, DG would be skewered for that because of the value of that draft pick. You don't select a RT at the #4 spot of the draft. Add more to that - you throw in that many hated the D. Jones pick at #6 (b/c of how high it was) - now you have every top draft pick being a mistake.
A few mixed thoughts there.
First of all, the pick of a running back at #2 for numerous reasons is suspect if not outright questionable. The last three years of results have shown that plain and clear. Further, the value of a starting Offensive Tackle at #4 is not in the same ballpark as questioning the value of a RB.
Left Tackles are still more valuable than Right Tackles because the QB has more line of sight to the right and can provide some self-support. But that argument has shrunk a good bit in recent years as capable pass rushers have found themselves on both sides of the line. One of the reasons Thomas was valuable to the Giants was because he showed he could play both sides successfully in college, unlike the other OTs that needed to be projected at the Left side.
If bringing on a OT that can outplay Thomas on the left and forcing him over to right improves the line...allows for a better offense...and computes to more points, Gettleman and the coaches would be making more than a defendable decision. Critics of a team playing better and winning more because of it would appear a bit exposed.
Also putting the cart before the horse to suggest Brown would be on the left side anyway, no matter what he wants.
This seems like one of those I need material to write an article deals
We don't know how high the Giants are on Peart, cutting Solder post June 1 has the same cap hit in 2022 if they held on to him and cut him after 2021 season. I don't think cutting Solder is an obvious as everyone makes it seem to be..
The Giants are in no rush, logic says they can see how things play out with Peart and Solder first before making a move. Solder also doesn't hamstring then this year regarding signing FAs. Yeah you get $10 million of savings, but unless you are playing Peart at RT, you need 1/3 of that money to re-sign a Cam Fleming type.
RE: RE: RE: RE: This would be major fodder to criticize DG
Consider the beating he's taking for picking Saquon that high in the draft. Now, if anyone last year said 'we need to grab our RIGHT tackle of the future with the #4 overall pick' - you could then make the same kind of argument. "You don't pick the RT of the future with that pick..."
Coopcomic - What are you trying to say here regarding Gettleman, Saquon and the OTs? Don't follow the thought process in the few lines.
Ok, fair enough. Given the history of the board comments, I thought that would be a given. The point was DG was crushed for stupidity of taking a RB as the #2 overall pick. The critique has stood (and depending where you stand, it's a reasonable argument) - you can't take a RB at #2 because the value doesn't match, the longevity doesn't justify it, there's talent you can find later in the draft...So, now cut to last year. Everyone agreed Solder was putrid, and a new LT needed to be found. Thomas was a justifiable pick at #4 as a LEFT tackle. They are valued more. Same metrics as why a RB isn't valued as a #2 overall pick. The article here would make Thomas your theoretical long term Right Tackle. I'm saying, if Thomas was picked as your long term Right Tackle - again, DG would be skewered for that because of the value of that draft pick. You don't select a RT at the #4 spot of the draft. Add more to that - you throw in that many hated the D. Jones pick at #6 (b/c of how high it was) - now you have every top draft pick being a mistake.
A few mixed thoughts there.
First of all, the pick of a running back at #2 for numerous reasons is suspect if not outright questionable. The last three years of results have shown that plain and clear. Further, the value of a starting Offensive Tackle at #4 is not in the same ballpark as questioning the value of a RB.
Left Tackles are still more valuable than Right Tackles because the QB has more line of sight to the right and can provide some self-support. But that argument has shrunk a good bit in recent years as capable pass rushers have found themselves on both sides of the line. One of the reasons Thomas was valuable to the Giants was because he showed he could play both sides successfully in college, unlike the other OTs that needed to be projected at the Left side.
If bringing on a OT that can outplay Thomas on the left and forcing him over to right improves the line...allows for a better offense...and computes to more points, Gettleman and the coaches would be making more than a defendable decision. Critics of a team playing better and winning more because of it would appear a bit exposed.
Also putting the cart before the horse to suggest Brown would be on the left side anyway, no matter what he wants.
This is kind of getting into the weeds. I didn't say all mistakes were the same. I said they would just be considered mistakes. I agree RT vs. LT is more cloudy - but Brown wants to be a LT for a reason, it's the more valued position, just as you said. I don't believe a team will take a guy who insists on playing LT to be their RT. And, if I told you that the 2020 #4 pick was going to be a RT, most would say that was a mistake at that high a pick. Could it still work out? Sure. But my immediate take is - this would be an admission of sorts that Thomas isn't as good as projected, and was a mistake. I'm not on board with that btw - because I think any evaluation has to start with the O-line being completely inept for half the season to the point where the coach was fired. That's not typical.
a few things combined together which I wasn't following, sorry.
And by the way, my view is if the NY Giants picked a good Right Tackle at #4 that would be a better use of resources than picking an average Left Tackle. This board is all over the board when it comes to opinions, with the majority often just being the majority that is wrong as much as they are right.
RE: Doesn't need to be in the weeds. You just posted
a few things combined together which I wasn't following, sorry.
And by the way, my view is if the NY Giants picked a good Right Tackle at #4 that would be a better use of resources than picking an average Left Tackle. This board is all over the board when it comes to opinions, with the majority often just being the majority that is wrong as much as they are right.
+1
When rumors came out last year that DG loved Wirfs, people automatically jumped to the conclusion that it was due to his combine performance because there was no evidence of his dominance on film.... and the fact he was a RT...Nuff said
To your other point about Saquon, choices can’t be evaluated in a vacuum, they ought to be evaluated in relation to the other choices available in the situation...
Consider the beating he's taking for picking Saquon that high in the draft. Now, if anyone last year said 'we need to grab our RIGHT tackle of the future with the #4 overall pick' - you could then make the same kind of argument. "You don't pick the RT of the future with that pick..."
Coopcomic - What are you trying to say here regarding Gettleman, Saquon and the OTs? Don't follow the thought process in the few lines.
Ok, fair enough. Given the history of the board comments, I thought that would be a given. The point was DG was crushed for stupidity of taking a RB as the #2 overall pick. The critique has stood (and depending where you stand, it's a reasonable argument) - you can't take a RB at #2 because the value doesn't match, the longevity doesn't justify it, there's talent you can find later in the draft...So, now cut to last year. Everyone agreed Solder was putrid, and a new LT needed to be found. Thomas was a justifiable pick at #4 as a LEFT tackle. They are valued more. Same metrics as why a RB isn't valued as a #2 overall pick. The article here would make Thomas your theoretical long term Right Tackle. I'm saying, if Thomas was picked as your long term Right Tackle - again, DG would be skewered for that because of the value of that draft pick. You don't select a RT at the #4 spot of the draft. Add more to that - you throw in that many hated the D. Jones pick at #6 (b/c of how high it was) - now you have every top draft pick being a mistake.
A few mixed thoughts there.
First of all, the pick of a running back at #2 for numerous reasons is suspect if not outright questionable. The last three years of results have shown that plain and clear. Further, the value of a starting Offensive Tackle at #4 is not in the same ballpark as questioning the value of a RB.
Left Tackles are still more valuable than Right Tackles because the QB has more line of sight to the right and can provide some self-support. But that argument has shrunk a good bit in recent years as capable pass rushers have found themselves on both sides of the line. One of the reasons Thomas was valuable to the Giants was because he showed he could play both sides successfully in college, unlike the other OTs that needed to be projected at the Left side.
If bringing on a OT that can outplay Thomas on the left and forcing him over to right improves the line...allows for a better offense...and computes to more points, Gettleman and the coaches would be making more than a defendable decision. Critics of a team playing better and winning more because of it would appear a bit exposed.
Also putting the cart before the horse to suggest Brown would be on the left side anyway, no matter what he wants.
If you go out and trade for a LT and pony up big time bucks for said LT, a year after drafting Andrew Thomas at #4 overall, then you are telling the entire world that Thomas was a bust and you don’t believe in him as a player. Throw him at RT and hopes he develops. That’s what you are telling everyone. That Thomas was a sunk cost. I’ll stand by my statement.
This is such a stupid idea on so many levels that I can't believe it.
If they trade Engram and a 2nd for Brown, they have five picks and the same number of holes as before — they solve one problem (sort of) by acquiring an OT but then need a starting TE.
If they were going to contemplate this kind of trade, they will probably have to also look at trading down in the first — trading down far enough to come away with at least an additional 2nd and an additional 3rd. I don't think they can plan on having a partner for a trade like that. Maybe, maybe not.
If that Engram-Brown trade were to happen, it would make the most sense after the Giants have traded for additional picks. Or after the Giant have signed someone in free agency whom they expect to replace Engram.
If you go out and trade for a LT and pony up big time bucks for said LT, a year after drafting Andrew Thomas at #4 overall, then you are telling the entire world that Thomas was a bust and you don’t believe in him as a player. Throw him at RT and hopes he develops. That’s what you are telling everyone. That Thomas was a sunk cost. I’ll stand by my statement.
I say this in fun - please take it that way. You can stand by a wrong statement all you want. But at the end of the say you're still standing by your own wrong statement. That doesn't make you right.
The message for the Giants management to the player is that you want your 6-10 team to get better.
If you go out and trade for a LT and pony up big time bucks for said LT, a year after drafting Andrew Thomas at #4 overall, then you are telling the entire world that Thomas was a bust and you don’t believe in him as a player. Throw him at RT and hopes he develops. That’s what you are telling everyone. That Thomas was a sunk cost. I’ll stand by my statement.
I say this in fun - please take it that way. You can stand by a wrong statement all you want. But at the end of the say you're still standing by your own wrong statement. That doesn't make you right.
The message for the Giants management to the player is that you want your 6-10 team to get better.
You didn’t state one fact in your rant. Your opinion on something doesn’t make you right either. There’s more than one way to improve the team. Last year was a step in the right direction.
If you go out and trade for a LT and pony up big time bucks for said LT, a year after drafting Andrew Thomas at #4 overall, then you are telling the entire world that Thomas was a bust and you don’t believe in him as a player. Throw him at RT and hopes he develops. That’s what you are telling everyone. That Thomas was a sunk cost. I’ll stand by my statement.
I say this in fun - please take it that way. You can stand by a wrong statement all you want. But at the end of the say you're still standing by your own wrong statement. That doesn't make you right.
The message for the Giants management to the player is that you want your 6-10 team to get better.
You didn’t state one fact in your rant. Your opinion on something doesn’t make you right either. There’s more than one way to improve the team. Last year was a step in the right direction.
My "rant?"
Whatever buddy. Your comment of what it's telling Jones is nothing more than a make believe conversation that you're having with yourself. You're just making up something and hope it sticks.
Ohh- was this another "rant" of mine?
Whatever- have a good day. It's okay to have a different pov just not the pov you are trying to sell as to what it's telling Jones in terms of meaning.
he touted Brown giving up one hit or one sack last year. He was protecting the most elusive QB in the history of the NFL. So while it is a great stat, keep it in perspective.
I doubt it happens anyway. It would be great to have an already All Pro RT on the roster. Does he switch to LT and Andrews to RT? If it stabilized the line, then that would be great. Peart becomes swing tackle. The price is steep to get him and then to keep him.
Not sure I would do it, but would not dismiss it, either.
If you go out and trade for a LT and pony up big time bucks for said LT, a year after drafting Andrew Thomas at #4 overall, then you are telling the entire world that Thomas was a bust and you don’t believe in him as a player. Throw him at RT and hopes he develops. That’s what you are telling everyone. That Thomas was a sunk cost. I’ll stand by my statement.
I say this in fun - please take it that way. You can stand by a wrong statement all you want. But at the end of the say you're still standing by your own wrong statement. That doesn't make you right.
The message for the Giants management to the player is that you want your 6-10 team to get better.
You didn’t state one fact in your rant. Your opinion on something doesn’t make you right either. There’s more than one way to improve the team. Last year was a step in the right direction.
My "rant?"
Whatever buddy. Your comment of what it's telling Jones is nothing more than a make believe conversation that you're having with yourself. You're just making up something and hope it sticks.
Ohh- was this another "rant" of mine?
Whatever- have a good day. It's okay to have a different pov just not the pov you are trying to sell as to what it's telling Jones in terms of meaning.
Dude WTF are you talking about? My point had nothing to do with Jones. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Call me crazy, but the best way to build a team is thru the draft. Simply put, we have three premium picks this year and I believe we can manage the cap in such a way as to retain both DL's, L Williams and D Tomlinson. We build thru the draft and with perhaps a key UFA for both sides of the ball.
I don't see us signing a premium UFA like WR Robinson either. Not this year anyway as our resources are too limited.
I believe that both Thomas and Peart will be our starting OT's with Lemiuex and Hernandez at OG and Gates at OC. The swing tackle will be Solder IF he is healthy and wanting to play (a big IF...) and Zeitler may have to be cut....
We may draft 1. Offense WR; 2. Offensive Line, 3. Offense RB or something like that as we need playmakers. This team will compete better next year if it has a camp to really learn the systems and can build up its youth. Flaherty was singed to help build the OL because it is young and has potential.
The bottom line is this: if we draft six solid players, with our top 3 picks all contributing and even starting in major roles; if we sign those two key UFA's who don't blow your cap but play better than expected (like Bradberry and Martinez did...); and, if our youth develops we have a shot at building something. ou trade for a guy like Brown if he is the perceived "last piece" of the puzzle. We have many missing pieces and can't afford to risk it.
Seems too expensive.
Engram and a second is more what I would think.
Agreed.
+1 and he looks to be the kind looking for a big deal. You do a trade like this and you better have a deal agreed. Hope we learned that.
Seems too expensive.
Engram and a second is more what I would think.
One question I would have is do the Giants need to improve the picks they give up to get the Ravens to take Engram?
I don’t agree and that Baltimore offense is perfect for Engram.
Excellent? No. Did he improve? Yes. I am high on Thomas but I don't think you have any idea how good Brown is.
Quote:
For Orlando Brown (give up picks) but then you have to pay him big time money. We would be wasting resources on a guy that doesn’t have a higher ceiling that Thomas. A guy we spent the 4th overall pick on. The guy who has excellent in the second half of last season.
Excellent? No. Did he improve? Yes. I am high on Thomas but I don't think you have any idea how good Brown is.
I know exactly how good Orlando Brown is. I think Thomas can be even better. How am I saying something ridiculous?
Peart becomes swing guy...
Brown is great though.
And, my mentality is LT and RT is mostly bullshit in today's NFL. The Eagles had one of the best OL in the NFL for a handful of years and Lane Johnson was probably their best. He plays RT. Defenses move players all around so there is no difference between the two. Then you get into the blindside conversation which is so minimal in today's NFL. When QBs played under center most of the game and ran playaction a ton it mattered. With QBs mostly in the gun it is pretty much irrelevant. So, the conversation isn't about who will be better between Brown and Thomas. The conversation is how much do you believe in Peart. If you believe Peart is the answer then you don't make the trade. If you believe Brown is that much better then you entertain a trade. Considering we know exactly what Brown is then it is hard to not look into this. Thomas and Peart are projections. I like both players but they are guys you have to keep your fingers crossed for.
I like player and agree...that the Giants need another OT...but
No way do they move Thomas....and I suspect they want to give Peart a chance to start...so a seasoned, bridge RT... that can be a swing tackle.
To be honest, a fairer prices Solder might just be their answer, if he is truly capable
And, my mentality is LT and RT is mostly bullshit in today's NFL. The Eagles had one of the best OL in the NFL for a handful of years and Lane Johnson was probably their best. He plays RT. Defenses move players all around so there is no difference between the two. Then you get into the blindside conversation which is so minimal in today's NFL. When QBs played under center most of the game and ran playaction a ton it mattered. With QBs mostly in the gun it is pretty much irrelevant. So, the conversation isn't about who will be better between Brown and Thomas. The conversation is how much do you believe in Peart. If you believe Peart is the answer then you don't make the trade. If you believe Brown is that much better then you entertain a trade. Considering we know exactly what Brown is then it is hard to not look into this. Thomas and Peart are projections. I like both players but they are guys you have to keep your fingers crossed for.
Well it’s certainly not bullshit to the players. Brown wants out of Baltimore because he wants Top LT money. The Ravens already have a LT in Ronnie Stanley that is being paid Top LT money.
If you want to use draft capital and plus big time cap resources on Brown, fine. But I don’t think we are in the position to do that when we are short on talent and short on immediate cap space.
But, that would be a nice problem to have with two solid-very good tackles on the team.
I agree. I am not gung ho about giving up picks. I am about adding talent. Brown is worth more than that price tag. That is all I am saying. I am high on both Thomas and Peart. I hope they work out. It is just a lot of projections. Imo, we need tangible results and the reason I would do this trade is because it instantly makes our team better. At the same time if we don't make a trade like this I am still cautiously optimistic with our OT. I'm less optimistic about our OG.
While I agree with that, they drafted Hurst and Andrews in the same draft. They like having two TE sets. With that said, I don't know if they have a second TE they like since Hurst left.
I think the best strategy for the Giants is to resign LW, try to resign Tomlinson, and grab at least one FA receiver. Maybe Corey Davis? That opens up the draft to go full BPA. I really don’t feel like we are that far from being a playoff team, especially in the NFC East.
We need to see what we have in Peart before committing huge resources on another player. Peart seemed like a capable starter before he got COVID last season. Im not dismissing Brown’s talent. He’s a better player than both Thomas and Peart right now, but bringing him on just doesn’t make sense to me. I’ve already explained why.
Quote:
“When the Giants inevitably cut Nate Solder this offseason...”
Probably just speculating based on what a competent FO would do.
Coopcomic - What are you trying to say here regarding Gettleman, Saquon and the OTs? Don't follow the thought process in the few lines.
Quote:
Talent doesnt exist in a vacuum, and there's a really good chance that a guy who demands a position switch or trade isn't going to fit into the culture they're trying to develop here. It would at least have to be looked into. Im not saying they want 53 boy scouts, but they do want team first guys.
+1 and he looks to be the kind looking for a big deal. You do a trade like this and you better have a deal agreed. Hope we learned that.
+2.
Quote:
In comment 15162833 j_rud said:
Quote:
Talent doesnt exist in a vacuum, and there's a really good chance that a guy who demands a position switch or trade isn't going to fit into the culture they're trying to develop here. It would at least have to be looked into. Im not saying they want 53 boy scouts, but they do want team first guys.
+1 and he looks to be the kind looking for a big deal. You do a trade like this and you better have a deal agreed. Hope we learned that.
+2.
Yea both solid points.
Further, there is a certain point when you have to properly evaluate what you have amd what you need. What we HAVE are two 2nd year tackles, both of whom showed quite a bit of promise after an extremely limited offseason.
What we NEED are players all over the place. If we sign LW we most likely are going to need a WR no later than the 2nd. We need another corner. We need at least one more running back. We need another Guard due to the fact that WH might be gone after next year in addition to being inconsistent and Zeitler is a question mark.
Sure Brown is a wonderful tackle, but he sounds awfully demanding and will restrain us from adding much more to the team. I think it is irressponsible to trade assets for a better player when we havent finished evaluating current players. If it were Engram and either Thomas or Peart, I would be more amenable to dealing for Brown.
Quote:
Consider the beating he's taking for picking Saquon that high in the draft. Now, if anyone last year said 'we need to grab our RIGHT tackle of the future with the #4 overall pick' - you could then make the same kind of argument. "You don't pick the RT of the future with that pick..."
Coopcomic - What are you trying to say here regarding Gettleman, Saquon and the OTs? Don't follow the thought process in the few lines.
Ok, fair enough. Given the history of the board comments, I thought that would be a given. The point was DG was crushed for stupidity of taking a RB as the #2 overall pick. The critique has stood (and depending where you stand, it's a reasonable argument) - you can't take a RB at #2 because the value doesn't match, the longevity doesn't justify it, there's talent you can find later in the draft...So, now cut to last year. Everyone agreed Solder was putrid, and a new LT needed to be found. Thomas was a justifiable pick at #4 as a LEFT tackle. They are valued more. Same metrics as why a RB isn't valued as a #2 overall pick. The article here would make Thomas your theoretical long term Right Tackle. I'm saying, if Thomas was picked as your long term Right Tackle - again, DG would be skewered for that because of the value of that draft pick. You don't select a RT at the #4 spot of the draft. Add more to that - you throw in that many hated the D. Jones pick at #6 (b/c of how high it was) - now you have every top draft pick being a mistake.
- You get an immensely talented young player. Possible Pro-Bowl LT
- You have 3 young tackles that could be good to great.
Cons
- You have to give up draft capital
- You have to allocate major cap capital to this player
- You may upset your current LT Andrew Thomas by essentially demoting hit to RT
- You don’t know how this player will mesh with the Team first culture you are trying to build.
Quote:
In comment 15162917 Coopcomic said:
Quote:
Consider the beating he's taking for picking Saquon that high in the draft. Now, if anyone last year said 'we need to grab our RIGHT tackle of the future with the #4 overall pick' - you could then make the same kind of argument. "You don't pick the RT of the future with that pick..."
Coopcomic - What are you trying to say here regarding Gettleman, Saquon and the OTs? Don't follow the thought process in the few lines.
Ok, fair enough. Given the history of the board comments, I thought that would be a given. The point was DG was crushed for stupidity of taking a RB as the #2 overall pick. The critique has stood (and depending where you stand, it's a reasonable argument) - you can't take a RB at #2 because the value doesn't match, the longevity doesn't justify it, there's talent you can find later in the draft...So, now cut to last year. Everyone agreed Solder was putrid, and a new LT needed to be found. Thomas was a justifiable pick at #4 as a LEFT tackle. They are valued more. Same metrics as why a RB isn't valued as a #2 overall pick. The article here would make Thomas your theoretical long term Right Tackle. I'm saying, if Thomas was picked as your long term Right Tackle - again, DG would be skewered for that because of the value of that draft pick. You don't select a RT at the #4 spot of the draft. Add more to that - you throw in that many hated the D. Jones pick at #6 (b/c of how high it was) - now you have every top draft pick being a mistake.
A few mixed thoughts there.
First of all, the pick of a running back at #2 for numerous reasons is suspect if not outright questionable. The last three years of results have shown that plain and clear. Further, the value of a starting Offensive Tackle at #4 is not in the same ballpark as questioning the value of a RB.
Left Tackles are still more valuable than Right Tackles because the QB has more line of sight to the right and can provide some self-support. But that argument has shrunk a good bit in recent years as capable pass rushers have found themselves on both sides of the line. One of the reasons Thomas was valuable to the Giants was because he showed he could play both sides successfully in college, unlike the other OTs that needed to be projected at the Left side.
If bringing on a OT that can outplay Thomas on the left and forcing him over to right improves the line...allows for a better offense...and computes to more points, Gettleman and the coaches would be making more than a defendable decision. Critics of a team playing better and winning more because of it would appear a bit exposed.
Also putting the cart before the horse to suggest Brown would be on the left side anyway, no matter what he wants.
The Giants are in no rush, logic says they can see how things play out with Peart and Solder first before making a move. Solder also doesn't hamstring then this year regarding signing FAs. Yeah you get $10 million of savings, but unless you are playing Peart at RT, you need 1/3 of that money to re-sign a Cam Fleming type.
Quote:
In comment 15162924 chick310 said:
Quote:
In comment 15162917 Coopcomic said:
Quote:
Consider the beating he's taking for picking Saquon that high in the draft. Now, if anyone last year said 'we need to grab our RIGHT tackle of the future with the #4 overall pick' - you could then make the same kind of argument. "You don't pick the RT of the future with that pick..."
Coopcomic - What are you trying to say here regarding Gettleman, Saquon and the OTs? Don't follow the thought process in the few lines.
Ok, fair enough. Given the history of the board comments, I thought that would be a given. The point was DG was crushed for stupidity of taking a RB as the #2 overall pick. The critique has stood (and depending where you stand, it's a reasonable argument) - you can't take a RB at #2 because the value doesn't match, the longevity doesn't justify it, there's talent you can find later in the draft...So, now cut to last year. Everyone agreed Solder was putrid, and a new LT needed to be found. Thomas was a justifiable pick at #4 as a LEFT tackle. They are valued more. Same metrics as why a RB isn't valued as a #2 overall pick. The article here would make Thomas your theoretical long term Right Tackle. I'm saying, if Thomas was picked as your long term Right Tackle - again, DG would be skewered for that because of the value of that draft pick. You don't select a RT at the #4 spot of the draft. Add more to that - you throw in that many hated the D. Jones pick at #6 (b/c of how high it was) - now you have every top draft pick being a mistake.
A few mixed thoughts there.
First of all, the pick of a running back at #2 for numerous reasons is suspect if not outright questionable. The last three years of results have shown that plain and clear. Further, the value of a starting Offensive Tackle at #4 is not in the same ballpark as questioning the value of a RB.
Left Tackles are still more valuable than Right Tackles because the QB has more line of sight to the right and can provide some self-support. But that argument has shrunk a good bit in recent years as capable pass rushers have found themselves on both sides of the line. One of the reasons Thomas was valuable to the Giants was because he showed he could play both sides successfully in college, unlike the other OTs that needed to be projected at the Left side.
If bringing on a OT that can outplay Thomas on the left and forcing him over to right improves the line...allows for a better offense...and computes to more points, Gettleman and the coaches would be making more than a defendable decision. Critics of a team playing better and winning more because of it would appear a bit exposed.
Also putting the cart before the horse to suggest Brown would be on the left side anyway, no matter what he wants.
This is kind of getting into the weeds. I didn't say all mistakes were the same. I said they would just be considered mistakes. I agree RT vs. LT is more cloudy - but Brown wants to be a LT for a reason, it's the more valued position, just as you said. I don't believe a team will take a guy who insists on playing LT to be their RT. And, if I told you that the 2020 #4 pick was going to be a RT, most would say that was a mistake at that high a pick. Could it still work out? Sure. But my immediate take is - this would be an admission of sorts that Thomas isn't as good as projected, and was a mistake. I'm not on board with that btw - because I think any evaluation has to start with the O-line being completely inept for half the season to the point where the coach was fired. That's not typical.
And by the way, my view is if the NY Giants picked a good Right Tackle at #4 that would be a better use of resources than picking an average Left Tackle. This board is all over the board when it comes to opinions, with the majority often just being the majority that is wrong as much as they are right.
And by the way, my view is if the NY Giants picked a good Right Tackle at #4 that would be a better use of resources than picking an average Left Tackle. This board is all over the board when it comes to opinions, with the majority often just being the majority that is wrong as much as they are right.
+1
When rumors came out last year that DG loved Wirfs, people automatically jumped to the conclusion that it was due to his combine performance because there was no evidence of his dominance on film.... and the fact he was a RT...Nuff said
To your other point about Saquon, choices can’t be evaluated in a vacuum, they ought to be evaluated in relation to the other choices available in the situation...
Quote:
In comment 15162924 chick310 said:
Quote:
In comment 15162917 Coopcomic said:
Quote:
Consider the beating he's taking for picking Saquon that high in the draft. Now, if anyone last year said 'we need to grab our RIGHT tackle of the future with the #4 overall pick' - you could then make the same kind of argument. "You don't pick the RT of the future with that pick..."
Coopcomic - What are you trying to say here regarding Gettleman, Saquon and the OTs? Don't follow the thought process in the few lines.
Ok, fair enough. Given the history of the board comments, I thought that would be a given. The point was DG was crushed for stupidity of taking a RB as the #2 overall pick. The critique has stood (and depending where you stand, it's a reasonable argument) - you can't take a RB at #2 because the value doesn't match, the longevity doesn't justify it, there's talent you can find later in the draft...So, now cut to last year. Everyone agreed Solder was putrid, and a new LT needed to be found. Thomas was a justifiable pick at #4 as a LEFT tackle. They are valued more. Same metrics as why a RB isn't valued as a #2 overall pick. The article here would make Thomas your theoretical long term Right Tackle. I'm saying, if Thomas was picked as your long term Right Tackle - again, DG would be skewered for that because of the value of that draft pick. You don't select a RT at the #4 spot of the draft. Add more to that - you throw in that many hated the D. Jones pick at #6 (b/c of how high it was) - now you have every top draft pick being a mistake.
A few mixed thoughts there.
First of all, the pick of a running back at #2 for numerous reasons is suspect if not outright questionable. The last three years of results have shown that plain and clear. Further, the value of a starting Offensive Tackle at #4 is not in the same ballpark as questioning the value of a RB.
Left Tackles are still more valuable than Right Tackles because the QB has more line of sight to the right and can provide some self-support. But that argument has shrunk a good bit in recent years as capable pass rushers have found themselves on both sides of the line. One of the reasons Thomas was valuable to the Giants was because he showed he could play both sides successfully in college, unlike the other OTs that needed to be projected at the Left side.
If bringing on a OT that can outplay Thomas on the left and forcing him over to right improves the line...allows for a better offense...and computes to more points, Gettleman and the coaches would be making more than a defendable decision. Critics of a team playing better and winning more because of it would appear a bit exposed.
Also putting the cart before the horse to suggest Brown would be on the left side anyway, no matter what he wants.
+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
If they were going to contemplate this kind of trade, they will probably have to also look at trading down in the first — trading down far enough to come away with at least an additional 2nd and an additional 3rd. I don't think they can plan on having a partner for a trade like that. Maybe, maybe not.
If that Engram-Brown trade were to happen, it would make the most sense after the Giants have traded for additional picks. Or after the Giant have signed someone in free agency whom they expect to replace Engram.
I say this in fun - please take it that way. You can stand by a wrong statement all you want. But at the end of the say you're still standing by your own wrong statement. That doesn't make you right.
The message for the Giants management to the player is that you want your 6-10 team to get better.
Quote:
If you go out and trade for a LT and pony up big time bucks for said LT, a year after drafting Andrew Thomas at #4 overall, then you are telling the entire world that Thomas was a bust and you don’t believe in him as a player. Throw him at RT and hopes he develops. That’s what you are telling everyone. That Thomas was a sunk cost. I’ll stand by my statement.
I say this in fun - please take it that way. You can stand by a wrong statement all you want. But at the end of the say you're still standing by your own wrong statement. That doesn't make you right.
The message for the Giants management to the player is that you want your 6-10 team to get better.
You didn’t state one fact in your rant. Your opinion on something doesn’t make you right either. There’s more than one way to improve the team. Last year was a step in the right direction.
Quote:
In comment 15163033 JoeyBigBlue said:
Quote:
If you go out and trade for a LT and pony up big time bucks for said LT, a year after drafting Andrew Thomas at #4 overall, then you are telling the entire world that Thomas was a bust and you don’t believe in him as a player. Throw him at RT and hopes he develops. That’s what you are telling everyone. That Thomas was a sunk cost. I’ll stand by my statement.
I say this in fun - please take it that way. You can stand by a wrong statement all you want. But at the end of the say you're still standing by your own wrong statement. That doesn't make you right.
The message for the Giants management to the player is that you want your 6-10 team to get better.
You didn’t state one fact in your rant. Your opinion on something doesn’t make you right either. There’s more than one way to improve the team. Last year was a step in the right direction.
My "rant?"
Whatever buddy. Your comment of what it's telling Jones is nothing more than a make believe conversation that you're having with yourself. You're just making up something and hope it sticks.
Ohh- was this another "rant" of mine?
Whatever- have a good day. It's okay to have a different pov just not the pov you are trying to sell as to what it's telling Jones in terms of meaning.
I doubt it happens anyway. It would be great to have an already All Pro RT on the roster. Does he switch to LT and Andrews to RT? If it stabilized the line, then that would be great. Peart becomes swing tackle. The price is steep to get him and then to keep him.
Not sure I would do it, but would not dismiss it, either.
Quote:
Holds no weight in a trade lol. No one wants that loser.
I don’t agree and that Baltimore offense is perfect for Engram.
How so? TEs in Baltimore have to block first.
Quote:
In comment 15163103 giantstock said:
Quote:
In comment 15163033 JoeyBigBlue said:
Quote:
If you go out and trade for a LT and pony up big time bucks for said LT, a year after drafting Andrew Thomas at #4 overall, then you are telling the entire world that Thomas was a bust and you don’t believe in him as a player. Throw him at RT and hopes he develops. That’s what you are telling everyone. That Thomas was a sunk cost. I’ll stand by my statement.
I say this in fun - please take it that way. You can stand by a wrong statement all you want. But at the end of the say you're still standing by your own wrong statement. That doesn't make you right.
The message for the Giants management to the player is that you want your 6-10 team to get better.
You didn’t state one fact in your rant. Your opinion on something doesn’t make you right either. There’s more than one way to improve the team. Last year was a step in the right direction.
My "rant?"
Whatever buddy. Your comment of what it's telling Jones is nothing more than a make believe conversation that you're having with yourself. You're just making up something and hope it sticks.
Ohh- was this another "rant" of mine?
Whatever- have a good day. It's okay to have a different pov just not the pov you are trying to sell as to what it's telling Jones in terms of meaning.
Dude WTF are you talking about? My point had nothing to do with Jones. I have no idea what you are talking about.
I don't see us signing a premium UFA like WR Robinson either. Not this year anyway as our resources are too limited.
I believe that both Thomas and Peart will be our starting OT's with Lemiuex and Hernandez at OG and Gates at OC. The swing tackle will be Solder IF he is healthy and wanting to play (a big IF...) and Zeitler may have to be cut....
We may draft 1. Offense WR; 2. Offensive Line, 3. Offense RB or something like that as we need playmakers. This team will compete better next year if it has a camp to really learn the systems and can build up its youth. Flaherty was singed to help build the OL because it is young and has potential.
The bottom line is this: if we draft six solid players, with our top 3 picks all contributing and even starting in major roles; if we sign those two key UFA's who don't blow your cap but play better than expected (like Bradberry and Martinez did...); and, if our youth develops we have a shot at building something. ou trade for a guy like Brown if he is the perceived "last piece" of the puzzle. We have many missing pieces and can't afford to risk it.
Three premium picks? Are we just considering the top three rounds to be "premium"?