I am unsure what is exactly good about Gettleman’s annual merry-go-round.. Every year is a rebuild. This ‘rebuild’ is silly: in 4 years an entire draft class-if good—is gone. Gettleman has wasted so much money on terrible FAs that they are lucky to keep a drafted player after the cycle.
to say he failed because he didn't succeed replacing Beckham seems off to me.
a) to replace what OBJ was it would have cost a heck of a lot more than 20m guaranteed over 2 years. Those are unrealistic expectations relative to the investment. Like buying a Jeep to replace a Ferrari.
b) if you look at what OBJ actually did the last 2 years, Tate actually did end up matching that production at a lot less cost. Each played in exactly 23 games, each had the same 8 tds, just over 1k yards, and approx 90 catches. And as Christian said Tate even made a handful of legitimate highlights (including the last minute TD vs. the eventual SB champs this past season).
So end of the day it he ended up being terrible fit on the field (especially with Garrett) and an equally bad fit off the field but I don't think signing a reliable veteran WR was terrible logic. Someone had to catch passes the last few years. Just a poor choice and an even poorer utilization of his skills.
The contract was terrible but that's not his fault.
As for Engram, they've got to do a better job of using him. Too much speed in the open field not being utilized.
I thought the same thing about EE. Then I re-watched a few games and they moved him around a decent bit. Not sure if it's the scheme or what, but it seemed to be dependent on the coverage and who was covering him.
Most teams knew when to cover him and they did that fairly well.
It wasn’t a great market for WRs that year. But that’s no excuse to pay Tate that type of money at his age.
A short term move for a vet like Randall Cobb or Danny Amendola could have stemmed the tied to this year, where the Giants will now be in the market again.
Dan Duggan
@DDuggan21
Tate was a no-brainer. Terrible signing in every way. Frees up $6.1M in cap savings (with $4.7M in dead money). Additional benefit: Frees up Sterling Shepard to get back to primarily playing in the slot
Shitty, lazy take from Duggan. Tate was inactive 4 games last year and only topped 60% of the offensive snaps once after the week 4 loss to the Rams, including playing <50% of the snaps in 3 of the final 9 games he played with the Giants.
Even if every snap Tate played was in the slot, there were still plenty of opportunities for Sheppard.
Jordan Raanan
@JordanRaanan
The 2019 free-agent class is now officially wiped out.
Golden Tate
Antoine Bethea
Markus Golden
Olsen Pierre
Mike Remmers
Not defending DG here, but this is why the Giants beats suck. What misleading garbage.
Tate - terrible deal
Bethea - bad deal for washed up player, but was still clearly just viewed as a stopgap
Golden - outproduced his contract, turned it into a pick
Pierre - basically vet min deal
Remmers - was signed as a 1 year stopgap/swing tackle. Got what they paid for here
Tate was the only guy signed for 3+ years and the last 3 guys were all 1 year deals that you could argue worked out in the Giants favor.
RE: He actually caught a lot of 50/50 balls for Jones TDs
Right from the start with a 4 game PED suspension.
I didn't mind the signing initially. As soon as that suspension came, he completely lost me. And, his excuse was not only hard to believe, but it is also hard to believe the Giants didn't know.
Agreed. I thought it would be good to have what seemed lie a reliable, professional receiver. Oh well.
Jordan Raanan
@JordanRaanan
The 2019 free-agent class is now officially wiped out.
Golden Tate
Antoine Bethea
Markus Golden
Olsen Pierre
Mike Remmers
Not defending DG here, but this is why the Giants beats suck. What misleading garbage.
Tate - terrible deal
Bethea - bad deal for washed up player, but was still clearly just viewed as a stopgap
Golden - outproduced his contract, turned it into a pick
Pierre - basically vet min deal
Remmers - was signed as a 1 year stopgap/swing tackle. Got what they paid for here
Tate was the only guy signed for 3+ years and the last 3 guys were all 1 year deals that you could argue worked out in the Giants favor.
Apologies...what are you suggesting they are misleading readers with?
with the desperate veteran overpays in UFA, ROI is hard to watch seriously.
This just reinforces my skepticism on Kevin Abrams. He’s the cap guy handing out these bloated deals in conjunction with Dave. He’s the guy many here think is next in line at GM, maybe as early as 2022. Why??
Well, the goal is to build a winning roster. And while you may not
like it, those names represent the front office's view as to multiple starters they decided to sign to help make that happen. If not busts, do you consider those signings to be successful additions as to how this rebuilding team should be investing at WR, Safety, ER and Right Tackle?
It's two seasons later and most of those very same positions still don't have a credible solution. And now they are on the eve of another free agency/draft period to see if they can address them yet again.
So let me ask again...what is misleading?
RE: Well, the goal is to build a winning roster. And while you may not
like it, those names represent the front office's view as to multiple starters they decided to sign to help make that happen. If not busts, do you consider those signings to be successful additions as to how this rebuilding team should be investing at WR, Safety, ER and Right Tackle?
It's two seasons later and most of those very same positions still don't have a credible solution. And now they are on the eve of another free agency/draft period to see if they can address them yet again.
So let me ask again...what is misleading?
Pierre was not a starter.
Golden was 100% a successful addition. Outproduced his initial contract and then turned his deal this year into a pick.
Remmers/Bethea were stopgaps, not part of any long term plan or vision. Bethea sucked, but the purpose of the deal was to buy time for them to find a long term solution at safety, which they did in McKinney (hopefully, looked promising).
RE: RE: Well, the goal is to build a winning roster. And while you may not
like it, those names represent the front office's view as to multiple starters they decided to sign to help make that happen. If not busts, do you consider those signings to be successful additions as to how this rebuilding team should be investing at WR, Safety, ER and Right Tackle?
It's two seasons later and most of those very same positions still don't have a credible solution. And now they are on the eve of another free agency/draft period to see if they can address them yet again.
So let me ask again...what is misleading?
Pierre was not a starter.
Golden was 100% a successful addition. Outproduced his initial contract and then turned his deal this year into a pick.
Remmers/Bethea were stopgaps, not part of any long term plan or vision. Bethea sucked, but the purpose of the deal was to buy time for them to find a long term solution at safety, which they did in McKinney (hopefully, looked promising).
Now who is being misleading...
Tate, Bethea, Golden and Remmers all represented starters for the team. That is 4 of 22 positional guys, not unsubstantial.
And they all played bad enough that they were determined not to be needed any further, on a 4-6 win team mind you.
And maybe, the only the position that they have found a solution for two years later is McKinney at Safety.
This is a poster-child example of how not to build a roster and is not misleading whatsoever, unless you think the strategy is to build a poor roster. Is it?
It wasn’t a great market for WRs that year. But that’s no excuse to pay Tate that type of money at his age.
A short term move for a vet like Randall Cobb or Danny Amendola could have stemmed the tied to this year, where the Giants will now be in the market again.
yea that's fair. It's also fair to think that they explored those options and those guys didn't want to come here.
I know that's not going to fly with the DG is an idiot how could he over spend crowd, but we don't know who was or wasn't available to sign here. The assumption from fans that drives me a little batty is that there were better and cheaper options just waiting outside mara tech saying "hi we will sign for cheaper"--not that simple.
the only other clear cut move that likely is an improvement over signing Tate was no FA move at all. Assuming no other WRs were coming here, Giants probably should have just drafted a dude in any round, who cares, and try and develop him. Couldn't have been worse than employing Tate. With that said, I am sure that would have been met with derision from fans to coaches to the QB. "We're gonna replace Beckham with....joe blow from idaho in round 4"--but ok, it wouldn't have been worse.
I don't like to speculate or base my argument on the notion that another better and cheaper FA option was available. Why? Because we likely would have signed him. Again, I know that won't jive with the popular belief here. That's just how I look at things.
GMs need to be good at telling the future. DG was wrong about Tate. Moving on...
"I, uh, my wife is trying to get pregnant, so, uh, that's why I failed my steroid test. Yeah that's it. Please no further questions."
But its not exactly addition by subtraction. The WRs were already a problem on this team and this doesn't help. They're in line to get decent WR in the draft, but there are a lot of holes on this team. If only we knew who was responsible for this roster.
RE: RE: RE: Well, the goal is to build a winning roster. And while you may not
like it, those names represent the front office's view as to multiple starters they decided to sign to help make that happen. If not busts, do you consider those signings to be successful additions as to how this rebuilding team should be investing at WR, Safety, ER and Right Tackle?
It's two seasons later and most of those very same positions still don't have a credible solution. And now they are on the eve of another free agency/draft period to see if they can address them yet again.
So let me ask again...what is misleading?
Pierre was not a starter.
Golden was 100% a successful addition. Outproduced his initial contract and then turned his deal this year into a pick.
Remmers/Bethea were stopgaps, not part of any long term plan or vision. Bethea sucked, but the purpose of the deal was to buy time for them to find a long term solution at safety, which they did in McKinney (hopefully, looked promising).
Now who is being misleading...
Tate, Bethea, Golden and Remmers all represented starters for the team. That is 4 of 22 positional guys, not unsubstantial.
And they all played bad enough that they were determined not to be needed any further, on a 4-6 win team mind you.
And maybe, the only the position that they have found a solution for two years later is McKinney at Safety.
This is a poster-child example of how not to build a roster and is not misleading whatsoever, unless you think the strategy is to build a poor roster. Is it?
Golden played poorly? WTF are you talking about? He far outplayed his contract.
Never said Remmers played well, I said he played how you'd expect him to play based on his deal (i.e. low end starter, ideally a swing OT).
Tate was a terrible signing, I said that several times.
Bethea was a poor signing because he was cooked, but he was clearly not viewed as anything more than a stopgap.
They potentially have a RT in Peart, unless you already forgot about him or wrote him off? And Golden was replaced by Fackrell last year and the new CS didn't view his style as a fit for their D.
"we had to overpay for ordinary at best talent because there was no one else available" argument has never sat well for me.
JonC has using the proper language, ROI.
The Giants have been paying huge $$$ and the team has remained a basement dweller.
"We had to sign Solder because we had no other choice!"
Sure we did. Instead of making Solder the highest paid OL in the league and tie up the cap at the present time and in the future, the team could have bitten the bullet and gotten its financial house in order while still sucking.
In the end, what difference did signing Solder, Tate, etc. really make? Maybe one win, possibly two? So what? And worse, they were only temporary "fixes" that never really solved the issue.
Exactly. If I'm the GM, sometimes the best move is no move. Make the decision to stay lean, get your cap in order, focus on the draft and prospect development, and improving my pro personnel scouting and grading so we're prepared to strike when sound opportunities present themselves.
Under DG, he's spending a ton of money to plug holes poorly. It's no coincidence it's happening every offseason. It's also no coincidence that holes from 2018 REMAIN holes.
Until these processes and decision making are fixed, the Giants will struggle to put results on the football field.
I am unsure what is exactly good about Gettleman’s annual merry-go-round.. Every year is a rebuild. This ‘rebuild’ is silly: in 4 years an entire draft class-if good—is gone. Gettleman has wasted so much money on terrible FAs that they are lucky to keep a drafted player after the cycle.
While he was here, suspension and injuries and lack of separation. He was a good player in his day but does not move the needle anymore.
Now go get a guy with some explosion who can separate
Good luck to him but it was a needed move.
Totally agree. His antis irritated some, but he was better than Gettleman will ever find.
They already had a good slot (Shep). He did make some plays I appreciate that.
I'll never knock Tate for his toughness, and making tough catches. He made a handful of really impressive plays the last 2 years.
Stewart.
Omameh.
Ogletree.
Solder.
Tate.
Toilolo.
Bradberry, Martinez, and Ryan have been good signings. Besides Golden, a whole lot of swing and misses from DG in years 1 and 2
B I N G O
a) to replace what OBJ was it would have cost a heck of a lot more than 20m guaranteed over 2 years. Those are unrealistic expectations relative to the investment. Like buying a Jeep to replace a Ferrari.
b) if you look at what OBJ actually did the last 2 years, Tate actually did end up matching that production at a lot less cost. Each played in exactly 23 games, each had the same 8 tds, just over 1k yards, and approx 90 catches. And as Christian said Tate even made a handful of legitimate highlights (including the last minute TD vs. the eventual SB champs this past season).
So end of the day it he ended up being terrible fit on the field (especially with Garrett) and an equally bad fit off the field but I don't think signing a reliable veteran WR was terrible logic. Someone had to catch passes the last few years. Just a poor choice and an even poorer utilization of his skills.
Rotational players making 2 mil a year are not overpaid. Not saying you could not have done better.
Not using June 1 cap allows you to spend prior to June 1 during free agency and also allows no dead money next season. Pros and Cons
Moving on.
As for Engram, they've got to do a better job of using him. Too much speed in the open field not being utilized.
As for Engram, they've got to do a better job of using him. Too much speed in the open field not being utilized.
I thought the same thing about EE. Then I re-watched a few games and they moved him around a decent bit. Not sure if it's the scheme or what, but it seemed to be dependent on the coverage and who was covering him.
Most teams knew when to cover him and they did that fairly well.
Need a big outside legit threat. Draft one and sign one.
Link - ( New Window )
Everyone....makes it so black and white....
The Giants do not need a me-1st WR....hell, Judge preaches Team 1st...and hopefully, those are the players they get.
Need a big outside legit threat. Draft one and sign one. Link - ( New Window )
He was rated very high in a poor group but still didn’t make sense based on his age and type. And an awful contract to boot.
Poor job here all around by the front office...
...and Latimer was a waste of money as well!!!
ARob is the more likely because Chi's in the Cap toilet & Det'll most likely tag Golladay. But, moot, imo.
A short term move for a vet like Randall Cobb or Danny Amendola could have stemmed the tied to this year, where the Giants will now be in the market again.
lol!
It didn't really help, did it?
It doesn't save more. It spreads the dead cap hit out over 2 years (2021 and 2022) so it would've given them an additional $2M in 2021 cap space.
It's also possible to designate someone a June 1 cap hit and still cut them now (no idea if that happened here).
Quote:
Dan Duggan
@DDuggan21
Tate was a no-brainer. Terrible signing in every way. Frees up $6.1M in cap savings (with $4.7M in dead money). Additional benefit: Frees up Sterling Shepard to get back to primarily playing in the slot
Shitty, lazy take from Duggan. Tate was inactive 4 games last year and only topped 60% of the offensive snaps once after the week 4 loss to the Rams, including playing <50% of the snaps in 3 of the final 9 games he played with the Giants.
Even if every snap Tate played was in the slot, there were still plenty of opportunities for Sheppard.
Quote:
Jordan Raanan
@JordanRaanan
The 2019 free-agent class is now officially wiped out.
Golden Tate
Antoine Bethea
Markus Golden
Olsen Pierre
Mike Remmers
Not defending DG here, but this is why the Giants beats suck. What misleading garbage.
Tate - terrible deal
Bethea - bad deal for washed up player, but was still clearly just viewed as a stopgap
Golden - outproduced his contract, turned it into a pick
Pierre - basically vet min deal
Remmers - was signed as a 1 year stopgap/swing tackle. Got what they paid for here
Tate was the only guy signed for 3+ years and the last 3 guys were all 1 year deals that you could argue worked out in the Giants favor.
As for Engram, they've got to do a better job of using him. Too much speed in the open field not being utilized.
I think Engram's arguably the one guy on the offense last year that Garrett didn't misuse. It was Engram's inability to produce that was the problem.
Quote:
Right from the start with a 4 game PED suspension.
I didn't mind the signing initially. As soon as that suspension came, he completely lost me. And, his excuse was not only hard to believe, but it is also hard to believe the Giants didn't know.
Agreed. I thought it would be good to have what seemed lie a reliable, professional receiver. Oh well.
Quote:
Quote:
Jordan Raanan
@JordanRaanan
The 2019 free-agent class is now officially wiped out.
Golden Tate
Antoine Bethea
Markus Golden
Olsen Pierre
Mike Remmers
Not defending DG here, but this is why the Giants beats suck. What misleading garbage.
Tate - terrible deal
Bethea - bad deal for washed up player, but was still clearly just viewed as a stopgap
Golden - outproduced his contract, turned it into a pick
Pierre - basically vet min deal
Remmers - was signed as a 1 year stopgap/swing tackle. Got what they paid for here
Tate was the only guy signed for 3+ years and the last 3 guys were all 1 year deals that you could argue worked out in the Giants favor.
Apologies...what are you suggesting they are misleading readers with?
Apologies...what are you suggesting they are misleading readers with?
Clearly trying to imply that we were aggressive in FA that year and all the deals were busts.
Sign JJ Watt
Sign Tyrell Williams
Sign Kyle Rudolph
This just reinforces my skepticism on Kevin Abrams. He’s the cap guy handing out these bloated deals in conjunction with Dave. He’s the guy many here think is next in line at GM, maybe as early as 2022. Why??
It's two seasons later and most of those very same positions still don't have a credible solution. And now they are on the eve of another free agency/draft period to see if they can address them yet again.
So let me ask again...what is misleading?
It's two seasons later and most of those very same positions still don't have a credible solution. And now they are on the eve of another free agency/draft period to see if they can address them yet again.
So let me ask again...what is misleading?
Pierre was not a starter.
Golden was 100% a successful addition. Outproduced his initial contract and then turned his deal this year into a pick.
Remmers/Bethea were stopgaps, not part of any long term plan or vision. Bethea sucked, but the purpose of the deal was to buy time for them to find a long term solution at safety, which they did in McKinney (hopefully, looked promising).
Quote:
like it, those names represent the front office's view as to multiple starters they decided to sign to help make that happen. If not busts, do you consider those signings to be successful additions as to how this rebuilding team should be investing at WR, Safety, ER and Right Tackle?
It's two seasons later and most of those very same positions still don't have a credible solution. And now they are on the eve of another free agency/draft period to see if they can address them yet again.
So let me ask again...what is misleading?
Pierre was not a starter.
Golden was 100% a successful addition. Outproduced his initial contract and then turned his deal this year into a pick.
Remmers/Bethea were stopgaps, not part of any long term plan or vision. Bethea sucked, but the purpose of the deal was to buy time for them to find a long term solution at safety, which they did in McKinney (hopefully, looked promising).
Now who is being misleading...
Tate, Bethea, Golden and Remmers all represented starters for the team. That is 4 of 22 positional guys, not unsubstantial.
And they all played bad enough that they were determined not to be needed any further, on a 4-6 win team mind you.
And maybe, the only the position that they have found a solution for two years later is McKinney at Safety.
This is a poster-child example of how not to build a roster and is not misleading whatsoever, unless you think the strategy is to build a poor roster. Is it?
A short term move for a vet like Randall Cobb or Danny Amendola could have stemmed the tied to this year, where the Giants will now be in the market again.
yea that's fair. It's also fair to think that they explored those options and those guys didn't want to come here.
I know that's not going to fly with the DG is an idiot how could he over spend crowd, but we don't know who was or wasn't available to sign here. The assumption from fans that drives me a little batty is that there were better and cheaper options just waiting outside mara tech saying "hi we will sign for cheaper"--not that simple.
Carry on.
I don't like to speculate or base my argument on the notion that another better and cheaper FA option was available. Why? Because we likely would have signed him. Again, I know that won't jive with the popular belief here. That's just how I look at things.
GMs need to be good at telling the future. DG was wrong about Tate. Moving on...
But its not exactly addition by subtraction. The WRs were already a problem on this team and this doesn't help. They're in line to get decent WR in the draft, but there are a lot of holes on this team. If only we knew who was responsible for this roster.
Quote:
In comment 15166545 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
like it, those names represent the front office's view as to multiple starters they decided to sign to help make that happen. If not busts, do you consider those signings to be successful additions as to how this rebuilding team should be investing at WR, Safety, ER and Right Tackle?
It's two seasons later and most of those very same positions still don't have a credible solution. And now they are on the eve of another free agency/draft period to see if they can address them yet again.
So let me ask again...what is misleading?
Pierre was not a starter.
Golden was 100% a successful addition. Outproduced his initial contract and then turned his deal this year into a pick.
Remmers/Bethea were stopgaps, not part of any long term plan or vision. Bethea sucked, but the purpose of the deal was to buy time for them to find a long term solution at safety, which they did in McKinney (hopefully, looked promising).
Now who is being misleading...
Tate, Bethea, Golden and Remmers all represented starters for the team. That is 4 of 22 positional guys, not unsubstantial.
And they all played bad enough that they were determined not to be needed any further, on a 4-6 win team mind you.
And maybe, the only the position that they have found a solution for two years later is McKinney at Safety.
This is a poster-child example of how not to build a roster and is not misleading whatsoever, unless you think the strategy is to build a poor roster. Is it?
Golden played poorly? WTF are you talking about? He far outplayed his contract.
Never said Remmers played well, I said he played how you'd expect him to play based on his deal (i.e. low end starter, ideally a swing OT).
Tate was a terrible signing, I said that several times.
Bethea was a poor signing because he was cooked, but he was clearly not viewed as anything more than a stopgap.
They potentially have a RT in Peart, unless you already forgot about him or wrote him off? And Golden was replaced by Fackrell last year and the new CS didn't view his style as a fit for their D.
JonC has using the proper language, ROI.
The Giants have been paying huge $$$ and the team has remained a basement dweller.
"We had to sign Solder because we had no other choice!"
Sure we did. Instead of making Solder the highest paid OL in the league and tie up the cap at the present time and in the future, the team could have bitten the bullet and gotten its financial house in order while still sucking.
In the end, what difference did signing Solder, Tate, etc. really make? Maybe one win, possibly two? So what? And worse, they were only temporary "fixes" that never really solved the issue.
Under DG, he's spending a ton of money to plug holes poorly. It's no coincidence it's happening every offseason. It's also no coincidence that holes from 2018 REMAIN holes.
Until these processes and decision making are fixed, the Giants will struggle to put results on the football field.