From what DG and Judge say about wanting players who love to play the game, I can't see them touching anyone who opted out last year. Perhaps the PAC12 players get a break since they canceled and then un-canceled their season, and that's a bit more complicated to navigate with a training regimen, but I just don't see it.
That would eliminate:
OT Sewell
WR Chase
LB Parsons
CB Farley
OT Slater
ER Rousseau
What say you, BBI? Do you expect these players to fall as a result of their opt-outs? Will the Giants avoid these players? How about other teams?
The NFL players who opted out last year weren't superstars for the most part, but I haven't seen any of them getting much love this offseason... Will the college kids get similar treatment?
List of top prospects who opted out - (
New Window )
"Listen kid, we know your mom has COPD and your dad has diabetes, and you didn't want to exposure them to a deadly disease...but it's a shame you don't love the game of football like I do."
I doubt very much in those circumstances it would be a factor.
Given no extenuating circumstance, it will be a factor,
In case this wasn't clear - I am not advocating for the Giants to eliminate players who opted out. I am merely repeating what some asshat(s) claimed regarding opt-out prospects.
I don't need to have their individual reasons explained to me; I'm not in favor of downgrading even a single one of them.
That is the most likely scenario, but the restructure put the cap hit for 2021 of keeping him equal to the hit of cutting him. Seems more like a team option rather than a commitment.
Quote:
And is the only swing T option on the roster. He isn't going to get cut in camp. Come on.
That is the most likely scenario, but the restructure put the cap hit for 2021 of keeping him equal to the hit of cutting him. Seems more like a team option rather than a commitment.
Yeah, that's factually accurate, but it's important to note that the cap hit for cutting him before the restructure could have been lower. The Giants brought his "keep" number down to match his "cut" number, and fully guaranteed what was left of his salary for this year, which makes it much more likely that he'll be kept.
although it would appear their experience with sam beal might've left a bad taste in their mouth re: opting out and its relation to player work ethic.
Relax dude.
Relax dude.
Sorry, I read it as a response to me wondering whether the Giants were preemptively using the opt-out explanation to lay the groundwork for preferring Phillips over Rousseau.
I don't think you can knock anyone's decision to opt-out - your body/life and your choice - but that doesn't mean that NFL teams won't do it.
I don't think you can knock anyone's decision to opt-out - your body/life and your choice - but that doesn't mean that NFL teams won't do it.
Yes many do. It is a huge part of the families life when their kid is playing college sports. Lots of lifelong relationships are established amongst the parents.
Quote:
is considered a truly special talent. He has no "real" red flags. He's taken a few dings for being overly reliant on his talent vs. technique but as a prospect/person he has none. So no, I don't believe that the Giants would pass on him because he opted out. I think this is a case-by-case basis. They interview these guys for a reason. Passing on a guy like this because he sat out a bizarre season would be really ridiculous. If you feel otherwise I don't know what else to say.
Maybe if I post it on Twitter you'll understand me more clearly: I do not think they should rule any of these guys out. Some insiders have implied that the Giants are downgrading opt-out prospects, presumably under the guise of a desire to play. I am merely questioning the validity of that intel, and what the downstream implications are.
Your odd attitude with me is borderline creepy. I don't recall any conversations with you. I don't know what you post/don't post. Thanks for being a fan of mine though.
Quote:
doubt any pro sports team has a rigid policy about a nuanced decision a young man may have made for a variety of reasons.
your logic is turrible and you should feel turrible.
But you can probably apply this meme to every single one of your own posts in the MLB ASG thread.
Having a bad day again, because you miss your dad?
Prayers to you and your family that you find peace.
I mean that.
Quote:
In comment 15211374 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
doubt any pro sports team has a rigid policy about a nuanced decision a young man may have made for a variety of reasons.
your logic is turrible and you should feel turrible.
But you can probably apply this meme to every single one of your own posts in the MLB ASG thread.
Having a bad day again, because you miss your dad?
Prayers to you and your family that you find peace.
I mean that.
I appreciate your sentiment, but my response is more about your post and meme that MY logic is terrible when it's not my logic. I am merely referencing the Giants' purported preference for players who did not opt out this past season.
I personally don't have any issue with players who opted out, and I agree that it should be a nuanced topic that is individualized to each prospect who opted out this past season. I simply have a curiosity about the extent to which the Giants do have a resistance to any opt-out prospects (as we've heard they might), because I'm curious about what the Giants will do in the draft.
But my logic is turrible, and I should feel turrible. Got it. Can I pray for your family to, or is that as insulting for you as it is for me?
This.
It will be looked into as to WHY they opted out.
my post was to the OP. WTF are you even whining about?
maybe you should take a break, just get your life in order and just get better perspective on the important things.
Quote:
*
my post was to the OP. WTF are you even whining about?
maybe you should take a break, just get your life in order and just get better perspective on the important things.
Your post was right behind mine and your copy read like it was in direct response to my post. I apologize for taking it that way, but I hope you can see why it would come across as I interpreted it. Either way, my apologies for the way I reacted.
That said, please don't suggest what I should do.
Quote:
In comment 15211633 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
*
my post was to the OP. WTF are you even whining about?
maybe you should take a break, just get your life in order and just get better perspective on the important things.
Your post was right behind mine and your copy read like it was in direct response to my post. I apologize for taking it that way, but I hope you can see why it would come across as I interpreted it. Either way, my apologies for the way I reacted.
That said, please don't suggest what I should do.
I can see why you may think that based on some people's posting style, but I will usually reply to a post if I am replying to a specific post, and just post a comment if it is to the OP.
I also don’t thinking opting out in of itself would be a problem but f it came with other character concerns, then yes. For example some like Beal
I dont remember there being anything in that post stating that players who opted out were being filtered out of their process. I think it is irresponsible and knee jerk to assume that to be the case with this FO. Unless I missed another post.
I dont remember there being anything in that post stating that players who opted out were being filtered out of their process. I think it is irresponsible and knee jerk to assume that to be the case with this FO. Unless I missed another post.
It's very possible that that's the post I may have seen and misinterpreted that (or some of the responses to that post). If so, I'm definitely guilty of much ado about nothing. I appreciate the clarification.
Quote:
Alteration to this now faorly involved argument about the Giants using opt outs as an eliminating factor for the draft. I think it was 1st and 10 who made that post. What he actually reported Im pretty sure was that they apparently had ALREADY TAKEN ONE PLAYER WHO OPTED OUT OFF THEIR BOARD. That could mean that they took Parsons off because of character concerns or Farley because of injury or Rousseau because of lack of tape.
I dont remember there being anything in that post stating that players who opted out were being filtered out of their process. I think it is irresponsible and knee jerk to assume that to be the case with this FO. Unless I missed another post.
It's very possible that that's the post I may have seen and misinterpreted that (or some of the responses to that post). If so, I'm definitely guilty of much ado about nothing. I appreciate the clarification.
Yea dude. He was only trying to give a nugget...saying that the org has already eliminated one player who opted out last year from being picked at 11, that is really only a handful of players that would be in play and 3 players in the discussion have concerns. So thats how I took it. Again,this all with the caveat that there very well could have been another post that I didnt s ee that changed the whole point of the post.
Players have a good Soph/Junior year and underperform Junior/Senior year all the time. There’s less tape and reps for the guys who opted out which means more questions and uncertainty.
There’s simply less information on these players and they’re going to be inherently more risky. Downgrading them is perfectly reasonable under the circumstances.