|
|
|
| Quote: |
Williams is No. 7 on a list of the NFL’s best defensive tackles assembled by ESPN. The list was compiled by asking more than 50 coaches, execs, and scouts from across the NFL. The participants gave their best 10 to 15 players at the positing and then ESPN collated the information to formulate their list. Defensive tackle has arguablybeen the Giants strongest position group on the roster, and the deepest. New York just retained Williams by signing him to a three-year, $63 million deal with $45 million guaranteed. Let’s take a look at the rest of the list: Aaron Donald, Rams Chris Jones, Chiefs DeForest Buckner, Colts Cam Heyward, Steelers Fletcher Cox, Eagles Jeffery Simmons, Titans Leonard Williams, Giants Stephon Tuitt, Steelers Vita Vea, Buccaneers Grady Jarrett, Falcons Also receiving votes were Washington’s Jonathan Allen, Jets’ Quinnen Williams, Cardinals’ J.J. Watt, Bears’ Akiem Hicks, Saints’ David Onyemata, Chiefs Jarran Reed, 49ers Arik Armstead, and Ravens’ Calais Cambell. The list is full of talented players, so it’s not a huge surprise that Williams is not ranked higher. He’s coming off a season with the highest amount of pressures and sacks which earned him the contract extension. He aligned all over Patrick Graham’s defense and did an excellent job with just about everything he was asked to do. |
Quote:
In comment 15301979 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15301949 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
as cheap as possible than sure, call the trade dumb or a failure. But if the goal is to identify talent, get it and obtain it then we did well. It isn’t often that the two mix, so that’s the crux of this for me.
If we didn’t get LW we have the 2 picks and more cash - not sure who we spend that on but it’s no guarantee it works out if we do and those too would be overpays, right? We also may not be able to approach the 2021 draft the way we did and likely have a much different perspective on our defense as a whole which is almost guaranteed to be average at best if we didn’t have LW.
LW got paid well and the Giants got to keep their identity on D and build off of it. Didn’t go as planned but that’s life.
If it's purely binary - either we get LW exactly as it played out or we never get him at all - then I do prefer having LW in the fold rather than not. And if that's the extent to which you're willing to apply critical thought to the situation, then I think your POV is completely justified.
I do think there's a little bit more nuance that could be applied, and some valid questions about whether things could have worked out more favorably for the Giants in a way that still results in having LW under contract.
And I continue to hold the opinion that it's only fair that if those who opposed the trade originally are going to keep getting called out, then we should also make sure to remind the board of the posters who were certain that DG had some sort of handshake agreement in place with LW at the time of the trade and that he was just gaming the conditional pick stipulations by waiting to re-sign LW in 2020.
But that’s what fans do. We speculate. I certainly believed they would have had a deal in place, but it became clear(er) in retrospect, that regardless, they wanted this 25 year-old who they felt hadn’t really touched his prime.
There was certainly no lock that we would have been the sole pursuers of his in FA or that we “would have signed him for less.” Also speculative. It’s now “apparent” to this fan, that their plan, with whatever permutative scenarios they mapped out, was to, at WORST, tag him if necessary, even if it meant paying out more than they cared to.
They were going to sign him come hell or high water. That’s how much they thought of his talent and future here. They BOTH played out their “strategies” well, imv, regardless of where one stood on the negotiations.
Why is it ok for those who thought there was a nod-nod/wink-wink deal in place to pivot their speculation and not be called out for it, while those who thought it odd for a GM who - at the time - was batting below the Mendoza line, to trade for an impending FA in the midst of a throwaway season without any future plan already in place?
Shouldn't everyone get a pass? Or maybe no one should? But the retroactive exceptions based on how the scenario ultimately played out seem ridiculous and only serve to reinforce the divisiveness on the board.
I'm on record saying that I thought it was a questionable trade, but I'm very happy to have LW on the team.
Where are the posters who ridiculed anyone who suggested that Grady Jarrett's contract might be a starting point for where LW would end up (and he wound up WAY surpassing Jarrett's number)? Why do those posters skate?
The biggest concern and harped on ad infinitum was giving up a 3 and a 5 for a guy months away from FA. Whether I thought a deal was in place or not, I opined that I couldn’t give 2 shitz about the draft picks to obtain a 25 year-old entering his prime. I always felt that DG had the tag to use if necessary. He wasn’t letting a very young potential stud enter FA, imo..No way, as I saw it.
Quote:
No, but I do skim past many posts.
With certain folks, it's different day, same negative shit.
Have a nice day!
^Ha!
Maybe learn to use the quote function, doc.
I'm quite aware, have used it often, thanks.
I'm also aware the site has had issues, possibly with bandwidth and on some of these threads, about half the space is quotes and sometimes they aren't necessary.
Have a nice day!
Lol, sorry Brett. I never know around here.
Seems some people are just looking for a fight.
Quote:
In comment 15301982 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
In comment 15301979 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15301949 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
as cheap as possible than sure, call the trade dumb or a failure. But if the goal is to identify talent, get it and obtain it then we did well. It isn’t often that the two mix, so that’s the crux of this for me.
If we didn’t get LW we have the 2 picks and more cash - not sure who we spend that on but it’s no guarantee it works out if we do and those too would be overpays, right? We also may not be able to approach the 2021 draft the way we did and likely have a much different perspective on our defense as a whole which is almost guaranteed to be average at best if we didn’t have LW.
LW got paid well and the Giants got to keep their identity on D and build off of it. Didn’t go as planned but that’s life.
If it's purely binary - either we get LW exactly as it played out or we never get him at all - then I do prefer having LW in the fold rather than not. And if that's the extent to which you're willing to apply critical thought to the situation, then I think your POV is completely justified.
I do think there's a little bit more nuance that could be applied, and some valid questions about whether things could have worked out more favorably for the Giants in a way that still results in having LW under contract.
And I continue to hold the opinion that it's only fair that if those who opposed the trade originally are going to keep getting called out, then we should also make sure to remind the board of the posters who were certain that DG had some sort of handshake agreement in place with LW at the time of the trade and that he was just gaming the conditional pick stipulations by waiting to re-sign LW in 2020.
But that’s what fans do. We speculate. I certainly believed they would have had a deal in place, but it became clear(er) in retrospect, that regardless, they wanted this 25 year-old who they felt hadn’t really touched his prime.
There was certainly no lock that we would have been the sole pursuers of his in FA or that we “would have signed him for less.” Also speculative. It’s now “apparent” to this fan, that their plan, with whatever permutative scenarios they mapped out, was to, at WORST, tag him if necessary, even if it meant paying out more than they cared to.
They were going to sign him come hell or high water. That’s how much they thought of his talent and future here. They BOTH played out their “strategies” well, imv, regardless of where one stood on the negotiations.
Why is it ok for those who thought there was a nod-nod/wink-wink deal in place to pivot their speculation and not be called out for it, while those who thought it odd for a GM who - at the time - was batting below the Mendoza line, to trade for an impending FA in the midst of a throwaway season without any future plan already in place?
Shouldn't everyone get a pass? Or maybe no one should? But the retroactive exceptions based on how the scenario ultimately played out seem ridiculous and only serve to reinforce the divisiveness on the board.
I'm on record saying that I thought it was a questionable trade, but I'm very happy to have LW on the team.
Where are the posters who ridiculed anyone who suggested that Grady Jarrett's contract might be a starting point for where LW would end up (and he wound up WAY surpassing Jarrett's number)? Why do those posters skate?
The biggest concern and harped on ad infinitum was giving up a 3 and a 5 for a guy months away from FA. Whether I thought a deal was in place or not, I opined that I couldn’t give 2 shitz about the draft picks to obtain a 25 year-old entering his prime. I always felt that DG had the tag to use if necessary. He wasn’t letting a very young potential stud enter FA, imo..No way, as I saw it.
Fair, but you weren't who I was referring to here.
I absolutely have come around to view the trade as defensible.
I'm just not willing to issue a pass to the bloc who insists on defending DG at all costs, no matter what contortions are necessary. That entire group swore up and down that DG definitely had a deal in place with LW; they were supposedly reading the tea leaves - in hindsight, they must be coffee drinkers, because it's very likely that they've never even seen a tea leaf.
The DG acolytes tend to be among the first to line up to serve crow when the situation calls for it. I'm just wondering why they have no appetite themselves.
Probably because they're too busy taking victory laps and starting threads about offseason workouts.
Quote:
In comment 15302029 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15301982 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
In comment 15301979 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15301949 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
as cheap as possible than sure, call the trade dumb or a failure. But if the goal is to identify talent, get it and obtain it then we did well. It isn’t often that the two mix, so that’s the crux of this for me.
If we didn’t get LW we have the 2 picks and more cash - not sure who we spend that on but it’s no guarantee it works out if we do and those too would be overpays, right? We also may not be able to approach the 2021 draft the way we did and likely have a much different perspective on our defense as a whole which is almost guaranteed to be average at best if we didn’t have LW.
LW got paid well and the Giants got to keep their identity on D and build off of it. Didn’t go as planned but that’s life.
If it's purely binary - either we get LW exactly as it played out or we never get him at all - then I do prefer having LW in the fold rather than not. And if that's the extent to which you're willing to apply critical thought to the situation, then I think your POV is completely justified.
I do think there's a little bit more nuance that could be applied, and some valid questions about whether things could have worked out more favorably for the Giants in a way that still results in having LW under contract.
And I continue to hold the opinion that it's only fair that if those who opposed the trade originally are going to keep getting called out, then we should also make sure to remind the board of the posters who were certain that DG had some sort of handshake agreement in place with LW at the time of the trade and that he was just gaming the conditional pick stipulations by waiting to re-sign LW in 2020.
But that’s what fans do. We speculate. I certainly believed they would have had a deal in place, but it became clear(er) in retrospect, that regardless, they wanted this 25 year-old who they felt hadn’t really touched his prime.
There was certainly no lock that we would have been the sole pursuers of his in FA or that we “would have signed him for less.” Also speculative. It’s now “apparent” to this fan, that their plan, with whatever permutative scenarios they mapped out, was to, at WORST, tag him if necessary, even if it meant paying out more than they cared to.
They were going to sign him come hell or high water. That’s how much they thought of his talent and future here. They BOTH played out their “strategies” well, imv, regardless of where one stood on the negotiations.
Why is it ok for those who thought there was a nod-nod/wink-wink deal in place to pivot their speculation and not be called out for it, while those who thought it odd for a GM who - at the time - was batting below the Mendoza line, to trade for an impending FA in the midst of a throwaway season without any future plan already in place?
Shouldn't everyone get a pass? Or maybe no one should? But the retroactive exceptions based on how the scenario ultimately played out seem ridiculous and only serve to reinforce the divisiveness on the board.
I'm on record saying that I thought it was a questionable trade, but I'm very happy to have LW on the team.
Where are the posters who ridiculed anyone who suggested that Grady Jarrett's contract might be a starting point for where LW would end up (and he wound up WAY surpassing Jarrett's number)? Why do those posters skate?
The biggest concern and harped on ad infinitum was giving up a 3 and a 5 for a guy months away from FA. Whether I thought a deal was in place or not, I opined that I couldn’t give 2 shitz about the draft picks to obtain a 25 year-old entering his prime. I always felt that DG had the tag to use if necessary. He wasn’t letting a very young potential stud enter FA, imo..No way, as I saw it.
Fair, but you weren't who I was referring to here.
I absolutely have come around to view the trade as defensible.
I'm just not willing to issue a pass to the bloc who insists on defending DG at all costs, no matter what contortions are necessary. That entire group swore up and down that DG definitely had a deal in place with LW; they were supposedly reading the tea leaves - in hindsight, they must be coffee drinkers, because it's very likely that they've never even seen a tea leaf.
The DG acolytes tend to be among the first to line up to serve crow when the situation calls for it. I'm just wondering why they have no appetite themselves.
Probably because they're too busy taking victory laps and starting threads about offseason workouts.
Disclaimer: I was not happy with the DG hire. That said, he really had to gut this team MISTAKES notwithstanding..I was totally WRONG about the Shurmur hire. I thought he’d do wonders with our O. I should have known better. As a fan, that’s on me. I’m loving the JJ hire and especially like who he has surrounded himself with. I’ll reserve Judgement on Garrett given the tools he now has or will have to work with.
Also of importance, imv, is how well DG and JJ seem to work together.
Quote:
In comment 15302052 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
In comment 15302029 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15301982 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
In comment 15301979 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15301949 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
as cheap as possible than sure, call the trade dumb or a failure. But if the goal is to identify talent, get it and obtain it then we did well. It isn’t often that the two mix, so that’s the crux of this for me.
If we didn’t get LW we have the 2 picks and more cash - not sure who we spend that on but it’s no guarantee it works out if we do and those too would be overpays, right? We also may not be able to approach the 2021 draft the way we did and likely have a much different perspective on our defense as a whole which is almost guaranteed to be average at best if we didn’t have LW.
LW got paid well and the Giants got to keep their identity on D and build off of it. Didn’t go as planned but that’s life.
If it's purely binary - either we get LW exactly as it played out or we never get him at all - then I do prefer having LW in the fold rather than not. And if that's the extent to which you're willing to apply critical thought to the situation, then I think your POV is completely justified.
I do think there's a little bit more nuance that could be applied, and some valid questions about whether things could have worked out more favorably for the Giants in a way that still results in having LW under contract.
And I continue to hold the opinion that it's only fair that if those who opposed the trade originally are going to keep getting called out, then we should also make sure to remind the board of the posters who were certain that DG had some sort of handshake agreement in place with LW at the time of the trade and that he was just gaming the conditional pick stipulations by waiting to re-sign LW in 2020.
But that’s what fans do. We speculate. I certainly believed they would have had a deal in place, but it became clear(er) in retrospect, that regardless, they wanted this 25 year-old who they felt hadn’t really touched his prime.
There was certainly no lock that we would have been the sole pursuers of his in FA or that we “would have signed him for less.” Also speculative. It’s now “apparent” to this fan, that their plan, with whatever permutative scenarios they mapped out, was to, at WORST, tag him if necessary, even if it meant paying out more than they cared to.
They were going to sign him come hell or high water. That’s how much they thought of his talent and future here. They BOTH played out their “strategies” well, imv, regardless of where one stood on the negotiations.
Why is it ok for those who thought there was a nod-nod/wink-wink deal in place to pivot their speculation and not be called out for it, while those who thought it odd for a GM who - at the time - was batting below the Mendoza line, to trade for an impending FA in the midst of a throwaway season without any future plan already in place?
Shouldn't everyone get a pass? Or maybe no one should? But the retroactive exceptions based on how the scenario ultimately played out seem ridiculous and only serve to reinforce the divisiveness on the board.
I'm on record saying that I thought it was a questionable trade, but I'm very happy to have LW on the team.
Where are the posters who ridiculed anyone who suggested that Grady Jarrett's contract might be a starting point for where LW would end up (and he wound up WAY surpassing Jarrett's number)? Why do those posters skate?
The biggest concern and harped on ad infinitum was giving up a 3 and a 5 for a guy months away from FA. Whether I thought a deal was in place or not, I opined that I couldn’t give 2 shitz about the draft picks to obtain a 25 year-old entering his prime. I always felt that DG had the tag to use if necessary. He wasn’t letting a very young potential stud enter FA, imo..No way, as I saw it.
Fair, but you weren't who I was referring to here.
I absolutely have come around to view the trade as defensible.
I'm just not willing to issue a pass to the bloc who insists on defending DG at all costs, no matter what contortions are necessary. That entire group swore up and down that DG definitely had a deal in place with LW; they were supposedly reading the tea leaves - in hindsight, they must be coffee drinkers, because it's very likely that they've never even seen a tea leaf.
The DG acolytes tend to be among the first to line up to serve crow when the situation calls for it. I'm just wondering why they have no appetite themselves.
Probably because they're too busy taking victory laps and starting threads about offseason workouts.
Disclaimer: I was not happy with the DG hire. That said, he really had to gut this team MISTAKES notwithstanding..I was totally WRONG about the Shurmur hire. I thought he’d do wonders with our O. I should have known better. As a fan, that’s on me. I’m loving the JJ hire and especially like who he has surrounded himself with. I’ll reserve Judgement on Garrett given the tools he now has or will have to work with.
Also of importance, imv, is how well DG and JJ seem to work together.
Fiddy, you're a reasonable and balanced person. And fan.
And I think you recognize that there was a phase where DG gutted the roster of JR's mistakes. And then a subsequent stretch where DG gutted the roster of his own mistakes.
No one, other than the DG acolytes actually expects DG to be infallible. Of course, when DG carries himself with an air of arrogance in the face of his mistakes, it does get tiresome, but that's neither here nor there. He has done a much better job since the 2020 offseason.
Thank God Judge saved DG from himself.
Is there really a "bloc" like this? I know I'm not in that bloc and don't know anyone who is.
Re. the idea that DG had a deal in place when the trade was made, I had no idea and wasn't surprised when there wasn't. I don't know how that could even work. Isn't that tampering?
Even if some people thought there was a deal, is it really that BAFD?
(btw, notice how I efficiently used the quote function?)
Quote:
the bloc who insists on defending DG at all costs
Is there really a "bloc" like this? I know I'm not in that bloc and don't know anyone who is.
Re. the idea that DG had a deal in place when the trade was made, I had no idea and wasn't surprised when there wasn't. I don't know how that could even work. Isn't that tampering?
Even if some people thought there was a deal, is it really that BAFD?
(btw, notice how I efficiently used the quote function?)
Is there really a bloc like this? Yes.
Would you like me to list the posters who are part of it?
Quote:
the bloc who insists on defending DG at all costs
Is there really a "bloc" like this? I know I'm not in that bloc and don't know anyone who is.
Of course there is a faction on the site that will defend DG adamantly.
Many of them do it proactively providing litany of excuses, changing time-lines or whatever their style is. Others do it by just attacking the posters that are DJ's critics. And there is another group that will never post a negative thing about DG ever, but are ready to jump in quickly and praise him for a good deal. And those posts often include taking a shot at his critics as well.
Quote:
In comment 15302070 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
the bloc who insists on defending DG at all costs
Is there really a "bloc" like this? I know I'm not in that bloc and don't know anyone who is.
Re. the idea that DG had a deal in place when the trade was made, I had no idea and wasn't surprised when there wasn't. I don't know how that could even work. Isn't that tampering?
Even if some people thought there was a deal, is it really that BAFD?
(btw, notice how I efficiently used the quote function?)
Is there really a bloc like this? Yes.
Would you like me to list the posters who are part of it?
Ha ha. No, definitely not. But thanks for the offer.
The biggest concern and harped on ad infinitum was giving up a 3 and a 5 for a guy months away from FA. Whether I thought a deal was in place or not, I opined that I couldn’t give 2 shitz about the draft picks to obtain a 25 year-old entering his prime. I always felt that DG had the tag to use if necessary. He wasn’t letting a very young potential stud enter FA, imo..No way, as I saw it.
The picks weren't really a problem for me. The bigger, real issue for me was the actual trade considering we were 2-6 (maybe on a 4 game losing streak?) with the playoffs very likely a lost cause. Selling players made much more sense.
We'll likely never know the details, but if I had to guess DG really misunderstood the marketplace value of LW and very likely lowballed him expecting a "I love the NY area" discount from LW.
These miscalculations led to NO contract at the end of '19, and the eventual FT. Had DG understood the market, he should have been willing to pay that market value - around 4yrs/$60-64M - and then lock him in.
That would have been significantly cheaper than what was ultimately paid; and set us much better heading into this off-season and beyond.
Sure, DG got his man, but he paid much more than he should have paid. And that, to me, is worth examining despite what others say in their attempts to write it off as insignificant.
Quote:
In comment 15302177 Dr. D said:
Quote:
In comment 15302070 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
the bloc who insists on defending DG at all costs
Is there really a "bloc" like this? I know I'm not in that bloc and don't know anyone who is.
Re. the idea that DG had a deal in place when the trade was made, I had no idea and wasn't surprised when there wasn't. I don't know how that could even work. Isn't that tampering?
Even if some people thought there was a deal, is it really that BAFD?
(btw, notice how I efficiently used the quote function?)
Is there really a bloc like this? Yes.
Would you like me to list the posters who are part of it?
Ha ha. No, definitely not. But thanks for the offer.
Then I guess you'll STFU on that particular topic?
Then I guess you'll STFU on that particular topic?
You're a real pleasant fellow.
Have a nice day.
Then I guess you'll STFU on that particular topic?
If I wanted to play your games (and waste more time than I already have), I would ask you to provide actual quotes by members of this "bloc" where they've defended every single move DG has made.
But I don't really give a shit. So, have a nice day.
Quote:
The biggest concern and harped on ad infinitum was giving up a 3 and a 5 for a guy months away from FA. Whether I thought a deal was in place or not, I opined that I couldn’t give 2 shitz about the draft picks to obtain a 25 year-old entering his prime. I always felt that DG had the tag to use if necessary. He wasn’t letting a very young potential stud enter FA, imo..No way, as I saw it.
The picks weren't really a problem for me. The bigger, real issue for me was the actual trade considering we were 2-6 (maybe on a 4 game losing streak?) with the playoffs very likely a lost cause. Selling players made much more sense.
We'll likely never know the details, but if I had to guess DG really misunderstood the marketplace value of LW and very likely lowballed him expecting a "I love the NY area" discount from LW.
These miscalculations led to NO contract at the end of '19, and the eventual FT. Had DG understood the market, he should have been willing to pay that market value - around 4yrs/$60-64M - and then lock him in.
That would have been significantly cheaper than what was ultimately paid; and set us much better heading into this off-season and beyond.
Sure, DG got his man, but he paid much more than he should have paid. And that, to me, is worth examining despite what others say in their attempts to write it off as insignificant.
Sure, DG got his man, but he paid much more than he should have paid. And that, to me, is worth examining despite what others say in their attempts to write it off as insignificant.
Oh come on Brian, how in the world do you know “he paid much more than he should have paid?” He played his cards, LW and Agent played theirs through no fault of either party. So yes, as is done so often, a player was tagged as they continued to negotiate. Again, both sides negotiated and they finally came to an agreement.
Given how much he wanted LW, at 25 and approaching primehood, he paid higher than he would have liked, but still, was able to have a terrific FA (on paper)…
So, tell me EXACTLY what you would have done assuming you wanted LW as much as DG did?
If you're about to get up from the poker table and Dave Gettleman sits down, the wise move is to sit back down and play a few more hands.
Quote:
Then I guess you'll STFU on that particular topic?
If I wanted to play your games (and waste more time than I already have), I would ask you to provide actual quotes by members of this "bloc" where they've defended every single move DG has made.
But I don't really give a shit. So, have a nice day.
You replied to my post twice five minutes apart.
You're right; you don't give a shit at all.
If you're about to get up from the poker table and Dave Gettleman sits down, the wise move is to sit back down and play a few more hands.
Yes agreed, there are too many examples of this over his tenure here.
Also don't understand why its hard to imagine LW's market price being lower at end of 2019 versus what he negotiated for himself in spring of 2021. Again, if DG "had to have" LW before he hit free agency because he viewed him as a centerpiece player, then he needed to better understand the market dynamics he set into motion by trading for him...
If you're about to get up from the poker table and Dave Gettleman sits down, the wise move is to sit back down and play a few more hands.
too often stockpiling draft capital instead of finding a way to identify and select difference makers?
point being that the ideal GM probably has to strike a balance between boldy going for players they believe in and knowing when to take a more asset collecting approach?
Oh come on Brian, how in the world do you know “he paid much more than he should have paid?” He played his cards, LW and Agent played theirs through no fault of either party. So yes, as is done so often, a player was tagged as they continued to negotiate. Again, both sides negotiated and they finally came to an agreement.
Given how much he wanted LW, at 25 and approaching primehood, he paid higher than he would have liked, but still, was able to have a terrific FA (on paper)…
So, tell me EXACTLY what you would have done assuming you wanted LW as much as DG did?
The market in '19 for DTs similar to LW was 4yrs/$60M+. Why wouldn't Team LW sign that at the time? Especially knowing the FT tag was going to be around $15-16M...
Instead, LW signed 3 yrs/$63M in March, or 4 yrs/$80M if you include the FT from '20.
So in my eyes, not getting the better market deal in '19, DG overpaid LW by $15-20M.
I give credit where credit is due here - Team LW played their cards beautifully at the end of '19. It seems clear they bluffed Ole Dave, who at the time had the better hand, and got Dave to fold by giving them the FT. Bet on themselves in '20 and drew a full house.
Quote:
Oh come on Brian, how in the world do you know “he paid much more than he should have paid?” He played his cards, LW and Agent played theirs through no fault of either party. So yes, as is done so often, a player was tagged as they continued to negotiate. Again, both sides negotiated and they finally came to an agreement.
Given how much he wanted LW, at 25 and approaching primehood, he paid higher than he would have liked, but still, was able to have a terrific FA (on paper)…
So, tell me EXACTLY what you would have done assuming you wanted LW as much as DG did?
The market in '19 for DTs similar to LW was 4yrs/$60M+. Why wouldn't Team LW sign that at the time? Especially knowing the FT tag was going to be around $15-16M...
Instead, LW signed 3 yrs/$63M in March, or 4 yrs/$80M if you include the FT from '20.
So in my eyes, not getting the better market deal in '19, DG overpaid LW by $15-20M.
I give credit where credit is due here - Team LW played their cards beautifully at the end of '19. It seems clear they bluffed Ole Dave, who at the time had the better hand, and got Dave to fold by giving them the FT. Bet on themselves in '20 and drew a full house.
Whether or not any of that is true, we don't know. You guys continue to present this as fact, as if you were in on the negotiations and LW was willing to sign for X amount and Dave balked at $12M per year. You were not there. You don't know what happened other than they were unable to reach an agreement, FT him, and then signed him a year later at a far higher price than he otherwise could have been signed to. It's all silly talk.
There's plenty to knock Gettleman on. Acquiring and locking a young, ascending player to the going rate for premier DL is not one of them.
Quote:
In comment 15302293 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
Oh come on Brian, how in the world do you know “he paid much more than he should have paid?” He played his cards, LW and Agent played theirs through no fault of either party. So yes, as is done so often, a player was tagged as they continued to negotiate. Again, both sides negotiated and they finally came to an agreement.
Given how much he wanted LW, at 25 and approaching primehood, he paid higher than he would have liked, but still, was able to have a terrific FA (on paper)…
So, tell me EXACTLY what you would have done assuming you wanted LW as much as DG did?
The market in '19 for DTs similar to LW was 4yrs/$60M+. Why wouldn't Team LW sign that at the time? Especially knowing the FT tag was going to be around $15-16M...
Instead, LW signed 3 yrs/$63M in March, or 4 yrs/$80M if you include the FT from '20.
So in my eyes, not getting the better market deal in '19, DG overpaid LW by $15-20M.
I give credit where credit is due here - Team LW played their cards beautifully at the end of '19. It seems clear they bluffed Ole Dave, who at the time had the better hand, and got Dave to fold by giving them the FT. Bet on themselves in '20 and drew a full house.
Whether or not any of that is true, we don't know. You guys continue to present this as fact, as if you were in on the negotiations and LW was willing to sign for X amount and Dave balked at $12M per year. You were not there. You don't know what happened other than they were unable to reach an agreement, FT him, and then signed him a year later at a far higher price than he otherwise could have been signed to. It's all silly talk.
There's plenty to knock Gettleman on. Acquiring and locking a young, ascending player to the going rate for premier DL is not one of them.
How is that any different from the group of posters who were certain that DG had a handshake deal with LW in place at the time of the trade and was just biding his time to game the conditional pick?
The market in '19 for DTs similar to LW was 4yrs/$60M+. Why wouldn't Team LW sign that at the time? Especially knowing the FT tag was going to be around $15-16M...
Instead, LW signed 3 yrs/$63M in March, or 4 yrs/$80M if you include the FT from '20.
So in my eyes, not getting the better market deal in '19, DG overpaid LW by $15-20M.
I give credit where credit is due here - Team LW played their cards beautifully at the end of '19. It seems clear they bluffed Ole Dave, who at the time had the better hand, and got Dave to fold by giving them the FT. Bet on themselves in '20 and drew a full house.
Whether or not any of that is true, we don't know. You guys continue to present this as fact, as if you were in on the negotiations and LW was willing to sign for X amount and Dave balked at $12M per year. You were not there. You don't know what happened other than they were unable to reach an agreement, FT him, and then signed him a year later at a far higher price than he otherwise could have been signed to. It's all silly talk.
There's plenty to knock Gettleman on. Acquiring and locking a young, ascending player to the going rate for premier DL is not one of them.
I'm surmising that LW would have signed a 4yr/$60M+ at the end of '19. I didn't claim it as fact.
Everything else is factual.
Whether or not any of that is true, we don't know. You guys continue to present this as fact, as if you were in on the negotiations and LW was willing to sign for X amount and Dave balked at $12M per year. You were not there. You don't know what happened other than they were unable to reach an agreement, FT him, and then signed him a year later at a far higher price than he otherwise could have been signed to. It's all silly talk.
There's plenty to knock Gettleman on. Acquiring and locking a young, ascending player to the going rate for premier DL is not one of them.
Which is why you hear posters like bw, JonC, GD and myself saying Gettleman targeted and acquired a damn nice player, and for that he deserves a lot of credit.
But when it comes to how that player finally got put under contract, he missed it. Yes, he got his guy but it still ultimately required elite-level money to secure the services for a guy who showed elite-level production in 2020. So keep things in perspective...
Agents aren’t dumb — LW’s agent knew there would be leverage in the fact that DG gave up picks to acquire him. Anyone who thought the Giants were going to get a bargain bin contract for LW wasn’t being realistic.
Yes, the Giants overpaid for LW. The only way they weren’t going to potentially overpay for him was by never trading for him in the first place and signing him in FA. Which, by the way, is pure speculation if he ever would’ve made it to FA, and they still could’ve overpaid if there were other suitors.
Quote:
Whether or not any of that is true, we don't know. You guys continue to present this as fact, as if you were in on the negotiations and LW was willing to sign for X amount and Dave balked at $12M per year. You were not there. You don't know what happened other than they were unable to reach an agreement, FT him, and then signed him a year later at a far higher price than he otherwise could have been signed to. It's all silly talk.
There's plenty to knock Gettleman on. Acquiring and locking a young, ascending player to the going rate for premier DL is not one of them.
Which is why you hear posters like bw, JonC, GD and myself saying Gettleman targeted and acquired a damn nice player, and for that he deserves a lot of credit.
But when it comes to how that player finally got put under contract, he missed it. Yes, he got his guy but it still ultimately required elite-level money to secure the services for a guy who showed elite-level production in 2020. So keep things in perspective...
Don't include yourself in that group. You've bitched from day 1 that DG fucked up trading for Williams and even complained about Williams performance year 1.
You've yet to give DG "a lot of credit" for anything.
You're rewriting a lot of history today, Clownshoes. First, you're telling other posters they are derailing threads, while that is one of your M.O.'s, now you're acting as if you've give Gettleman credit for getting Williams.
Quote:
Wanting players enough to be willing to overpay (or overdraft) is one of Gettleman's biggest weaknesses. He falls in full bloom love with someone that was touched by the hand of God, and decides that the juice is worth the squeeze.
If you're about to get up from the poker table and Dave Gettleman sits down, the wise move is to sit back down and play a few more hands.
too often stockpiling draft capital instead of finding a way to identify and select difference makers?
point being that the ideal GM probably has to strike a balance between boldy going for players they believe in and knowing when to take a more asset collecting approach?
I'd say the Patriots' approach has worked well over the years, wouldn't you?
How has Gettleman's?
Quote:
In comment 15302298 Go Terps said:
Quote:
Wanting players enough to be willing to overpay (or overdraft) is one of Gettleman's biggest weaknesses. He falls in full bloom love with someone that was touched by the hand of God, and decides that the juice is worth the squeeze.
If you're about to get up from the poker table and Dave Gettleman sits down, the wise move is to sit back down and play a few more hands.
too often stockpiling draft capital instead of finding a way to identify and select difference makers?
point being that the ideal GM probably has to strike a balance between boldy going for players they believe in and knowing when to take a more asset collecting approach?
I'd say the Patriots' approach has worked well over the years, wouldn't you?
How has Gettleman's?
Patriots’ approach worked because of Brady. If you look at the rest of the drafting they make Marc Ross look like a genius.
The next time the Giants are over .500 under Gettleman will be the first.
Agents aren’t dumb — LW’s agent knew there would be leverage in the fact that DG gave up picks to acquire him. Anyone who thought the Giants were going to get a bargain bin contract for LW wasn’t being realistic.
Yes, the Giants overpaid for LW. The only way they weren’t going to potentially overpay for him was by never trading for him in the first place and signing him in FA. Which, by the way, is pure speculation if he ever would’ve made it to FA, and they still could’ve overpaid if there were other suitors.
I agree with some of your outline.
However, after the trade and the end of the '19 season, I contend Team LW takes a deal very similar to the one Jurrell Casey signed in the summer of 2019 with the Titans - 4yrs/$60M+ with $40M guaranteed.
Why? Because LW didn't have a great year in 2019 with either us or the Jets. They didn't have a strong case to stand on and pitch. So I think it's reasonable to conclude it would have been very hard for Team LW to walk away from that Casey deal. And therefore he likely signs it...
One more thing - why would Team LW feel good about the trade to the Giants when the package was a third and a fifth? That's not a deal that reflects a great player. It reflects, to me, the Jets just wanted to get LW off their roster. And were willing to take quite a loss for their 6th pick in the 2015 draft.
Quote:
In comment 15302382 PwndPapi said:
Quote:
Whether or not any of that is true, we don't know. You guys continue to present this as fact, as if you were in on the negotiations and LW was willing to sign for X amount and Dave balked at $12M per year. You were not there. You don't know what happened other than they were unable to reach an agreement, FT him, and then signed him a year later at a far higher price than he otherwise could have been signed to. It's all silly talk.
There's plenty to knock Gettleman on. Acquiring and locking a young, ascending player to the going rate for premier DL is not one of them.
Which is why you hear posters like bw, JonC, GD and myself saying Gettleman targeted and acquired a damn nice player, and for that he deserves a lot of credit.
But when it comes to how that player finally got put under contract, he missed it. Yes, he got his guy but it still ultimately required elite-level money to secure the services for a guy who showed elite-level production in 2020. So keep things in perspective...
Don't include yourself in that group. You've bitched from day 1 that DG fucked up trading for Williams and even complained about Williams performance year 1.
You've yet to give DG "a lot of credit" for anything.
You're rewriting a lot of history today, Clownshoes. First, you're telling other posters they are derailing threads, while that is one of your M.O.'s, now you're acting as if you've give Gettleman credit for getting Williams.
I know you haven’t had a very good week and have put your foot in your own mouth with poorly thought out comments more than once, but you want to continue that trend? Probably just feeling hurt and yours knows nothing other than to attack or look for an escape hatch, so this must just be the former...for now.
Williams clearly showed he could be an impact player for Giants as the 2020 season went along. And DG should get the credit for seeing that kind of player in him while also absorbing the fact that Team LW handled him quite easily at the bargaining table several times. DG should always gets credit where he adds the value and it has been nice to see more of that as of late. Lord knows it’s been a long time coming.
Unfortunately, you just continue to show you have a big mouth and are running out of feet...
Quote:
In comment 15302298 Go Terps said:
Quote:
Wanting players enough to be willing to overpay (or overdraft) is one of Gettleman's biggest weaknesses. He falls in full bloom love with someone that was touched by the hand of God, and decides that the juice is worth the squeeze.
If you're about to get up from the poker table and Dave Gettleman sits down, the wise move is to sit back down and play a few more hands.
too often stockpiling draft capital instead of finding a way to identify and select difference makers?
point being that the ideal GM probably has to strike a balance between boldy going for players they believe in and knowing when to take a more asset collecting approach?
I'd say the Patriots' approach has worked well over the years, wouldn't you?
How has Gettleman's?
It's well known that the Pats drafting has been spotty despite their unbelievable ability to stockpile extra draft capital. N'Keal Harry being the latest in that lineage. Unbelievably you have to go back to like 2012/2013 to find their last good first round picks (Hightower and Chandler Jones, who was the one player I can recall them actually trading up for).
That's not a defense of DG as much a statement of reality when it comes to the draft. Sometimes bold moves work out like trading up for Julio Jones or Pat Mahomes or the Steelers moving up for Devin Bush. Sometimes they don't like the Jets for Darnold or Bears with Trubisky.
There's no 1 strategy that's the gold standard other than scouting well and picking the right players whenever you are on the clock.
Agents aren’t dumb — LW’s agent knew there would be leverage in the fact that DG gave up picks to acquire him. Anyone who thought the Giants were going to get a bargain bin contract for LW wasn’t being realistic.
Yes, the Giants overpaid for LW. The only way they weren’t going to potentially overpay for him was by never trading for him in the first place and signing him in FA. Which, by the way, is pure speculation if he ever would’ve made it to FA, and they still could’ve overpaid if there were other suitors.
This was one of the arguments that the trade's detractors made all along.
There's been a lot of chirping from the posters who supported the trade all along that they were right and those who opposed the trade were wrong, but from my perspective, both sides actually had valid points.
Those who supported the trade based solely on the talent and potential that LW represented wound up being 100% correct.
And those who expressed concern about the trade because it created a scenario where DG effectively gift-wrapped negotiating leverage to LW's agent also wound up being right.
As far as I can tell, only one side of those debates has come back to the middle at all. Somehow the trade's supporters are acting as though they're vindicated despite the fact that the negotiations did actually play out almost exactly like the detractors predicted.
It's an odd dynamic.
These threads are all the same. Defend a DG move and you’re labeled a blind homer.
Not that simple but if you want to win the debate have at it.
Hire the wrong coach and the GM will look bad. Hire the right HC and it’s all better. Happened with accorsi. Happened with George young. And it’s happening with DG. Sure there are exceptions as everything isn’t so black and white but the HC GM dynamic is a huge factor.
Shurmur and McAdoo were bigger problems here than any GM. I think that should be painfully obvious by now to anyone with an objective POV.
Feel free to conjure up all of DG’s “mistakes” from 2018-2019 if so desired.
These threads are all the same. Defend a DG move and you’re labeled a blind homer.
Not that simple but if you want to win the debate have at it.
Hire the wrong coach and the GM will look bad. Hire the right HC and it’s all better. Happened with accorsi. Happened with George young. And it’s happening with DG. Sure there are exceptions as everything isn’t so black and white but the HC GM dynamic is a huge factor.
Shurmur and McAdoo were bigger problems here than any GM. I think that should be painfully obvious by now to anyone with an objective POV.
Feel free to conjure up all of DG’s “mistakes” from 2018-2019 if so desired.
That's a fair take.
And I'll be sure to reference it when some of well-known DG is infallible, NYG can do no wrong crew pops up.
Because there are a handful of them that are long-standing members here who absolutely consider themselves reasonable.
These threads are all the same. Defend a DG move and you’re labeled a blind homer.
Not that simple but if you want to win the debate have at it.
Hire the wrong coach and the GM will look bad. Hire the right HC and it’s all better. Happened with accorsi. Happened with George young. And it’s happening with DG. Sure there are exceptions as everything isn’t so black and white but the HC GM dynamic is a huge factor.
Shurmur and McAdoo were bigger problems here than any GM. I think that should be painfully obvious by now to anyone with an objective POV.
Feel free to conjure up all of DG’s “mistakes” from 2018-2019 if so desired.
In the case of Shurmer, why was he hired (outside of lack of options)?
Quote:
Blindly defends DG at every turn.
These threads are all the same. Defend a DG move and you’re labeled a blind homer.
Not that simple but if you want to win the debate have at it.
Hire the wrong coach and the GM will look bad. Hire the right HC and it’s all better. Happened with accorsi. Happened with George young. And it’s happening with DG. Sure there are exceptions as everything isn’t so black and white but the HC GM dynamic is a huge factor.
Shurmur and McAdoo were bigger problems here than any GM. I think that should be painfully obvious by now to anyone with an objective POV.
Feel free to conjure up all of DG’s “mistakes” from 2018-2019 if so desired.
That's a fair take.
And I'll be sure to reference it when some of well-known DG is infallible, NYG can do no wrong crew pops up.
Because there are a handful of them that are long-standing members here who absolutely consider themselves reasonable.
Gato, in fairness, I don’t know even one BBIer who has felt/stated that DG was infallible. AT BEST, in defending his moves at times, posters will effectively say, “sure he’s made mistakes, but…..”
Quote:
Wasn’t going to ever get a deal on LW unless he got hurt or played like dogshit.
Agents aren’t dumb — LW’s agent knew there would be leverage in the fact that DG gave up picks to acquire him. Anyone who thought the Giants were going to get a bargain bin contract for LW wasn’t being realistic.
Yes, the Giants overpaid for LW. The only way they weren’t going to potentially overpay for him was by never trading for him in the first place and signing him in FA. Which, by the way, is pure speculation if he ever would’ve made it to FA, and they still could’ve overpaid if there were other suitors.
This was one of the arguments that the trade's detractors made all along.
There's been a lot of chirping from the posters who supported the trade all along that they were right and those who opposed the trade were wrong, but from my perspective, both sides actually had valid points.
Those who supported the trade based solely on the talent and potential that LW represented wound up being 100% correct.
And those who expressed concern about the trade because it created a scenario where DG effectively gift-wrapped negotiating leverage to LW's agent also wound up being right.
As far as I can tell, only one side of those debates has come back to the middle at all. Somehow the trade's supporters are acting as though they're vindicated despite the fact that the negotiations did actually play out almost exactly like the detractors predicted.
It's an odd dynamic.
Pretty well stated...
Quote:
Blindly defends DG at every turn.
These threads are all the same. Defend a DG move and you’re labeled a blind homer.
Not that simple but if you want to win the debate have at it.
Hire the wrong coach and the GM will look bad. Hire the right HC and it’s all better. Happened with accorsi. Happened with George young. And it’s happening with DG. Sure there are exceptions as everything isn’t so black and white but the HC GM dynamic is a huge factor.
Shurmur and McAdoo were bigger problems here than any GM. I think that should be painfully obvious by now to anyone with an objective POV.
Feel free to conjure up all of DG’s “mistakes” from 2018-2019 if so desired.
In the case of Shurmer, why was he hired (outside of lack of options)?
this is speculation but I think 2 reasons.
1. they prioritized "maturity" after McAdoo. wanted someone who seemed like an adult in terms of personality. Mara has said this publicly so not really speculation. Ironically maturity in dealing with the media may have been 1 of Shurmur's biggest weaknesses.
2. they valued his skill as a QB coach knowing there was a transition on the horizon. He had just gotten a great year out of Keenum. He'd had experience with some more modern offenses (Philly w/ Chip Kelly during Vick's big year). I think this was perhaps the most logical piece of the equation, and should Jones end up being a franchise QB i'd give Shurmur some credit for that.
Quote:
In comment 15302583 djm said:
Quote:
Blindly defends DG at every turn.
These threads are all the same. Defend a DG move and you’re labeled a blind homer.
Not that simple but if you want to win the debate have at it.
Hire the wrong coach and the GM will look bad. Hire the right HC and it’s all better. Happened with accorsi. Happened with George young. And it’s happening with DG. Sure there are exceptions as everything isn’t so black and white but the HC GM dynamic is a huge factor.
Shurmur and McAdoo were bigger problems here than any GM. I think that should be painfully obvious by now to anyone with an objective POV.
Feel free to conjure up all of DG’s “mistakes” from 2018-2019 if so desired.
That's a fair take.
And I'll be sure to reference it when some of well-known DG is infallible, NYG can do no wrong crew pops up.
Because there are a handful of them that are long-standing members here who absolutely consider themselves reasonable.
Gato, in fairness, I don’t know even one BBIer who has felt/stated that DG was infallible. AT BEST, in defending his moves at times, posters will effectively say, “sure he’s made mistakes, but…..”
There are a few who carry that infallibility in most their posts, some expressly and some implied. Some hide behind the veil of protecting DG's actions from this supposed army of detractors (presumably I'm at least an NCO in that corps by now, although I think you can vouch for the fact that I'm overtly critical but also willing to eat crow when deserved).
And it's not worth naming names because this doesn't need to be a callout thread, but I think it's one of those things where you know it when you see it. A handful of them are very prominent long-time posters here, so it's not just the fly-by-night dupes like "gettledogman" was. There are definitely some posters who don't bother with the disclaimer that you're suggesting (though many do) - I guess they've just become white noise for genuinely considerate and thoughtful posters such as yourself, which is ironic, because I wish I could bring myself to ignore them; it might actually result in me having a more reasonable take instead of digging my heels in against the victory lap posse.
Quote:
Wasn’t going to ever get a deal on LW unless he got hurt or played like dogshit.
Agents aren’t dumb — LW’s agent knew there would be leverage in the fact that DG gave up picks to acquire him. Anyone who thought the Giants were going to get a bargain bin contract for LW wasn’t being realistic.
Yes, the Giants overpaid for LW. The only way they weren’t going to potentially overpay for him was by never trading for him in the first place and signing him in FA. Which, by the way, is pure speculation if he ever would’ve made it to FA, and they still could’ve overpaid if there were other suitors.
I agree with some of your outline.
However, after the trade and the end of the '19 season, I contend Team LW takes a deal very similar to the one Jurrell Casey signed in the summer of 2019 with the Titans - 4yrs/$60M+ with $40M guaranteed.
Why? Because LW didn't have a great year in 2019 with either us or the Jets. They didn't have a strong case to stand on and pitch. So I think it's reasonable to conclude it would have been very hard for Team LW to walk away from that Casey deal. And therefore he likely signs it...
One more thing - why would Team LW feel good about the trade to the Giants when the package was a third and a fifth? That's not a deal that reflects a great player. It reflects, to me, the Jets just wanted to get LW off their roster. And were willing to take quite a loss for their 6th pick in the 2015 draft.
1. No one knows what was offered and what was declined
2. Again, LW had leverage. They knew the Giants weren’t going to let him just walk and flush a 3rd down the toilet.
Quote:
Wasn’t going to ever get a deal on LW unless he got hurt or played like dogshit.
Agents aren’t dumb — LW’s agent knew there would be leverage in the fact that DG gave up picks to acquire him. Anyone who thought the Giants were going to get a bargain bin contract for LW wasn’t being realistic.
Yes, the Giants overpaid for LW. The only way they weren’t going to potentially overpay for him was by never trading for him in the first place and signing him in FA. Which, by the way, is pure speculation if he ever would’ve made it to FA, and they still could’ve overpaid if there were other suitors.
This was one of the arguments that the trade's detractors made all along.
There's been a lot of chirping from the posters who supported the trade all along that they were right and those who opposed the trade were wrong, but from my perspective, both sides actually had valid points.
Those who supported the trade based solely on the talent and potential that LW represented wound up being 100% correct.
And those who expressed concern about the trade because it created a scenario where DG effectively gift-wrapped negotiating leverage to LW's agent also wound up being right.
As far as I can tell, only one side of those debates has come back to the middle at all. Somehow the trade's supporters are acting as though they're vindicated despite the fact that the negotiations did actually play out almost exactly like the detractors predicted.
It's an odd dynamic.
The Giants gave up what they believe they needed to in order to secure his rights. Whether or not they needed to trade for him, or whether they could’ve just bought him in FA is pure speculation. We’ll never know. But the fact remains that a lot of conditions would’ve have to have been met in order to just acquire him in FA and it wouldn’t have been a contract at some random player comp.
The Giants were going to overpay to acquire him. They sucked and there was no draw to come here. If the bean counters want to say it was a bad move because they overpaid then whatever. He’s arguably the most talented player on the roster at an impact position. I say they paid what they needed to to make sure they got him.
1. No one knows what was offered and what was declined
2. Again, LW had leverage. They knew the Giants weren’t going to let him just walk and flush a 3rd down the toilet.
On #2, LW had enormous leverage at the end of '20. Undoubtedly.
At the end of '19? Sorry, but that's a hard sell with his combined Jets/Giants stats - .05 sack, 1 forced fumble, near career low in total tackles, and, at that point, his lowest number of QB hits (39th in the league).
Quote:
1. No one knows what was offered and what was declined
2. Again, LW had leverage. They knew the Giants weren’t going to let him just walk and flush a 3rd down the toilet.
On #2, LW had enormous leverage at the end of '20. Undoubtedly.
At the end of '19? Sorry, but that's a hard sell with his combined Jets/Giants stats - .05 sack, 1 forced fumble, near career low in total tackles, and, at that point, his lowest number of QB hits (39th in the league).
Ok, what’s your point? If you watched what he did when he got here you could see the impact, stats or not. The roster was trash. Are you suggesting the Giants lowballed him? Are you suggesting LW wanted too much? They obviously didn’t reach an agreement and the Giants definitely offered him something.
They didn’t reach an agreement. I guess DG should be lauded for not overpaying at the time given the stats?