|
|
|
| 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 15301563 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
That's irrelevant.
Draft picks are currency, just like the money in your pocket.
A dollar is worth a dollar. A hundred dollars are worth a hundred dollars.
If you sell me a painting for $100 and then use that $100 to buy a single loaf of bread because you aren't especially good at determining value, that doesn't change a single thing about the painting I bought or the price I paid for it.
It's a horseshit argument to introduce the players chosen with draft picks after a trade has been made, for better or worse. Those draft picks are currency, and once they've left our hands, they don't matter any more. The value of the currency itself is worth discussing, not what it was spent on.
Ok, we are in complete agreement re: the best way to value the trade via the currency of draft picks (pick 68 = 250 points, pick 154 = 30 points). From that POV using the trade value chart it cost the NYG the equivalent of about 300 value points in a draft where their total draft capital was north of 2500 value points (I used last year's aggregate to make this simpler even though 1 of the picks lost was this year's draft).
Trading 10% of a single year's draft pool seems pretty insignificant for what ended up being a pro bowl level season, no? https://www.pro-football-reference.com/draft/draft_trade_value.htm - ( New Window )
Again, that's a post transaction value. What he became since the trade is not relevant to the trade itself. If you buy a picture frame at a yard sale that happens to contain a Honus Wagner rookie card, you didn't intentionally buy a Honus Wagner rookie card. In this case, I do think we owe a bit of a hat tip to Gettleman and Pettit that they recognized LW's upside when they made the trade. But bundling that into your argument retroactively robs them of the upside they acquired, who was no sure thing at the time.
They traded X amount of draft capital for the player they acquired at the time. His value AT THAT TIME was right around the level of the value that was traded for him, perhaps a bit beneath that, but close. Still, he was a post-hype prospect of such massive proportions that he represents a scenario that is very difficult to quantify.
That said, to simplify it (IMO), LW is such an interesting example because he represents an example of a trade where we overpaid for the player he was when we acquired him, and ultimately underpaid for the player he has been for us since.
It feeds both arguments: he's been a fantastic player for us, one who we probably would not have been able to acquire on the open market. Except that he wasn't that player when he was originally going to hit the open market, and might have been a bargain signing even if we had overpaid for him in 2020 dollars. But because he was such an enigma at the time, DG (understandably) let his contract negotiations wait a year, which spiked LW's price tag even in a down cap year.
It's not exactly what anyone could consider a savvy cap maneuver, but it's also not a scenario that has a ton of precedent in terms of acquiring A+ talent like LW was this past year (and we hope he continues to be).
It's ultimately BBI's wet dream, right? Both the posters who were in favor of the trade and those who were opposed to the trade end up being right, and the Giants ultimately end up with a potential superstar in the process.
Again, my opinion then and now is that the price paid at the time was and continues to be overstated. I like Aaron Robinson as much as the next guy but would I be shocked if he's not even as good as Darnay Holmes was last year or even an outright bust like Sam Beal? No. because the most likely outcome of any 3rd round pick is not a full time starter (pre-transactional value as you put it). And while I would not have predicted LW to have the kind of ascent he has had he was a 4.5 year starter at the time of the trade.
Quote:
In comment 15301599 Go Terps said:
Quote:
The point is the trade never should have been made in the first place, and Williams probably could have been had for cheaper had the trade never occurred at all.
"Probably" being the operative word. You, nor I, nor Paul Schwartz really have any clue what the going rate is for players. Otherwise, we would be working in a FO somewhere. So to base any argument around "asset allocation" is folly.
You really think LW even sniffs Deforest Buckner-type money after his 2019 season?
Wake up...
Did you foresee Landon Collins becoming one of the highest paid DBs in the NFL after his 0 interception 2018 which ended on IR after 12 games?
Imagine the hand-wringing if Gettleman stayed pat and let L. Williams go to Dallas, where he put double-sack seasons. Those 3rd and 5th picks would have been meaningless as our anemic DL struggled to put any pressure on opposing QBs. Gettleman would be asleep at the wheel while division opponents improved leveraging draft picks.
Imagine if Gettleman let L. Williams walk in FA and Williams went on to make the pro-bowl the next several seasons while we continued to rely on the likes of Carter, Golden, et al to apply pressure. Hey, at least we would still have Dalvin Tomlinson!
That's one I will never be able to understand. We were 2-6 when we traded for LW. The smarter move was to be sellers, not buyers. Because we were clearly going nowhere in terms of the playoffs.
Several of us did some comp analysis when we acquired LW. And based on recent contracts and production at the time, Grady Jackson and Jurrell Casey were the most reasonable comps. And that was around $15M AAV.
So if we didn't trade for him, and pursued him in the open market, I would bet the contract to buy would have been 4yrs/$60M...tops.
Instead, we gave up multiple picks, franchise tagged him for a year, and then re-signed him this year for 3yrs/$63M with $45M guaranteed. Basically, all rolled up, a 4 year contract for $80M with $60M+ guaranteed.
That's a significant difference. And why Gettleman absolutely mishandled this situation and got schooled by Team LW.
Quote:
and as long as he keeps putting up years just like 2020 then all is good...
Imagine the hand-wringing if Gettleman stayed pat and let L. Williams go to Dallas, where he put double-sack seasons. Those 3rd and 5th picks would have been meaningless as our anemic DL struggled to put any pressure on opposing QBs. Gettleman would be asleep at the wheel while division opponents improved leveraging draft picks.
Imagine if Gettleman let L. Williams walk in FA and Williams went on to make the pro-bowl the next several seasons while we continued to rely on the likes of Carter, Golden, et al to apply pressure. Hey, at least we would still have Dalvin Tomlinson!
You still don't understand that the trade is what's at issue. He never should have traded for him in the first place. The odds of being able to acquire him in FA were still pretty good, and if they didn't it means picks and money to use elsewhere.
The Jets were trading him. Somebody was going to get LW mid-season. Why wouldn't the team that traded for him be the favorites to keep him, just like we ended up being?
The odds to get him in FA may have been very poor, especially if he was signed or tagged by the team who acquired him. Just like it played out when we got him....
I think it's safe to assume the Jets floor was a 3rd round pick since they would likely get that as a comp pick.
Who knows what the market outside of the Giants was.
I don't think it's reasonable to assume the Jets would necessarily trade him, when there was viable compensation available if they didn't.
Quote:
and as long as he keeps putting up years just like 2020 then all is good...
Imagine the hand-wringing if Gettleman stayed pat and let L. Williams go to Dallas, where he put double-sack seasons. Those 3rd and 5th picks would have been meaningless as our anemic DL struggled to put any pressure on opposing QBs. Gettleman would be asleep at the wheel while division opponents improved leveraging draft picks.
Imagine if Gettleman let L. Williams walk in FA and Williams went on to make the pro-bowl the next several seasons while we continued to rely on the likes of Carter, Golden, et al to apply pressure. Hey, at least we would still have Dalvin Tomlinson!
I think we've moved past the actual trade compensation, except for the gaggers who tried to claim that DG had a handshake deal in place with LW at the time of the trade and have never once walked that back since.
Somehow that nod/nod/wink/wink handshake deal turned into two consecutive franchise tags and a top of the market contract.
LW earned every penny of that deal with his play this past season. But that's hindsight, right? And the bargain that represented relative to the tag last season became a top-of-market contract this past offseason. That's the nature of the tag nuance, it could have gone either way. But the team's side of the table never should get credit when the tag turns into a prove-it deal that does get proven. Even if they're able to navigate the cap around that scenario (as DG/KA have), it's still not optimal.
Our front office managed the way that they did. It wasn't perfect. It wasn't even great. But the outcome worked out in our favor even though the price tag was inflated as a result. Whatever.
But when posters try to "what if" the argument into LW playing for the Cowboys or anyone else? Sorry, but you don't get to play fiction unobstructed. What if LW had decided to take up a career in figure skating? What if he had decided that he only wanted to be a punter? The "what if" narratives are silly.
The Giants traded for him. There is a greater than zero chance that he would have reached FA anyway. There is also a greater than zero chance that he would have been traded elsewhere.
The Giants tagged LW in 2020. There is a greater than zero chance that he might have signed a multi-year contract if he wasn't working against the tag; there's also a greater than zero chance that he would have signed elsewhere to latch onto a defense that might have appeared to be more favorable a year ago.
There are so many factors in play here that trying to back into a singular moment from which a butterfly effect might have taken off seems silly. But to use the current outcome as a defense beyond debate for everything that preceded it is just as silly, IMO. We took a bumpy path to a favorable outcome. Anyone who denies the bumps is just as ridiculous as anyone who denies the favorability of the outcome.
The Jets were trading him. Somebody was going to get LW mid-season. Why wouldn't the team that traded for him be the favorites to keep him, just like we ended up being?
The odds to get him in FA may have been very poor, especially if he was signed or tagged by the team who acquired him. Just like it played out when we got him....
The Jets traded Williams almost two full days to go before the trading deadline expired. If there was a bigger market, why didn't the Jets wait for the best offer? My guess is there wasn't a robust market at all for LW and the Giants gave them something that met their reasonable standards. So the Jets pulled the trigger.
I mean, giving up a third and conditional pick isn't the best ROI for a former 6th pick in the draft.
Quote:
That's irrelevant.
Draft picks are currency, just like the money in your pocket.
A dollar is worth a dollar. A hundred dollars are worth a hundred dollars.
If you sell me a painting for $100 and then use that $100 to buy a single loaf of bread because you aren't especially good at determining value, that doesn't change a single thing about the painting I bought or the price I paid for it.
It's a horseshit argument to introduce the players chosen with draft picks after a trade has been made, for better or worse. Those draft picks are currency, and once they've left our hands, they don't matter any more. The value of the currency itself is worth discussing, not what it was spent on.
Ok, we are in complete agreement re: the best way to value the trade via the currency of draft picks (pick 68 = 250 points, pick 154 = 30 points). From that POV using the trade value chart it cost the NYG the equivalent of about 300 value points in a draft where their total draft capital was north of 2500 value points (I used last year's aggregate to make this simpler even though 1 of the picks lost was this year's draft).
Trading 10% of a single year's draft pool seems pretty insignificant for what ended up being a pro bowl level season, no? https://www.pro-football-reference.com/draft/draft_trade_value.htm - ( New Window )
10% of a single year's draft pool on top of $80M in guaranteed money, right?
Quote:
it be stated that the odds to acquire him in FA were still pretty good?
The Jets were trading him. Somebody was going to get LW mid-season. Why wouldn't the team that traded for him be the favorites to keep him, just like we ended up being?
The odds to get him in FA may have been very poor, especially if he was signed or tagged by the team who acquired him. Just like it played out when we got him....
The Jets traded Williams almost two full days to go before the trading deadline expired. If there was a bigger market, why didn't the Jets wait for the best offer? My guess is there wasn't a robust market at all for LW and the Giants gave them something that met their reasonable standards. So the Jets pulled the trigger.
I mean, giving up a third and conditional pick isn't the best ROI for a former 6th pick in the draft.
You don't think that's a good offer? Funny for a guy who would give Jones up for a similar "haul"....
I can barely tolerate their thoughts typed into words let alone the thought of actually spending time with these individuals. So I assume these are some lonely people.
The only mistake in acquiring LW was not extending him after his first year here. He was/is worth the draft picks used to acquire him. The FO did a good job projecting what he could be not what he was with the Jets.
LW is an impact player on the defensive front. He makes everyone around him better. He helps the LBs behind him. If any of these JAG edge players on the roster are worth a shit they’ll thrive playing with LW. That type of presence didn’t exist on the defense before he was acquired and alone more than justifies the compensation surrendered.
Most of the criticism is based on flawed premises. He likely wouldn’t have been available in FA. There’s no guarantee he would’ve signed with the Giants if he was. The Giants did what they needed to do to acquire him and ensure they had control over his rights.
Quote:
In comment 15301563 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
That's irrelevant.
Draft picks are currency, just like the money in your pocket.
A dollar is worth a dollar. A hundred dollars are worth a hundred dollars.
If you sell me a painting for $100 and then use that $100 to buy a single loaf of bread because you aren't especially good at determining value, that doesn't change a single thing about the painting I bought or the price I paid for it.
It's a horseshit argument to introduce the players chosen with draft picks after a trade has been made, for better or worse. Those draft picks are currency, and once they've left our hands, they don't matter any more. The value of the currency itself is worth discussing, not what it was spent on.
Ok, we are in complete agreement re: the best way to value the trade via the currency of draft picks (pick 68 = 250 points, pick 154 = 30 points). From that POV using the trade value chart it cost the NYG the equivalent of about 300 value points in a draft where their total draft capital was north of 2500 value points (I used last year's aggregate to make this simpler even though 1 of the picks lost was this year's draft).
Trading 10% of a single year's draft pool seems pretty insignificant for what ended up being a pro bowl level season, no? https://www.pro-football-reference.com/draft/draft_trade_value.htm - ( New Window )
10% of a single year's draft pool on top of $80M in guaranteed money, right?
$61m guaranteed over 4 years (ages 26-29). OTC has current deal at 45m fully guaranteed and I added in last years 16m since that was technically guaranteed even though it was an irrelevant guarantee. I say that because guaranteed vs. non-guaranteed only matters for cap purposes if dead money hits. If the cash gets paid out to the player it counts the same whether it was guaranteed or not, so even if last year's deal was 100% non-guaranteed nothing would have changed in the accounting of it. There was 0 chance of dead money last year because it was a 1 year deal and the NYG wanted to keep the player (as most teams do when they tag players). The tag money guarantee was likely an easy non-concession by the owners in the CBA negotiations to get something that was actually mattered to them.
back to Williams, the thing I like most about how they've (presumably abrams) structured his term with the team is that there's a very small dead money risk. There was no chance he got cut midseason last year, and there's no chance he gets cut midseason this year. It's hard to envision any reason why he'd get cut after this year (other than a career ending injury or something legal). Assuming that to be the case, there's really on $7.5m in dead money risk if they decide to dump LW a year early - which itself is pretty low probability since it's only his a29 season. It may be more likely they are trying to extend him than cut him. But even if they did cut him early I'm pretty sure that would end up a much lower amount of dead money than all the other recent big contracts they paid on JPP, Vernon, Snacks, OBJ, Jenkins. Progress.
The only mistake in acquiring LW was not extending him after his first year here. He was/is worth the draft picks used to acquire him. The FO did a good job projecting what he could be not what he was with the Jets.
LW is an impact player on the defensive front. He makes everyone around him better. He helps the LBs behind him. If any of these JAG edge players on the roster are worth a shit they’ll thrive playing with LW. That type of presence didn’t exist on the defense before he was acquired and alone more than justifies the compensation surrendered.
Most of the criticism is based on flawed premises. He likely wouldn’t have been available in FA. There’s no guarantee he would’ve signed with the Giants if he was. The Giants did what they needed to do to acquire him and ensure they had control over his rights.
Most of the criticism is based on flawed premises. He likely wouldn’t have been available in FA. There’s no guarantee he would’ve signed with the Giants if he was. The Giants did what they needed to do to acquire him and ensure they had control over his rights.
I’ve been stating similar opinions for quite some time, but we’re up against the stubborn narrative that keeps rearing it’s head. I try my best to scroll on by.
The Jets traded Williams almost two full days to go before the trading deadline expired. If there was a bigger market, why didn't the Jets wait for the best offer? My guess is there wasn't a robust market at all for LW and the Giants gave them something that met their reasonable standards. So the Jets pulled the trigger.
I mean, giving up a third and conditional pick isn't the best ROI for a former 6th pick in the draft.
You don't think that's a good offer? Funny for a guy who would give Jones up for a similar "haul"....
For the Jets? No.
For NYG? Based on the two picks offered - yes.
But you can't discard the other piece of failing to finalize a contract at the end of 2019. Because that was a big narrative when we acquired LW - he liked NY, wanted to stay, and, supposedly, there was a gentlemen's agreement in place. Everything was in place.
Until it was clear our GM was playing checkers while Team LW was playing chess.
As for Jones, I have said I would take the same deal the Panthers gave up for Darnold.
Quote:
Has been a foundational piece of the defense since the day he walked into the Giants locker room. The people who say he just had one good year don’t know what they’re watching.
The only mistake in acquiring LW was not extending him after his first year here. He was/is worth the draft picks used to acquire him. The FO did a good job projecting what he could be not what he was with the Jets.
LW is an impact player on the defensive front. He makes everyone around him better. He helps the LBs behind him. If any of these JAG edge players on the roster are worth a shit they’ll thrive playing with LW. That type of presence didn’t exist on the defense before he was acquired and alone more than justifies the compensation surrendered.
Most of the criticism is based on flawed premises. He likely wouldn’t have been available in FA. There’s no guarantee he would’ve signed with the Giants if he was. The Giants did what they needed to do to acquire him and ensure they had control over his rights.
Quote:
Most of the criticism is based on flawed premises. He likely wouldn’t have been available in FA. There’s no guarantee he would’ve signed with the Giants if he was. The Giants did what they needed to do to acquire him and ensure they had control over his rights.
I’ve been stating similar opinions for quite some time, but we’re up against the stubborn narrative that keeps rearing it’s head. I try my best to scroll on by.
I don’t even think it’s a narrative. The board was pretty polarized before/after the trade so it’s just a common situation here where people who were wrong try to defend their shitty position to justify how they weren’t wrong.
Bottom line is LW is an impact player at an impact position for the Giants who’s young and should have plenty of years ahead of him. They didn’t have that on the roster before they acquired him. A 3rd and future 5th is easily worth locking that up even if there’s a chance he’s a FA and wants to stay in NY.
Quote:
In comment 15301842 WillVAB said:
Quote:
Has been a foundational piece of the defense since the day he walked into the Giants locker room. The people who say he just had one good year don’t know what they’re watching.
The only mistake in acquiring LW was not extending him after his first year here. He was/is worth the draft picks used to acquire him. The FO did a good job projecting what he could be not what he was with the Jets.
LW is an impact player on the defensive front. He makes everyone around him better. He helps the LBs behind him. If any of these JAG edge players on the roster are worth a shit they’ll thrive playing with LW. That type of presence didn’t exist on the defense before he was acquired and alone more than justifies the compensation surrendered.
Most of the criticism is based on flawed premises. He likely wouldn’t have been available in FA. There’s no guarantee he would’ve signed with the Giants if he was. The Giants did what they needed to do to acquire him and ensure they had control over his rights.
Quote:
Most of the criticism is based on flawed premises. He likely wouldn’t have been available in FA. There’s no guarantee he would’ve signed with the Giants if he was. The Giants did what they needed to do to acquire him and ensure they had control over his rights.
I’ve been stating similar opinions for quite some time, but we’re up against the stubborn narrative that keeps rearing it’s head. I try my best to scroll on by.
I don’t even think it’s a narrative. The board was pretty polarized before/after the trade so it’s just a common situation here where people who were wrong try to defend their shitty position to justify how they weren’t wrong.
Bottom line is LW is an impact player at an impact position for the Giants who’s young and should have plenty of years ahead of him. They didn’t have that on the roster before they acquired him. A 3rd and future 5th is easily worth locking that up even if there’s a chance he’s a FA and wants to stay in NY.
To me, this was a crystal clear no-brainer.
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.
Looking forward to his 2021 being just as good as his 2020...
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.
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.
That would have been a prudent, logical process to follow.
When it became obvious he didn't, those posters then switched to how it made sense not to have a deal yet because more important to see how LW looked in the NYG defense. Nice pivot...
I still don't really understand the fighting on this one. It didn't go perfectly, but he's now one of the most important players on the team and anchored a defense that actually put us in playoff contention last year after a decade in the gutter. The major money he's owed comes after a salary cap surge and hit in his 20s with flexibility getting out of it on the back end.
It didn't go perfectly but i'm happy with the outcome.
Forget 7th ranked, in reality there's really only 1 DT who was unquestionably above him last year (and I don't care about any year prior for the reasons I listed above).
I'm no doctor, but I'm pretty sure there are studies about the benefits (better health, relationships, success, etc.) of being positive. Some have said that not being negative and staying away from negative people is a key to a happy life.
Hint hint.
Forget 7th ranked, in reality there's really only 1 DT who was unquestionably above him last year (and I don't care about any year prior for the reasons I listed above).
I'm no doctor, but I'm pretty sure there are studies about the benefits (better health, relationships, success, etc.) of being positive. Some have said that not being negative and staying away from negative people is a key to a happy life.
Hint hint.
Cool, so you'll be staying away from here?
Sounds like a win/win.
Forget 7th ranked, in reality there's really only 1 DT who was unquestionably above him last year (and I don't care about any year prior for the reasons I listed above).
I'm no doctor, but I'm pretty sure there are studies about the benefits (better health, relationships, success, etc.) of being positive. Some have said that not being negative and staying away from negative people is a key to a happy life.
Hint hint.
Username: Dr. D.
Liar.
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?
With certain folks, it's different day, same negative shit.
Have a nice day!
With certain folks, it's different day, same negative shit.
Have a nice day!
^Ha!
Maybe learn to use the quote function, doc.
So considering the bizarre timing of the trade so close to UFA giving the FO minimal leverage, Leonard Williams not being a fully established known quantity, and a new coaching staff coming in with a new scheme, a 1 year "prove it" deal was the logical and imo preferred outcome from day 1 (barring LW being willing to sign an under market deal - which if we are being honest is something very few of us would do).
In the end LW probably increased his value from 16-17m per year to 19-20m per year but I think that 15% premium paid was worth it to see that the player could in fact be a difference maker in the new scheme. Had he proven otherwise the NYG could have decided to go in the completely different direction this year and been no worse off. If he didn't outplayed Tomlinson by as much as he did they could have just brought back the cheaper of the 2, reinvested additional saved $ elsewhere, and played for the comp pick. As things went they came very close to getting a 4th for Tomlinson (imo they should have maneuvered better to get that, though i'm not sure that would have been possible while also signing KG).
Quote:
people complaining about the way we acquired and signed a great impact player. The type of player our defense really needed. The type that don't grow on trees (or come in the 3rd rd, generally).
Forget 7th ranked, in reality there's really only 1 DT who was unquestionably above him last year (and I don't care about any year prior for the reasons I listed above).
I'm no doctor, but I'm pretty sure there are studies about the benefits (better health, relationships, success, etc.) of being positive. Some have said that not being negative and staying away from negative people is a key to a happy life.
Hint hint.
Quote:
I'm no doctor
Username: Dr. D.
Liar.
I've posted several times that I'm not a doctor (I'm a chemical engineer). Dr. D was a nickname given to me by old friends/coworkers. Won't bore you with details.
I've also admitted I regret choosing it as my handle (may've been tipsy at the time, don't remember). If there was an easy way to change it, I would.
Have a nice day!
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.