Everyone deserves to be fired or put on a real hot seat.
Not that simple. If Jones doesn't take a step forward we're all going to be very happy that we have the Bears 1. Irregardless of Slater, it's a good hedge.
I have to believe that the preferred offensive alignment is 3 WRs
And 1 TE, if the o-line holds up. Then, Golladay and Slayton play out wide with Shepard in the slot. Two TEs just isn’t a sustainable base offense in the 2021 NFL. Rudolph should be the #1 TE. Without looking it up, I think Rudoph’s worst season may be better than Engram’s best, if you consider everything a TE is supposed to do (and Engram doesn’t do).
This depth chart suggests that Shepard has beaten out Slayton as a WR. I don’t believe that, but if true, then I think Engram and Toney will share the slot when Shepard plays wide. I don’t know why you would put together a depth chart without acknowledging the Slot position.
RE: RE: If Rashawn Slater turns into a stud... and this OL duds YET AGAIN
Everyone deserves to be fired or put on a real hot seat.
Not that simple. If Jones doesn't take a step forward we're all going to be very happy that we have the Bears 1. Irregardless of Slater, it's a good hedge.
Let’s not get to excited about the Bears pick. We had a 2, a 6, and a 4 pick in the first round 3 years in a row, and still the team hasn’t gotten any better.
Joe Judge gave Matt Peart two series in the first preseason game, none in the second, and some (but not all) of the first half of the third preseason game.
This "preseason" you talk of amounted to about one half of football for Peart.
There is no contact in the OTAs.
There are only a handful of padded practices in the summer (maybe five).
Welcome to the new NFL.
i get it but that was also a choice judge made with regards to his reps in the preseason. he could have played peart longer in those games to give him more reps. and he got reps in joint practices against other teams where there was contact (he reportedly looked terrible up in new england during the week).
and i feel like that's making excuses. rotating guys in at OT is simply not a thing teams do in the regular season, it's not a new NFL thing. we aren't going to sit bradbury down for a couple series a game to get robinson reps this year. will we sit darnay holmes though sometimes? yes because he is not very good
they were backed into a corner with the RT position this year. the horrible solder signing tied their hands and it cost less on the cap to keep him at the reduced price than to cut him and sign a replacement (remember they are right up against the cap now). they can spin him as veteran depth all they want. they gave matt peart an opportunity to win the job and he couldn't because he simply isn't very good right now either.
they passed up really good OT prospects this year because they didn't want to draft over matt peart. and it appears they significantly misevaluated where matt peart was as a player.
and now they have all the excuses they want for jones. o-line again and the offensive coordinator.
Joe Judge gave Matt Peart two series in the first preseason game, none in the second, and some (but not all) of the first half of the third preseason game.
People think that just because Peart was drafted in the 3rd round from the football factory from UCON that he is a major prize, because he is not, and as bad as Solder may be he is probably a safer bet. Either way it is bad.
This "preseason" you talk of amounted to about one half of football for Peart.
There is no contact in the OTAs.
There are only a handful of padded practices in the summer (maybe five).
Welcome to the new NFL.
i get it but that was also a choice judge made with regards to his reps in the preseason. he could have played peart longer in those games to give him more reps. and he got reps in joint practices against other teams where there was contact (he reportedly looked terrible up in new england during the week).
and i feel like that's making excuses. rotating guys in at OT is simply not a thing teams do in the regular season, it's not a new NFL thing. we aren't going to sit bradbury down for a couple series a game to get robinson reps this year. will we sit darnay holmes though sometimes? yes because he is not very good
they were backed into a corner with the RT position this year. the horrible solder signing tied their hands and it cost less on the cap to keep him at the reduced price than to cut him and sign a replacement (remember they are right up against the cap now). they can spin him as veteran depth all they want. they gave matt peart an opportunity to win the job and he couldn't because he simply isn't very good right now either.
they passed up really good OT prospects this year because they didn't want to draft over matt peart. and it appears they significantly misevaluated where matt peart was as a player.
and now they have all the excuses they want for jones. o-line again and the offensive coordinator.
others have noted, Solder was awful the last time he played, and also sat out all of last year. We have to hope the time off has made him better, but that certainly isn't a given. It would have obviously have been better for Peart to have beaten him out for RT.
It's just maddening that this team can't get a decent OL no matter who is in charge, and regardless of draft capital spent and FA signings. The situation is still so bad that we cut every one of our backup OL and traded for two backup OL during final roster cuts.
others have noted, Solder was awful the last time he played, and also sat out all of last year. We have to hope the time off has made him better, but that certainly isn't a given. It would have obviously have been better for Peart to have beaten him out for RT.
It's just maddening that this team can't get a decent OL no matter who is in charge, and regardless of draft capital spent and FA signings. The situation is still so bad that we cut every one of our backup OL and traded for two backup OL during final roster cuts.
I know Peart was a 3rd round pick from that O lineman football factory at UCONN, but that doesn’t mean he is any good, and can beat out anybody.
Past 2 drafts the smart OL choices were Wirfs and Slater. I could care less that Wirfs is a RT which everyone said is why you don’t draft him at number 4.We would be set at RT for the next 10 years barring injury if we chose Wirfs. Now we have Solder and Peart. Yeah!!!!
Slater was sitting there ready to be picked and all the smart people on BBI said he is a guard and can’t play tackle. Wrong!!! He was IMHO the best tackle in the draft. So athletic!!!
Can you tell I’m pissed at this OL situation which remains a mess.
This shit has been going on for 10 years!!!
Out of 33 players selected by Gettleman's in 4 Drafts
In comment 15355379 Rick in Dallas said:
[quote] Past 2 drafts the smart OL choices were Wirfs and Slater. I could care less that Wirfs is a RT which everyone said is why you don’t draft him at number 4.We would be set at RT for the next 10 years barring injury if we chose Wirfs. Now we have Solder and Peart. Yeah!!!!
Slater was sitting there ready to be picked and all the smart people on BBI said he is a guard and can’t play tackle. Wrong!!! He was IMHO the best tackle in the draft. So athletic!!!
Can you tell I’m pissed at this OL situation which remains a mess.
This shit has been going on for 10 years!!! [/quot
There were all kinds of mock drafts last year, and each one had the Giants. Taking one of the different top 4 OT each time. Each of the top 4 had flaws, and Thomas certainly does, and what makes the O line even look worse is because the rest of the O line has many flaws as well with the biggest flaw they just aren’t that good. The Jets are better set on their L side of the line then the Giants.
Past 2 drafts the smart OL choices were Wirfs and Slater. I could care less that Wirfs is a RT which everyone said is why you don’t draft him at number 4.We would be set at RT for the next 10 years barring injury if we chose Wirfs. Now we have Solder and Peart. Yeah!!!!
Slater was sitting there ready to be picked and all the smart people on BBI said he is a guard and can’t play tackle. Wrong!!! He was IMHO the best tackle in the draft. So athletic!!!
Can you tell I’m pissed at this OL situation which remains a mess.
This shit has been going on for 10 years!!!
I would have gladly taken Slater at G. Or at T. Or at C.
I really feel the arrogance and obstinance of this front office got in the way of them reinvesting in OL with a first round pick. Inexplicably, they believed they had the answers from the prior drafts.
Now we cross our fingers that Nate Solder somehow finds his groove from 2016. The last year he actually played well.
And we do this idiotic OL rotation plan. Yeah, that's going to work.
RE: RE: Giants incapable IMHO of evaluating OL talent
Past 2 drafts the smart OL choices were Wirfs and Slater. I could care less that Wirfs is a RT which everyone said is why you don’t draft him at number 4.We would be set at RT for the next 10 years barring injury if we chose Wirfs. Now we have Solder and Peart. Yeah!!!!
Slater was sitting there ready to be picked and all the smart people on BBI said he is a guard and can’t play tackle. Wrong!!! He was IMHO the best tackle in the draft. So athletic!!!
Can you tell I’m pissed at this OL situation which remains a mess.
This shit has been going on for 10 years!!!
I would have gladly taken Slater at G. Or at T. Or at C.
I really feel the arrogance and obstinance of this front office got in the way of them reinvesting in OL with a first round pick. Inexplicably, they believed they had the answers from the prior drafts.
Now we cross our fingers that Nate Solder somehow finds his groove from 2016. The last year he actually played well.
And we do this idiotic OL rotation plan. Yeah, that's going to work.
They had better hope that Toney turns out to be a real super star to draft him over a O lineman, which was, and still is their biggest need.
There"s so many ridiculous takes on this. You realize he's a third
round tackle right? If he turns out to be a long-term swing tackle type that's a decent draft pick. Everyone wants to point to the exception to the rule, but they forget how many guys fail after the top 50 or so picks.
round tackle right? If he turns out to be a long-term swing tackle type that's a decent draft pick. Everyone wants to point to the exception to the rule, but they forget how many guys fail after the top 50 or so picks.
So its okay to draft a potential swing tackle but disregard finding a starting solution at Right Tackle?
round tackle right? If he turns out to be a long-term swing tackle type that's a decent draft pick. Everyone wants to point to the exception to the rule, but they forget how many guys fail after the top 50 or so picks.
So its okay to draft a potential swing tackle but disregard finding a starting solution at Right Tackle?
Do you think the Giants are disregarding a solution to right tackle?
RE: RE: RE: Giants incapable IMHO of evaluating OL talent
I would have gladly taken Slater at G. Or at T. Or at C.
I really feel the arrogance and obstinance of this front office got in the way of them reinvesting in OL with a first round pick. Inexplicably, they believed they had the answers from the prior drafts.
Now we cross our fingers that Nate Solder somehow finds his groove from 2016. The last year he actually played well.
And we do this idiotic OL rotation plan. Yeah, that's going to work.
They had better hope that Toney turns out to be a real super star to draft him over a O lineman, which was, and still is their biggest need.
I liked Toney pre-draft, but thought we solved the WR issue with KG. With him, Shep, Slayton, and EE/KR, it seemed we had enough to finally have, on paper, a competent horizontal and vertical receiving team.
So I thought we reached for him instead of beefing up the OL with some solid prospects on the board at our pick. It's very hard to find good OLs, but first rounders tend to have a pretty good hit rate. WRs? Not as good of a hit rate...
round tackle right? If he turns out to be a long-term swing tackle type that's a decent draft pick. Everyone wants to point to the exception to the rule, but they forget how many guys fail after the top 50 or so picks.
But if Peart is a swing tackle, that means we don't have a starting right tackle, unless you're banking on Nate Solder playing Juan Ponce de Leon and finding the fountain of youth!
Haven't read the whole thread, but discouraging to read this. Peart-from all accounts-has had a rough, rough summer. I was hoping he'd take this job & run with it. Oy vey.
round tackle right? If he turns out to be a long-term swing tackle type that's a decent draft pick. Everyone wants to point to the exception to the rule, but they forget how many guys fail after the top 50 or so picks.
Yet so many on here were pointing him to be a lock starter this year which is why there were claims that the Giants will be much better this year.
round tackle right? If he turns out to be a long-term swing tackle type that's a decent draft pick. Everyone wants to point to the exception to the rule, but they forget how many guys fail after the top 50 or so picks.
So its okay to draft a potential swing tackle but disregard finding a starting solution at Right Tackle?
Do you think the Giants are disregarding a solution to right tackle?
If Peart's ceiling is a swing tackle, then yes.
Is there somebody else that is part of the calculus here?
1. Many colleges and lower levels play a different style and it’s a big adjustment to the NFL.
2. CBA. OL don’t get the physical repetitions to develop skill set.
The solution is add OL every year identifying traits that can be developed. When the OL is good keep adding to the pipeline. Weed out the weakest links. Repeat.
The idea of having to build a OL with all high picks is a front office that can’t identify potential OL talent imo.
round tackle right? If he turns out to be a long-term swing tackle type that's a decent draft pick. Everyone wants to point to the exception to the rule, but they forget how many guys fail after the top 50 or so picks.
Yet so many on here were pointing him to be a lock starter this year which is why there were claims that the Giants will be much better this year.
That is correct, including the GM. He even boasted that it was really apparent that he had much more confidence in the offensive line than you guys in the media.
So Solder moves into a starting role again. And he will play and likely rotate some with Peart. But there is no downplaying it, the Giants (and probably eveybody here) were counting on Peart to solidify himself in that job,a nd this is a bit disheartening...
Yet so many on here were pointing him to be a lock starter this year which is why there were claims that the Giants will be much better this year.
That’s the kind of silly part. Dude has about 100 snaps before he gets Covid, his season falls apart, and you’d have thought he’d proven something last year by the way some fans viewed him.
It’s not surprising he needs some ramp up time. I wish the Giants had invested in a starting caliber right tackle, and Peart was the heir apparent/swing guy.
It is surprising to some, as I had heard Peart looked a lot like
so many of you have already formed such a strong opinion on everything based on 3 shit pre-season games and practice reports that you might have glanced at on this board.
I'm going all in on Giants Oline being a strength this year. fuck it.
so many of you have already formed such a strong opinion on everything based on 3 shit pre-season games and practice reports that you might have glanced at on this board.
I'm going all in on Giants Oline being a strength this year. fuck it.
I don’t think many opinions are formed on 3 pre-season games, and practice reports, but think the O line is going to be a strength this year is not going to change any outcomes.
so many of you have already formed such a strong opinion on everything based on 3 shit pre-season games and practice reports that you might have glanced at on this board.
I'm going all in on Giants Oline being a strength this year. fuck it.
I don’t think many opinions are formed on 3 pre-season games, and practice reports, but think the O line is going to be a strength this year is not going to change any outcomes.
so many of you have already formed such a strong opinion on everything based on 3 shit pre-season games and practice reports that you might have glanced at on this board.
I'm going all in on Giants Oline being a strength this year. fuck it.
Great analysis you did there - you said "Fuck it" -- and now we all know everything will be okay now with our OL.
Somehow you've convinced yourself that only 3 preseason games drew a potentially cautious outlook for the Giants. I guess last year having the 31st ranked offense doesn't matter. I guess analysis such as with SY who is not so high on the OL doesn't matter. I guess when you hear any analysis on radio or TV and they speak of potential concerns which is the OL - that doesn't matter to you either.
You said "fuck it" - so now we're comforted in knowing everything will be fine. We could've used this fine analysis you provided these last 8 years and it all could've gone the other way. All because of that great insight you made by stating "fuck it."
so many of you have already formed such a strong opinion on everything based on 3 shit pre-season games and practice reports that you might have glanced at on this board.
I'm going all in on Giants Oline being a strength this year. fuck it.
Great analysis you did there - you said "Fuck it" -- and now we all know everything will be okay now with our OL.
Somehow you've convinced yourself that only 3 preseason games drew a potentially cautious outlook for the Giants. I guess last year having the 31st ranked offense doesn't matter. I guess analysis such as with SY who is not so high on the OL doesn't matter. I guess when you hear any analysis on radio or TV and they speak of potential concerns which is the OL - that doesn't matter to you either.
You said "fuck it" - so now we're comforted in knowing everything will be fine. We could've used this fine analysis you provided these last 8 years and it all could've gone the other way. All because of that great insight you made by stating "fuck it."
round tackle right? If he turns out to be a long-term swing tackle type that's a decent draft pick. Everyone wants to point to the exception to the rule, but they forget how many guys fail after the top 50 or so picks.
But if Peart is a swing tackle, that means we don't have a starting right tackle, unless you're banking on Nate Solder playing Juan Ponce de Leon and finding the fountain of youth!
So what? Lots of teams have giant holes on their lines. AT is the real key, we need him to be a lynchpin. Gates is a very solid player and Hernendaz looks like a different player. You don't need an elite line to win a SB, shit you don't even need a good line, merely a competent one.
People have PTSD around here because it's been soooo bad, but if you have a weakspot or two on the line they can be covered up. It's when you have one guy that's a starter and bunch of barely fucking starters and backups it becomes a problem. Give me a decent line and great skill players, vs a great line and decent skill players. It's not 1985 anymore.
RE: RE: If Rashawn Slater turns into a stud... and this OL duds YET AGAIN
round tackle right? If he turns out to be a long-term swing tackle type that's a decent draft pick. Everyone wants to point to the exception to the rule, but they forget how many guys fail after the top 50 or so picks.
But if Peart is a swing tackle, that means we don't have a starting right tackle, unless you're banking on Nate Solder playing Juan Ponce de Leon and finding the fountain of youth!
So what? Lots of teams have giant holes on their lines. AT is the real key, we need him to be a lynchpin. Gates is a very solid player and Hernendaz looks like a different player. You don't need an elite line to win a SB, shit you don't even need a good line, merely a competent one.
People have PTSD around here because it's been soooo bad, but if you have a weakspot or two on the line they can be covered up. It's when you have one guy that's a starter and bunch of barely fucking starters and backups it becomes a problem. Give me a decent line and great skill players, vs a great line and decent skill players. It's not 1985 anymore.
Two weak spots can be covered up? Good luck with that in NY.
And even if they could, who are all the great skill players that are going to do that? Jones has no pocket awareness and Saquon can’t block. Are the new WRs and TEs who are barely making it onto the field at this point going cover it all up?
round tackle right? If he turns out to be a long-term swing tackle type that's a decent draft pick. Everyone wants to point to the exception to the rule, but they forget how many guys fail after the top 50 or so picks.
But if Peart is a swing tackle, that means we don't have a starting right tackle, unless you're banking on Nate Solder playing Juan Ponce de Leon and finding the fountain of youth!
So what? Lots of teams have giant holes on their lines. AT is the real key, we need him to be a lynchpin. Gates is a very solid player and Hernendaz looks like a different player. You don't need an elite line to win a SB, shit you don't even need a good line, merely a competent one.
People have PTSD around here because it's been soooo bad, but if you have a weakspot or two on the line they can be covered up. It's when you have one guy that's a starter and bunch of barely fucking starters and backups it becomes a problem. Give me a decent line and great skill players, vs a great line and decent skill players. It's not 1985 anymore.
SO the 2nd most important position on the OL is "So what?"
I know it's not 1985 anymore. Maybe the point you made above means you should stop acting like it is?
There is no general rule - but you're acting like a Giants homer that no matter what happens is "so what?"
Not getting the start game 1 of his second season in favor of a seasoned veteran is not a catastrophic outcome. I have little faith in this Oline, but the truth is, Soldier has played surpeisingly well in PS and training camp. I can't react to this like it's some failure. Peart has to improve, but this is not exactly a get out the torches and pitch fork development, even if true.
It's not a great outcome when said veteran graded out as one of the worst OTs his 2 seasons here before opting out last year. So, he is now 2 years older than when he last played 2 seasons ago, and he was getting old then.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Giants incapable IMHO of evaluating OL talent
I would have gladly taken Slater at G. Or at T. Or at C.
I really feel the arrogance and obstinance of this front office got in the way of them reinvesting in OL with a first round pick. Inexplicably, they believed they had the answers from the prior drafts.
Now we cross our fingers that Nate Solder somehow finds his groove from 2016. The last year he actually played well.
And we do this idiotic OL rotation plan. Yeah, that's going to work.
They had better hope that Toney turns out to be a real super star to draft him over a O lineman, which was, and still is their biggest need.
I liked Toney pre-draft, but thought we solved the WR issue with KG. With him, Shep, Slayton, and EE/KR, it seemed we had enough to finally have, on paper, a competent horizontal and vertical receiving team.
So I thought we reached for him instead of beefing up the OL with some solid prospects on the board at our pick. It's very hard to find good OLs, but first rounders tend to have a pretty good hit rate. WRs? Not as good of a hit rate...
I think this is a pretty fair evaluation of the pick. There were good OL out there, but it is pretty clear that the front office and coaching staff were dead set on proceeding with the 3 second year players plus Gates and Hernandez. Well, now one is not playing due to injury, but didn't look particularly good early in camp before getting hurt, another got beat by a shitty old veteran, and the prize of the draft has regressed back to his ugly first half of his rookie year. So, fabulous.
This guy went what, 99th overall? So he is a year 2 player who was practically a day 3 guy. Out of Uconn no less.
The mistake here is not the actual pick...round 3 guys hit well below 50% so if Peart is a decent swing guy it’s a win. The real mistake is not having a better contingency plan than Solder.
..
Not that simple. If Jones doesn't take a step forward we're all going to be very happy that we have the Bears 1. Irregardless of Slater, it's a good hedge.
This depth chart suggests that Shepard has beaten out Slayton as a WR. I don’t believe that, but if true, then I think Engram and Toney will share the slot when Shepard plays wide. I don’t know why you would put together a depth chart without acknowledging the Slot position.
Quote:
Everyone deserves to be fired or put on a real hot seat.
Not that simple. If Jones doesn't take a step forward we're all going to be very happy that we have the Bears 1. Irregardless of Slater, it's a good hedge.
Let’s not get to excited about the Bears pick. We had a 2, a 6, and a 4 pick in the first round 3 years in a row, and still the team hasn’t gotten any better.
This "preseason" you talk of amounted to about one half of football for Peart.
There is no contact in the OTAs.
There are only a handful of padded practices in the summer (maybe five).
Welcome to the new NFL.
i get it but that was also a choice judge made with regards to his reps in the preseason. he could have played peart longer in those games to give him more reps. and he got reps in joint practices against other teams where there was contact (he reportedly looked terrible up in new england during the week).
and i feel like that's making excuses. rotating guys in at OT is simply not a thing teams do in the regular season, it's not a new NFL thing. we aren't going to sit bradbury down for a couple series a game to get robinson reps this year. will we sit darnay holmes though sometimes? yes because he is not very good
they were backed into a corner with the RT position this year. the horrible solder signing tied their hands and it cost less on the cap to keep him at the reduced price than to cut him and sign a replacement (remember they are right up against the cap now). they can spin him as veteran depth all they want. they gave matt peart an opportunity to win the job and he couldn't because he simply isn't very good right now either.
they passed up really good OT prospects this year because they didn't want to draft over matt peart. and it appears they significantly misevaluated where matt peart was as a player.
and now they have all the excuses they want for jones. o-line again and the offensive coordinator.
Quote:
Joe Judge gave Matt Peart two series in the first preseason game, none in the second, and some (but not all) of the first half of the third preseason game.
People think that just because Peart was drafted in the 3rd round from the football factory from UCON that he is a major prize, because he is not, and as bad as Solder may be he is probably a safer bet. Either way it is bad.
This "preseason" you talk of amounted to about one half of football for Peart.
There is no contact in the OTAs.
There are only a handful of padded practices in the summer (maybe five).
Welcome to the new NFL.
i get it but that was also a choice judge made with regards to his reps in the preseason. he could have played peart longer in those games to give him more reps. and he got reps in joint practices against other teams where there was contact (he reportedly looked terrible up in new england during the week).
and i feel like that's making excuses. rotating guys in at OT is simply not a thing teams do in the regular season, it's not a new NFL thing. we aren't going to sit bradbury down for a couple series a game to get robinson reps this year. will we sit darnay holmes though sometimes? yes because he is not very good
they were backed into a corner with the RT position this year. the horrible solder signing tied their hands and it cost less on the cap to keep him at the reduced price than to cut him and sign a replacement (remember they are right up against the cap now). they can spin him as veteran depth all they want. they gave matt peart an opportunity to win the job and he couldn't because he simply isn't very good right now either.
they passed up really good OT prospects this year because they didn't want to draft over matt peart. and it appears they significantly misevaluated where matt peart was as a player.
and now they have all the excuses they want for jones. o-line again and the offensive coordinator.
The coaches want the best players on the field and it’s nice that is what they are trying to do.
My opinion was that the ONLY reason Solder was even invited to camp was to stretch out his cap hit into 2022.
Imagine posting something this idiotic with such confidence.
My opinion was that the ONLY reason Solder was even invited to camp was to stretch out his cap hit into 2022.
That plus what else they had for tackle wasn’t any better.
It's just maddening that this team can't get a decent OL no matter who is in charge, and regardless of draft capital spent and FA signings. The situation is still so bad that we cut every one of our backup OL and traded for two backup OL during final roster cuts.
It's just maddening that this team can't get a decent OL no matter who is in charge, and regardless of draft capital spent and FA signings. The situation is still so bad that we cut every one of our backup OL and traded for two backup OL during final roster cuts.
I know Peart was a 3rd round pick from that O lineman football factory at UCONN, but that doesn’t mean he is any good, and can beat out anybody.
Slater was sitting there ready to be picked and all the smart people on BBI said he is a guard and can’t play tackle. Wrong!!! He was IMHO the best tackle in the draft. So athletic!!!
Can you tell I’m pissed at this OL situation which remains a mess.
This shit has been going on for 10 years!!!
9 have been in the secondary.
Only 5 have been along the offensive line.
That may be part of the problem right there.
[quote] Past 2 drafts the smart OL choices were Wirfs and Slater. I could care less that Wirfs is a RT which everyone said is why you don’t draft him at number 4.We would be set at RT for the next 10 years barring injury if we chose Wirfs. Now we have Solder and Peart. Yeah!!!!
Slater was sitting there ready to be picked and all the smart people on BBI said he is a guard and can’t play tackle. Wrong!!! He was IMHO the best tackle in the draft. So athletic!!!
Can you tell I’m pissed at this OL situation which remains a mess.
This shit has been going on for 10 years!!! [/quot
There were all kinds of mock drafts last year, and each one had the Giants. Taking one of the different top 4 OT each time. Each of the top 4 had flaws, and Thomas certainly does, and what makes the O line even look worse is because the rest of the O line has many flaws as well with the biggest flaw they just aren’t that good. The Jets are better set on their L side of the line then the Giants.
Slater was sitting there ready to be picked and all the smart people on BBI said he is a guard and can’t play tackle. Wrong!!! He was IMHO the best tackle in the draft. So athletic!!!
Can you tell I’m pissed at this OL situation which remains a mess.
This shit has been going on for 10 years!!!
I would have gladly taken Slater at G. Or at T. Or at C.
I really feel the arrogance and obstinance of this front office got in the way of them reinvesting in OL with a first round pick. Inexplicably, they believed they had the answers from the prior drafts.
Now we cross our fingers that Nate Solder somehow finds his groove from 2016. The last year he actually played well.
And we do this idiotic OL rotation plan. Yeah, that's going to work.
Quote:
Past 2 drafts the smart OL choices were Wirfs and Slater. I could care less that Wirfs is a RT which everyone said is why you don’t draft him at number 4.We would be set at RT for the next 10 years barring injury if we chose Wirfs. Now we have Solder and Peart. Yeah!!!!
Slater was sitting there ready to be picked and all the smart people on BBI said he is a guard and can’t play tackle. Wrong!!! He was IMHO the best tackle in the draft. So athletic!!!
Can you tell I’m pissed at this OL situation which remains a mess.
This shit has been going on for 10 years!!!
I would have gladly taken Slater at G. Or at T. Or at C.
I really feel the arrogance and obstinance of this front office got in the way of them reinvesting in OL with a first round pick. Inexplicably, they believed they had the answers from the prior drafts.
Now we cross our fingers that Nate Solder somehow finds his groove from 2016. The last year he actually played well.
And we do this idiotic OL rotation plan. Yeah, that's going to work.
They had better hope that Toney turns out to be a real super star to draft him over a O lineman, which was, and still is their biggest need.
So its okay to draft a potential swing tackle but disregard finding a starting solution at Right Tackle?
Quote:
round tackle right? If he turns out to be a long-term swing tackle type that's a decent draft pick. Everyone wants to point to the exception to the rule, but they forget how many guys fail after the top 50 or so picks.
So its okay to draft a potential swing tackle but disregard finding a starting solution at Right Tackle?
Do you think the Giants are disregarding a solution to right tackle?
I would have gladly taken Slater at G. Or at T. Or at C.
I really feel the arrogance and obstinance of this front office got in the way of them reinvesting in OL with a first round pick. Inexplicably, they believed they had the answers from the prior drafts.
Now we cross our fingers that Nate Solder somehow finds his groove from 2016. The last year he actually played well.
And we do this idiotic OL rotation plan. Yeah, that's going to work.
They had better hope that Toney turns out to be a real super star to draft him over a O lineman, which was, and still is their biggest need.
I liked Toney pre-draft, but thought we solved the WR issue with KG. With him, Shep, Slayton, and EE/KR, it seemed we had enough to finally have, on paper, a competent horizontal and vertical receiving team.
So I thought we reached for him instead of beefing up the OL with some solid prospects on the board at our pick. It's very hard to find good OLs, but first rounders tend to have a pretty good hit rate. WRs? Not as good of a hit rate...
Third round lineman actually have a decent rate of becoming starters.
Link - ( New Window )
But if Peart is a swing tackle, that means we don't have a starting right tackle, unless you're banking on Nate Solder playing Juan Ponce de Leon and finding the fountain of youth!
Third round lineman actually have a decent rate of becoming starters. Link - ( New Window )
The study is from 2015, but it cites this about first round OLs:
I will dig it up, but I saw a more recent study that supports similar %s.
So when it doubt, it seems, go OL in round one.
Meanwhile, notice the high "bust rate" for RBs... ;)
Now ideally he’d do it from 2016 to 2020 again.
Yet so many on here were pointing him to be a lock starter this year which is why there were claims that the Giants will be much better this year.
Quote:
In comment 15355427 Zeke's Alibi said:
Quote:
round tackle right? If he turns out to be a long-term swing tackle type that's a decent draft pick. Everyone wants to point to the exception to the rule, but they forget how many guys fail after the top 50 or so picks.
So its okay to draft a potential swing tackle but disregard finding a starting solution at Right Tackle?
Do you think the Giants are disregarding a solution to right tackle?
If Peart's ceiling is a swing tackle, then yes.
Is there somebody else that is part of the calculus here?
1. Many colleges and lower levels play a different style and it’s a big adjustment to the NFL.
2. CBA. OL don’t get the physical repetitions to develop skill set.
The solution is add OL every year identifying traits that can be developed. When the OL is good keep adding to the pipeline. Weed out the weakest links. Repeat.
The idea of having to build a OL with all high picks is a front office that can’t identify potential OL talent imo.
Quote:
round tackle right? If he turns out to be a long-term swing tackle type that's a decent draft pick. Everyone wants to point to the exception to the rule, but they forget how many guys fail after the top 50 or so picks.
Yet so many on here were pointing him to be a lock starter this year which is why there were claims that the Giants will be much better this year.
That is correct, including the GM. He even boasted that it was really apparent that he had much more confidence in the offensive line than you guys in the media.
So Solder moves into a starting role again. And he will play and likely rotate some with Peart. But there is no downplaying it, the Giants (and probably eveybody here) were counting on Peart to solidify himself in that job,a nd this is a bit disheartening...
That’s the kind of silly part. Dude has about 100 snaps before he gets Covid, his season falls apart, and you’d have thought he’d proven something last year by the way some fans viewed him.
It’s not surprising he needs some ramp up time. I wish the Giants had invested in a starting caliber right tackle, and Peart was the heir apparent/swing guy.
you gonna root for Denver?
I'm going all in on Giants Oline being a strength this year. fuck it.
I'm going all in on Giants Oline being a strength this year. fuck it.
I don’t think many opinions are formed on 3 pre-season games, and practice reports, but think the O line is going to be a strength this year is not going to change any outcomes.
Quote:
so many of you have already formed such a strong opinion on everything based on 3 shit pre-season games and practice reports that you might have glanced at on this board.
I'm going all in on Giants Oline being a strength this year. fuck it.
I don’t think many opinions are formed on 3 pre-season games, and practice reports, but think the O line is going to be a strength this year is not going to change any outcomes.
what else can it relatively be based on then ?
last year is last year
But it would have been nice if they had a better contingency for their second year tackle not being ready than goddam Nate Solder.
I'm going all in on Giants Oline being a strength this year. fuck it.
Great analysis you did there - you said "Fuck it" -- and now we all know everything will be okay now with our OL.
Somehow you've convinced yourself that only 3 preseason games drew a potentially cautious outlook for the Giants. I guess last year having the 31st ranked offense doesn't matter. I guess analysis such as with SY who is not so high on the OL doesn't matter. I guess when you hear any analysis on radio or TV and they speak of potential concerns which is the OL - that doesn't matter to you either.
You said "fuck it" - so now we're comforted in knowing everything will be fine. We could've used this fine analysis you provided these last 8 years and it all could've gone the other way. All because of that great insight you made by stating "fuck it."
Quote:
so many of you have already formed such a strong opinion on everything based on 3 shit pre-season games and practice reports that you might have glanced at on this board.
I'm going all in on Giants Oline being a strength this year. fuck it.
Great analysis you did there - you said "Fuck it" -- and now we all know everything will be okay now with our OL.
Somehow you've convinced yourself that only 3 preseason games drew a potentially cautious outlook for the Giants. I guess last year having the 31st ranked offense doesn't matter. I guess analysis such as with SY who is not so high on the OL doesn't matter. I guess when you hear any analysis on radio or TV and they speak of potential concerns which is the OL - that doesn't matter to you either.
You said "fuck it" - so now we're comforted in knowing everything will be fine. We could've used this fine analysis you provided these last 8 years and it all could've gone the other way. All because of that great insight you made by stating "fuck it."
I meant to say 31st ranked OL.
Quote:
round tackle right? If he turns out to be a long-term swing tackle type that's a decent draft pick. Everyone wants to point to the exception to the rule, but they forget how many guys fail after the top 50 or so picks.
But if Peart is a swing tackle, that means we don't have a starting right tackle, unless you're banking on Nate Solder playing Juan Ponce de Leon and finding the fountain of youth!
So what? Lots of teams have giant holes on their lines. AT is the real key, we need him to be a lynchpin. Gates is a very solid player and Hernendaz looks like a different player. You don't need an elite line to win a SB, shit you don't even need a good line, merely a competent one.
People have PTSD around here because it's been soooo bad, but if you have a weakspot or two on the line they can be covered up. It's when you have one guy that's a starter and bunch of barely fucking starters and backups it becomes a problem. Give me a decent line and great skill players, vs a great line and decent skill players. It's not 1985 anymore.
Quote:
Everyone deserves to be fired or put on a real hot seat.
Amen. Apparently, Slater is living up to his billing thus far.
Meanwhile, Toney continues to be in the Giants Witness Protection Program.
Dude he had one half against the Rams who don't play any starters. Pump the fucking brakes. You are spreading things you know that are ridiculous.
Quote:
In comment 15355427 Zeke's Alibi said:
Quote:
round tackle right? If he turns out to be a long-term swing tackle type that's a decent draft pick. Everyone wants to point to the exception to the rule, but they forget how many guys fail after the top 50 or so picks.
But if Peart is a swing tackle, that means we don't have a starting right tackle, unless you're banking on Nate Solder playing Juan Ponce de Leon and finding the fountain of youth!
So what? Lots of teams have giant holes on their lines. AT is the real key, we need him to be a lynchpin. Gates is a very solid player and Hernendaz looks like a different player. You don't need an elite line to win a SB, shit you don't even need a good line, merely a competent one.
People have PTSD around here because it's been soooo bad, but if you have a weakspot or two on the line they can be covered up. It's when you have one guy that's a starter and bunch of barely fucking starters and backups it becomes a problem. Give me a decent line and great skill players, vs a great line and decent skill players. It's not 1985 anymore.
Two weak spots can be covered up? Good luck with that in NY.
And even if they could, who are all the great skill players that are going to do that? Jones has no pocket awareness and Saquon can’t block. Are the new WRs and TEs who are barely making it onto the field at this point going cover it all up?
And it's great to see some giant players responding to your "tweets".
Obviously they love it too!!
Quote:
In comment 15355427 Zeke's Alibi said:
Quote:
round tackle right? If he turns out to be a long-term swing tackle type that's a decent draft pick. Everyone wants to point to the exception to the rule, but they forget how many guys fail after the top 50 or so picks.
But if Peart is a swing tackle, that means we don't have a starting right tackle, unless you're banking on Nate Solder playing Juan Ponce de Leon and finding the fountain of youth!
So what? Lots of teams have giant holes on their lines. AT is the real key, we need him to be a lynchpin. Gates is a very solid player and Hernendaz looks like a different player. You don't need an elite line to win a SB, shit you don't even need a good line, merely a competent one.
People have PTSD around here because it's been soooo bad, but if you have a weakspot or two on the line they can be covered up. It's when you have one guy that's a starter and bunch of barely fucking starters and backups it becomes a problem. Give me a decent line and great skill players, vs a great line and decent skill players. It's not 1985 anymore.
SO the 2nd most important position on the OL is "So what?"
I know it's not 1985 anymore. Maybe the point you made above means you should stop acting like it is?
There is no general rule - but you're acting like a Giants homer that no matter what happens is "so what?"
Quote:
I would have gladly taken Slater at G. Or at T. Or at C.
I really feel the arrogance and obstinance of this front office got in the way of them reinvesting in OL with a first round pick. Inexplicably, they believed they had the answers from the prior drafts.
Now we cross our fingers that Nate Solder somehow finds his groove from 2016. The last year he actually played well.
And we do this idiotic OL rotation plan. Yeah, that's going to work.
They had better hope that Toney turns out to be a real super star to draft him over a O lineman, which was, and still is their biggest need.
I liked Toney pre-draft, but thought we solved the WR issue with KG. With him, Shep, Slayton, and EE/KR, it seemed we had enough to finally have, on paper, a competent horizontal and vertical receiving team.
So I thought we reached for him instead of beefing up the OL with some solid prospects on the board at our pick. It's very hard to find good OLs, but first rounders tend to have a pretty good hit rate. WRs? Not as good of a hit rate...
This guy went what, 99th overall? So he is a year 2 player who was practically a day 3 guy. Out of Uconn no less.
The mistake here is not the actual pick...round 3 guys hit well below 50% so if Peart is a decent swing guy it’s a win. The real mistake is not having a better contingency plan than Solder.