|
Post by piddy283 on Mar 28, 2024 11:55:17 GMT -5
Yesterday I joked that the Giants regimes over the last 10+ years have given us couch GMs the confidence that we can do a better job drafting talent. It was mostly in jest, but every year there seems to be decisions made that leave us scratching our heads.
Along those lines, I have three "concerns" so far this off-season that have me wondering what I'm missing. I use the word concerns lightly, but these all seem like moves that we may very well look back on and wonder what Schoen was thinking....
- Brian Burns: I'm not doubting the potential. The potential to be great is real and the idea of Burns playing alongside Thibs & Dex is exciting. However, we're paying a very good player great money, and we gave up a premium pick to get him. That's a lot for a team with as many holes as we have. Is now the right time to "overpay" for one player?
- Saquon Barkley: Losing a weapon like Barkley hurts, but I get it. What I don't get is letting him walk without getting anything in return. This seems like a complete waste of an asset. Again, for a team with as many holes as we have, why not tag & trade him? The extra pick or two would've come in handy.
- Runyan & Bredeson: I'm no Runyan expert, but based on what I've heard he seems like a borderline starter and we paid him 3yr/$30M. Bredeson is also a borderline starter and he signed for 1yr/$3M. What does Runyan offer that warrants such a price increase? Why not re-sign Bredeson for a fraction of the cost?
In terms of resource allocation, I just question whether or not we could've gotten more bang for our buck. Especially with those last two bullet points. Burns is less of a concern because I do think the potential to be great is there, but it's still a lot to give up.
|
|
|
Post by Nick6475 on Mar 28, 2024 12:16:12 GMT -5
Yesterday I joked that the Giants regimes over the last 10+ years have given us couch GMs the confidence that we can do a better job drafting talent. It was mostly in jest, but every year there seems to be decisions made that leave us scratching our heads.
Along those lines, I have three "concerns" so far this off-season that have me wondering what I'm missing. I use the word concerns lightly, but these all seem like moves that we may very well look back on and wonder what Schoen was thinking....
- Brian Burns: I'm not doubting the potential. The potential to be great is real and the idea of Burns playing alongside Thibs & Dex is exciting. However, we're paying a very good player great money, and we gave up a premium pick to get him. That's a lot for a team with as many holes as we have. Is now the right time to "overpay" for one player?
- Saquon Barkley: Losing a weapon like Barkley hurts, but I get it. What I don't get is letting him walk without getting anything in return. This seems like a complete waste of an asset. Again, for a team with as many holes as we have, why not tag & trade him? The extra pick or two would've come in handy.
- Runyan & Bredeson: I'm no Runyan expert, but based on what I've heard he seems like a borderline starter and we paid him 3yr/$30M. Bredeson is also a borderline starter and he signed for 1yr/$3M. What does Runyan offer that warrants such a price increase? Why not re-sign Bredeson for a fraction of the cost?
In terms of resource allocation, I just question whether or not we could've gotten more bang for our buck. Especially with those last two bullet points. Burns is less of a concern because I do think the potential to be great is there, but it's still a lot to give up. This is the way I see it. Brian Burns: Is now the right time for it? Maybe not. BUT, rarely do you get a chance to obtain a premier pass rusher for only 2nd/5th round picks. If the Giants had waited for Burns' breakout year, he would have cost multiple ones. It's definitely a risk, but at least the money is going to one of the best areas to put your money. Saquan Barkley: I see the Giants getting a 3rd/4th round compensation pick in the 2025 draft so it's not like they are getting nothing. The trade market would not have been great as so many RBs came into FA this year and having to franchise him would have used cap money they could spend on other FAs. Runyan & Bredeson: I agree on this one. Maybe they see more potential in Runyan that they didn't see in Bredeson? Overall, I think Schoen did a good job of moving money to position groups that are more impactful. RB and Safety to Edge/OL.
|
|
|
Post by McCherry on Mar 28, 2024 12:27:35 GMT -5
Burns is a young player, a very good player, and has a ceiling. What's not to like? Are we finding a similar player in round 2? Doubt it.
It's not automatic we would've gotten anything at the trade deadline for Barkley. Fans here complained when we traded for Williams on the last year of his deal.. How is that different now with Barkley? Why would teams give up a premium pick when they don't have to?
Runyan is a starter, not borderline. Bredeson is backup. And can't stay healthy. Very important. I don't rank them nearly the same.
|
|
|
Post by giantbob71 on Mar 28, 2024 12:28:35 GMT -5
I agree on Burns...even without him, DLine would've been the strength of the roster. The Giants went cheap on OLine (again), are even further away from having a complete roster, and spent money on a move most SB contenders need. If Neal continues to struggle, and one of the new additions isn't as advertised (or hurt), I'm betting everyone on here will be wishing Schoen would've invested heavier in the OLine.
Not trading assets is a joke. Too bad our owner is too dumb to put his foot down on this. Schoen could easily have a few more 3rds, 4ths, or 5ths to play with, had he done his job better.
|
|
|
Post by BigBlueDog42 on Mar 28, 2024 12:47:23 GMT -5
Yesterday I joked that the Giants regimes over the last 10+ years have given us couch GMs the confidence that we can do a better job drafting talent. It was mostly in jest, but every year there seems to be decisions made that leave us scratching our heads.
Along those lines, I have three "concerns" so far this off-season that have me wondering what I'm missing. I use the word concerns lightly, but these all seem like moves that we may very well look back on and wonder what Schoen was thinking....
- Brian Burns: I'm not doubting the potential. The potential to be great is real and the idea of Burns playing alongside Thibs & Dex is exciting. However, we're paying a very good player great money, and we gave up a premium pick to get him. That's a lot for a team with as many holes as we have. Is now the right time to "overpay" for one player?
- Saquon Barkley: Losing a weapon like Barkley hurts, but I get it. What I don't get is letting him walk without getting anything in return. This seems like a complete waste of an asset. Again, for a team with as many holes as we have, why not tag & trade him? The extra pick or two would've come in handy.
- Runyan & Bredeson: I'm no Runyan expert, but based on what I've heard he seems like a borderline starter and we paid him 3yr/$30M. Bredeson is also a borderline starter and he signed for 1yr/$3M. What does Runyan offer that warrants such a price increase? Why not re-sign Bredeson for a fraction of the cost?
In terms of resource allocation, I just question whether or not we could've gotten more bang for our buck. Especially with those last two bullet points. Burns is less of a concern because I do think the potential to be great is there, but it's still a lot to give up. In 2 or 3 years Burns will be a bargain more than likely they re allocated the money from RB to a premium position Edge. Saquon should have been traded the claim was they were still trying to compete if he was that important to the offense he should have been retained, trading was the right thing we would not be watching help the Eagles win. I agree on Bredeson but think he should have been brought back along with the Runyan signing, watching Runyan in passpro he is good with stunts and can mirror inside rushers, something none of IOL could do constantly last year, we will have to see how this all turns out. We can find good and bad no matter which way you see it hopefully we get more good than bad out of these moves.
|
|
|
Post by inthezone on Mar 28, 2024 12:56:04 GMT -5
When I watched the Packers a few times it seemed like Love had a lot of time to throw it even against the Cowboys. In no way was I watching to see how the Guards were playing and they did run against good against 49ers also. Was Runyon a reason for this is something that would need extra watching while focusing on him and that's not happening.
|
|
|
Post by Morehead State on Mar 28, 2024 12:59:11 GMT -5
Yesterday I joked that the Giants regimes over the last 10+ years have given us couch GMs the confidence that we can do a better job drafting talent. It was mostly in jest, but every year there seems to be decisions made that leave us scratching our heads.
Along those lines, I have three "concerns" so far this off-season that have me wondering what I'm missing. I use the word concerns lightly, but these all seem like moves that we may very well look back on and wonder what Schoen was thinking....
- Brian Burns: I'm not doubting the potential. The potential to be great is real and the idea of Burns playing alongside Thibs & Dex is exciting. However, we're paying a very good player great money, and we gave up a premium pick to get him. That's a lot for a team with as many holes as we have. Is now the right time to "overpay" for one player?
- Saquon Barkley: Losing a weapon like Barkley hurts, but I get it. What I don't get is letting him walk without getting anything in return. This seems like a complete waste of an asset. Again, for a team with as many holes as we have, why not tag & trade him? The extra pick or two would've come in handy.
- Runyan & Bredeson: I'm no Runyan expert, but based on what I've heard he seems like a borderline starter and we paid him 3yr/$30M. Bredeson is also a borderline starter and he signed for 1yr/$3M. What does Runyan offer that warrants such a price increase? Why not re-sign Bredeson for a fraction of the cost?
In terms of resource allocation, I just question whether or not we could've gotten more bang for our buck. Especially with those last two bullet points. Burns is less of a concern because I do think the potential to be great is there, but it's still a lot to give up. "Resource Allocation" is the exact reason we let both Saquan and McKinney go. On a team with a long way to go, we can't spend too many of our resources on positions of lesser impact. RB and S are two position of luxury, not real need. Burns is a pass rusher....that's a position of huge impact. QB, OT, cover corner and pass rusher.....Those are the positions of highest impact. I would consider WR the very next position of impact given the modern game. Given the huge holes, I would also consider interior OL and overall depth at OL to be very important for us. It seems to be that Schoen and Daboll are playing it exactly right. Let's hope they continue to cultivate those positions of highest need in this draft and for the remainder of the off season.
|
|
|
Post by Jomo on Mar 28, 2024 13:06:01 GMT -5
Yesterday I joked that the Giants regimes over the last 10+ years have given us couch GMs the confidence that we can do a better job drafting talent. It was mostly in jest, but every year there seems to be decisions made that leave us scratching our heads.
Along those lines, I have three "concerns" so far this off-season that have me wondering what I'm missing. I use the word concerns lightly, but these all seem like moves that we may very well look back on and wonder what Schoen was thinking....
- Brian Burns: I'm not doubting the potential. The potential to be great is real and the idea of Burns playing alongside Thibs & Dex is exciting. However, we're paying a very good player great money, and we gave up a premium pick to get him. That's a lot for a team with as many holes as we have. Is now the right time to "overpay" for one player?
- Saquon Barkley: Losing a weapon like Barkley hurts, but I get it. What I don't get is letting him walk without getting anything in return. This seems like a complete waste of an asset. Again, for a team with as many holes as we have, why not tag & trade him? The extra pick or two would've come in handy.
- Runyan & Bredeson: I'm no Runyan expert, but based on what I've heard he seems like a borderline starter and we paid him 3yr/$30M. Bredeson is also a borderline starter and he signed for 1yr/$3M. What does Runyan offer that warrants such a price increase? Why not re-sign Bredeson for a fraction of the cost?
In terms of resource allocation, I just question whether or not we could've gotten more bang for our buck. Especially with those last two bullet points. Burns is less of a concern because I do think the potential to be great is there, but it's still a lot to give up. "Resource Allocation" is the exact reason we let both Saquan and McKinney go. On a team with a long way to go, we can't spend too many of our resources on positions of lesser impact. RB and S are two position of luxury, not real need. Burns is a pass rusher....that's a position of huge impact. QB, OT, cover corner and pass rusher.....Those are the positions of highest impact. I would consider WR the very next position of impact given the modern game. Given the huge holes, I would also consider interior OL and overall depth at OL to be very important for us. It seems to be that Schoen and Daboll are playing it exactly right. Let's hope they continue to cultivate those positions of highest need in this draft and for the remainder of the off season. I agree that at least according to the playbook, they have "invested in the right positions and walked away from the right positions. I wonder where this clear thinking was last year when they paid and oft injured TE as if he were the best TE in the league only to have him do what? Get injured.
|
|
|
Post by vinnie on Mar 28, 2024 13:11:59 GMT -5
Burns is a young player, a very good player, and has a ceiling. What's not to like? Are we finding a similar player in round 2? Doubt it. It's not automatic we would've gotten anything at the trade deadline for Barkley. Fans here complained when we traded for Williams on the last year of his deal.. How is that different now with Barkley? Why would teams give up a premium pick when they don't have to? Runyan is a starter, not borderline. Bredeson is backup. And can't stay healthy. Very important. I don't rank them nearly the same. And Neal was/is a starter, so what does that matter? Every year we hear the same bullshit about the O line is going to be better because of who they brought in and how could it possibly be any worse yet every year for ~ a decade we have managed to stay as bad or worse. I want to be optimistic about the O line this year for the reasons I just mentioned but until I see it I’m not as optimistic as some of you. “I’m not worried about Neal” said A LOT of people after his rookie year. ”JMS will be fine” said a lot of people after his poor rookie year. ”Hernandez will be better” said a lot of people after his 1st or 2nd year. ”Solder just needs time” said almost everyone ”The O line just needs time to gel” say a lot of people every year You get the point. Until I see it CONSISTENTLY, not a couple games, I’m not buying it. And I’m not talking about moving up from the worst to bottom 10, I want to see at least middle of the pack.
|
|
|
Post by Morehead State on Mar 28, 2024 13:14:47 GMT -5
"Resource Allocation" is the exact reason we let both Saquan and McKinney go. On a team with a long way to go, we can't spend too many of our resources on positions of lesser impact. RB and S are two position of luxury, not real need. Burns is a pass rusher....that's a position of huge impact. QB, OT, cover corner and pass rusher.....Those are the positions of highest impact. I would consider WR the very next position of impact given the modern game. Given the huge holes, I would also consider interior OL and overall depth at OL to be very important for us. It seems to be that Schoen and Daboll are playing it exactly right. Let's hope they continue to cultivate those positions of highest need in this draft and for the remainder of the off season. I agree that at least according to the playbook, they have "invested in the right positions and walked away from the right positions. I wonder where this clear thinking was last year when they paid and oft injured TE as if he were the best TE in the league only to have him do what? Get injured. I don't want to be an apologist for Schoen and Daboll, but they were handed a reality not of their own making. They tried to pretty much split the baby regarding Jones' contract and Saquan's situation. We were 9-7 in 2022. And while that's nothing to write home about, it did create the possible scenario that we could build on that. that of course.....was an illusion. 'We were not really a good football team in 2022. we won a lot of games early against terrible teams but in the 2nd half we were being crushed by good teams. And we ran into a team in Minnesota that was just as much an illusion as we were in the playoffs. They were really a victim of their own early success. Daboll, in my view, is a heck of a football coach. They also had to deal with the politics of John Mara. And that is no small thing. It's not an excuse of course. But I think it's an accurate review of what they had to deal with. It might have been better all around, that we lost a lot more games in 2022. We would have had the ability to cut ties with, or sign a team friendly deal with Daniel Jones..for one thing.
|
|
|
Post by Fletch842 on Mar 28, 2024 13:27:45 GMT -5
Burns is a young player, a very good player, and has a ceiling. What's not to like? Are we finding a similar player in round 2? Doubt it. It's not automatic we would've gotten anything at the trade deadline for Barkley. Fans here complained when we traded for Williams on the last year of his deal.. How is that different now with Barkley? Why would teams give up a premium pick when they don't have to? Runyan is a starter, not borderline. Bredeson is backup. And can't stay healthy. Very important. I don't rank them nearly the same. And Neal was/is a starter, so what does that matter? Every year we hear the same bullshit about the O line is going to be better because of who they brought in and how could it possibly be any worse yet every year for ~ a decade we have managed to stay as bad or worse. I want to be optimistic about the O line this year for the reasons I just mentioned but until I see it I’m not as optimistic as some of you. “I’m not worried about Neal” said A LOT of people after his rookie year. ”JMS will be fine” said a lot of people after his poor rookie year. ”Hernandez will be better” said a lot of people after his 1st or 2nd year. ”Solder just needs time” said almost everyone ”The O line just needs time to gel” say a lot of people every year You get the point. Until I see it CONSISTENTLY, not a couple games, I’m not buying it. And I’m not talking about moving up from the worst to bottom 10, I want to see at least middle of the pack. we suck until we don't!!
|
|
|
Post by McCherry on Mar 28, 2024 13:47:06 GMT -5
Burns is a young player, a very good player, and has a ceiling. What's not to like? Are we finding a similar player in round 2? Doubt it. It's not automatic we would've gotten anything at the trade deadline for Barkley. Fans here complained when we traded for Williams on the last year of his deal.. How is that different now with Barkley? Why would teams give up a premium pick when they don't have to? Runyan is a starter, not borderline. Bredeson is backup. And can't stay healthy. Very important. I don't rank them nearly the same. And Neal was/is a starter, so what does that matter? Every year we hear the same bullshit about the O line is going to be better because of who they brought in and how could it possibly be any worse yet every year for ~ a decade we have managed to stay as bad or worse. I want to be optimistic about the O line this year for the reasons I just mentioned but until I see it I’m not as optimistic as some of you. “I’m not worried about Neal” said A LOT of people after his rookie year. ”JMS will be fine” said a lot of people after his poor rookie year. ”Hernandez will be better” said a lot of people after his 1st or 2nd year. ”Solder just needs time” said almost everyone ”The O line just needs time to gel” say a lot of people every year You get the point. Until I see it CONSISTENTLY, not a couple games, I’m not buying it. And I’m not talking about moving up from the worst to bottom 10, I want to see at least middle of the pack. It just means Runyan has been a solid starter who hasn't missed a game in 4 years. Nobody can say even that much about Neal. The comparison was to Bredeson, who I like, but he's a backup. I would've liked to bring him back too. But Runyan is a solid, durable player, that's about it. I don't think anyone is making any claims at this point.
|
|
|
Post by vinnie on Mar 28, 2024 13:51:53 GMT -5
And Neal was/is a starter, so what does that matter? Every year we hear the same bullshit about the O line is going to be better because of who they brought in and how could it possibly be any worse yet every year for ~ a decade we have managed to stay as bad or worse. I want to be optimistic about the O line this year for the reasons I just mentioned but until I see it I’m not as optimistic as some of you. “I’m not worried about Neal” said A LOT of people after his rookie year. ”JMS will be fine” said a lot of people after his poor rookie year. ”Hernandez will be better” said a lot of people after his 1st or 2nd year. ”Solder just needs time” said almost everyone ”The O line just needs time to gel” say a lot of people every year You get the point. Until I see it CONSISTENTLY, not a couple games, I’m not buying it. And I’m not talking about moving up from the worst to bottom 10, I want to see at least middle of the pack. It just means Runyan has been a solid starter who hasn't missed a game in 4 years. Nobodu can say that about Neal. The comparison was to Bredeson, who I like, but he's a backup. I would've liked to bring him back too. But Runyan is a solid, durable player, that's about it. I don't think anyone is making any claims at this point. I honestly haven’t looked at Runyans stats too much but isn’t he an above average run blocker but below average pass blocker or vice versa? I could be wrong but if I’m not we’ve heard that same song and dance over the years about a lot of guys on our O line.
|
|
|
Post by Nick6475 on Mar 28, 2024 14:08:10 GMT -5
It just means Runyan has been a solid starter who hasn't missed a game in 4 years. Nobodu can say that about Neal. The comparison was to Bredeson, who I like, but he's a backup. I would've liked to bring him back too. But Runyan is a solid, durable player, that's about it. I don't think anyone is making any claims at this point. I honestly haven’t looked at Runyans stats too much but isn’t he an above average run blocker but below average pass blocker or vice versa? I could be wrong but if I’m not we’ve heard that same song and dance over the years about a lot of guys on our O line. It sounds like Runyan is a healthier, maybe slightly better version of Bredeson. I think he is better at pass protection, but I just read that on this board so who knows. Hopefully he continues being healthy, a consistent OL would be nice to have.
|
|
|
Post by McCherry on Mar 28, 2024 14:24:01 GMT -5
It just means Runyan has been a solid starter who hasn't missed a game in 4 years. Nobodu can say that about Neal. The comparison was to Bredeson, who I like, but he's a backup. I would've liked to bring him back too. But Runyan is a solid, durable player, that's about it. I don't think anyone is making any claims at this point. I honestly haven’t looked at Runyans stats too much but isn’t he an above average run blocker but below average pass blocker or vice versa? I could be wrong but if I’m not we’ve heard that same song and dance over the years about a lot of guys on our O line. It's the other way. Outstanding in pass protection actually, 98% efficiency. But a poorly rated run blocker. For our issues, I'll take that pass protection.
|
|
|
Post by vinnie on Mar 28, 2024 14:28:46 GMT -5
Thanks for the responses fellas, hoping for the best or how about just better, lol. Fingers crossed, I would be happy with an O line ranked around 15 at this point.
|
|
|
Post by straightrazorman on Mar 28, 2024 14:34:12 GMT -5
I Don't know how many of you follow Bobby Skinner on Talkin Giants YouTube channel, but I think he does a good job evaluating players that the Giants have either picked up or are thinking of picking up. Anyway, here's his take on John Runyon. link And his take on Jermaine Eluemunor. Watch what he does to Thibs...twice! link
|
|
|
Post by bavarobeast on Mar 28, 2024 14:43:41 GMT -5
We did pay a lot for Burns - $ and trade up capital. I’m gonna hope he’s worth it. It’s possible though unlikely.
We’ll get something for Bark - maybe a 3rd or 4th next year. I’m not bummed he’s gone.
As a Michigan fan I’m surprised Runyon is still in the league. He was adequate at best at Michigan. If he’s starter material I’ll be happy and shocked at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by Roosevelt on Mar 28, 2024 14:52:52 GMT -5
"Resource Allocation" is the exact reason we let both Saquan and McKinney go. On a team with a long way to go, we can't spend too many of our resources on positions of lesser impact. RB and S are two position of luxury, not real need. Burns is a pass rusher....that's a position of huge impact. QB, OT, cover corner and pass rusher.....Those are the positions of highest impact. I would consider WR the very next position of impact given the modern game. Given the huge holes, I would also consider interior OL and overall depth at OL to be very important for us. It seems to be that Schoen and Daboll are playing it exactly right. Let's hope they continue to cultivate those positions of highest need in this draft and for the remainder of the off season. I agree that at least according to the playbook, they have "invested in the right positions and walked away from the right positions. I wonder where this clear thinking was last year when they paid and oft injured TE as if he were the best TE in the league only to have him do what? Get injured.
They have focused on the right positions but they haven't necessarily hit on them. As of now Neal is a bust, and Thibs has been okay, but we need better than that. Hopefully we'll see him shine in the new defense and with the addition of Burns.
|
|
|
Post by idkaname on Mar 28, 2024 15:02:16 GMT -5
Burns is a young player, a very good player, and has a ceiling. What's not to like? Are we finding a similar player in round 2? Doubt it. It's not automatic we would've gotten anything at the trade deadline for Barkley. Fans here complained when we traded for Williams on the last year of his deal.. How is that different now with Barkley? Why would teams give up a premium pick when they don't have to? Runyan is a starter, not borderline. Bredeson is backup. And can't stay healthy. Very important. I don't rank them nearly the same. And Neal was/is a starter, so what does that matter? Every year we hear the same bullshit about the O line is going to be better because of who they brought in and how could it possibly be any worse yet every year for ~ a decade we have managed to stay as bad or worse. I want to be optimistic about the O line this year for the reasons I just mentioned but until I see it I’m not as optimistic as some of you. “I’m not worried about Neal” said A LOT of people after his rookie year. ”JMS will be fine” said a lot of people after his poor rookie year. ”Hernandez will be better” said a lot of people after his 1st or 2nd year. ”Solder just needs time” said almost everyone ”The O line just needs time to gel” say a lot of people every year You get the point. Until I see it CONSISTENTLY, not a couple games, I’m not buying it. And I’m not talking about moving up from the worst to bottom 10, I want to see at least middle of the pack. the bolded statement is truth
|
|
|
Post by Roosevelt on Mar 28, 2024 15:03:13 GMT -5
I Don't know how many of you follow Bobby Skinner on Talkin Giants YouTube channel, but I think he does a good job evaluating players that the Giants have either picked up or are thinking of picking up. Anyway, here's his take on John Runyon. link And his take on Jermaine Eluemunor. Watch what he does to Thibs...twice! linkCrazy.
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Mar 28, 2024 15:10:40 GMT -5
I need to allocate some resources to get a cheese burger.
|
|
|
Post by vinnie on Mar 28, 2024 15:35:55 GMT -5
And Neal was/is a starter, so what does that matter? Every year we hear the same bullshit about the O line is going to be better because of who they brought in and how could it possibly be any worse yet every year for ~ a decade we have managed to stay as bad or worse. I want to be optimistic about the O line this year for the reasons I just mentioned but until I see it I’m not as optimistic as some of you. “I’m not worried about Neal” said A LOT of people after his rookie year. ”JMS will be fine” said a lot of people after his poor rookie year. ”Hernandez will be better” said a lot of people after his 1st or 2nd year. ”Solder just needs time” said almost everyone ”The O line just needs time to gel” say a lot of people every year You get the point. Until I see it CONSISTENTLY, not a couple games, I’m not buying it. And I’m not talking about moving up from the worst to bottom 10, I want to see at least middle of the pack. the bolded statement is truth Then Dabs should quit f’in around in pre season by shuffling guys around every other quarter, by the first pre season game have the starting line up figured out and have the play entire games if need be until they’re “gelled” instead of waiting until the first game of the season. The entire team better come out the gates ready to go this year. If starters get hurt by playing them more in pre season games then so be it, better then taking half a season for them to get their shit together.
|
|
|
Post by Roosevelt on Mar 28, 2024 15:50:05 GMT -5
the bolded statement is truth Then Dabs should quit f’in around in pre season by shuffling guys around every other quarter, by the first pre season game have the starting line up figured out and have the play entire games if need be until they’re “gelled” instead of waiting until the first game of the season. The entire team better come out the gates ready to go this year. If starters get hurt by playing them more in pre season games then so be it, better then taking half a season for them to get their shit together. Agreed.
Daboll has handled his team like they've already proved themselves and don't need the preseason work. Meanwhile his teams have proved nothing except they look like they could use all the work they can get.
|
|
|
Post by piddy283 on Mar 28, 2024 15:50:49 GMT -5
Burns is a young player, a very good player, and has a ceiling. (1) What's not to like? Are we finding a similar player in round 2? Doubt it. (2) It's not automatic we would've gotten anything at the trade deadline for Barkley. Fans here complained when we traded for Williams on the last year of his deal.. How is that different now with Barkley? Why would teams give up a premium pick when they don't have to?(3) Runyan is a starter, not borderline. Bredeson is backup. And can't stay healthy. Very important. I don't rank them nearly the same. (1) The only thing not to like is what we gave up financially and in terms of draft capital. That's really it. The way I look at it, there's no excuse not to land a starter with the 39th pick. Especially in this draft. We also would've had the potential to trade back from #39 and acquire more picks. Odds are those rookies won't have the ceiling Burns has, but it's not out of the question and I don't know if it's necessarily a problem even if they don't. This team is still building its foundation and we could've realistically filled 2-3 starting roles with what we gave up. That's nothing to sneeze at considering our roster as a whole.
(2) I don't see the Williams trade being similar to Barkley's situation. If anything, Williams felt more in line to the Burns trade. I liked both trades at face value, but the timing for both feels/felt off.
Either way, I think it's safe to say we could've gotten at least one draft pick for Barkley based on the reported interest he had from multiple teams and the contract he ultimately signed. There are no guarantees, but let's be real.
(3) I love your confidence in Runyan but you seem a bit more optimistic than just about everyone I've listened to and watched. Health is critical, I agree, but all signs point to an average talent with little upside. I have a hard time believing that's worth 10x what we could've gotten Bredeson for.
|
|
|
Post by Kase1 on Mar 28, 2024 15:51:43 GMT -5
I agree on Burns...even without him, DLine would've been the strength of the roster. What year is this?? Our DL is a glaring weakness. Outside of Sexy Dexy we are missing the huge hole LW left. DJ Davidson and Jordan Riley are decent rotational players but nothing like what Williams was
|
|
|
Post by cdngfan on Mar 28, 2024 15:52:59 GMT -5
Burns: Guys like this just don’t become available, and given our 2nd rd pick would still be nothing more than a good guess at a starter, this is a home run move in my eyes. Does it create a home run team? Nope. But you really have to be putting in dedicated effort to see this a bad move. Test: Philly makes this move, are we saying they wasted a 2nd rd pick?
SB: No way you can spin this as anything more than trading talent for a different offensive direction. When you suck, it’s hard to let talent walk out the door. But JS’ thesis is pretty clear. This isn’t a directionless decision. It’s also not guaranteed to be the right decision.
Runyan & Bredeson: Runyan is a below average run blocker, but is one of the leagues best (top 20 out of 64) pass blocking guards in the NFL. Runyan and Bredeson aren’t in the same class. It’s fair to complain about Runyan’s contract, but you kinda gotta pick a lane. The alternative to Runyan (a FA guard that signed with a new team) is Robert Hunt. He signed for literally twice as much as Runyan. That’s $3 million less a year than Andrew Thomas. JS took heat for basically trotting out the same o line last year with JMS, which we can probably agree rookies are sure things relative to vets. Final point. Bredeson missed 6 starts in the last 2 years. Runyan hasn’t missed a game in 3 years.
|
|
|
Post by piddy283 on Mar 28, 2024 15:56:07 GMT -5
Yesterday I joked that the Giants regimes over the last 10+ years have given us couch GMs the confidence that we can do a better job drafting talent. It was mostly in jest, but every year there seems to be decisions made that leave us scratching our heads.
Along those lines, I have three "concerns" so far this off-season that have me wondering what I'm missing. I use the word concerns lightly, but these all seem like moves that we may very well look back on and wonder what Schoen was thinking....
- Brian Burns: I'm not doubting the potential. The potential to be great is real and the idea of Burns playing alongside Thibs & Dex is exciting. However, we're paying a very good player great money, and we gave up a premium pick to get him. That's a lot for a team with as many holes as we have. Is now the right time to "overpay" for one player?
- Saquon Barkley: Losing a weapon like Barkley hurts, but I get it. What I don't get is letting him walk without getting anything in return. This seems like a complete waste of an asset. Again, for a team with as many holes as we have, why not tag & trade him? The extra pick or two would've come in handy.
- Runyan & Bredeson: I'm no Runyan expert, but based on what I've heard he seems like a borderline starter and we paid him 3yr/$30M. Bredeson is also a borderline starter and he signed for 1yr/$3M. What does Runyan offer that warrants such a price increase? Why not re-sign Bredeson for a fraction of the cost?
In terms of resource allocation, I just question whether or not we could've gotten more bang for our buck. Especially with those last two bullet points. Burns is less of a concern because I do think the potential to be great is there, but it's still a lot to give up. Saquan Barkley: I see the Giants getting a 3rd/4th round compensation pick in the 2025 draft so it's not like they are getting nothing. It's likely too early to know for sure, but Patty Traina is pretty knowledgeable when it comes to the cap and comp picks. According to one of her recent podcasts she said we're close to being all square in terms of comp picks. We may be in line for a late day-3 pick, but that's it.
I found this to be surprising because it's my understanding the Burns trade shouldn't impact comp picks. I felt losing two players of Barkley's and McKinney's caliber would be pretty big. Maybe Patty, or someone else, will eventually have an update with better news on that front.
|
|
|
Post by McCherry on Mar 28, 2024 15:57:25 GMT -5
Burns is a young player, a very good player, and has a ceiling. (1) What's not to like? Are we finding a similar player in round 2? Doubt it. (2) It's not automatic we would've gotten anything at the trade deadline for Barkley. Fans here complained when we traded for Williams on the last year of his deal.. How is that different now with Barkley? Why would teams give up a premium pick when they don't have to?(3) Runyan is a starter, not borderline. Bredeson is backup. And can't stay healthy. Very important. I don't rank them nearly the same. (1) The only thing not to like is what we gave up financially and in terms of draft capital. That's really it. The way I look at it, there's no excuse not to land a starter with the 39th pick. Especially in this draft. We also would've had the potential to trade back from #39 and acquire more picks. Odds are those rookies won't have the ceiling Burns has, but it's not out of the question and I don't know if it's necessarily a problem even if they don't. This team is still building its foundation and we could've realistically filled 2-3 starting roles with what we gave up. That's nothing to sneeze at considering our roster as a whole.
(2) I don't see the Williams trade being similar to Barkley's situation. If anything, Williams felt more in line to the Burns trade. I liked both trades at face value, but the timing for both feels/felt off.
Either way, I think it's safe to say we could've gotten at least one draft pick for Barkley based on the reported interest he had from multiple teams and the contract he ultimately signed. There are no guarantees, but let's be real.
(3) I love your confidence in Runyan but you seem a bit more optimistic than just about everyone I've listened to and watched. Health is critical, I agree, but all signs point to an average talent with little upside. I have a hard time believing that's worth 10x what we could've gotten Bredeson for.
Well again, we traded our #2 pick for a much more certain thing in Burns. I'm ok with that. It's taken Robinson almost 2 full seasons for Robinson to start scratching his potential. And all I'm saying about Runyan is he's a better option as a starter than Bredeson, which isn't a huge endorsement. But I think he'll be fine if the OL is upgraded overall. I value Pass Pro over run blocking and he's exactly the type of player Brscillo has been able to coach up.
|
|
|
Post by vinnie on Mar 28, 2024 15:58:10 GMT -5
Saquan Barkley: I see the Giants getting a 3rd/4th round compensation pick in the 2025 draft so it's not like they are getting nothing. It's likely too early to know for sure, but Patty Traina is pretty knowledgeable when it comes to the cap and comp picks. According to one of her recent podcasts she said we're close to being all square in terms of comp picks. We may be in line for a late day-3 pick, but that's it.
I found this to be surprising because it's my understanding the Burns trade shouldn't impact comp picks. I felt losing two players of Barkley's and McKinney's caliber would be pretty big. Maybe Patty, or someone else, will eventually have an update with better news on that front.
Ironically, this literally just popped up on my yahoo home screen. Crazy internet tracking bullshit. This may have already been posted somewhere. www.yahoo.com/sports/giants-john-mara-explains-why-105636440.html
|
|