Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2018 9:30:11 GMT -5
First off: I really like Nate Solder as a player and a person. I've seen most every home NCAAF games of his career and have always been psyched to see him succeed in the NFL (it's not that common for my alma mater alum).
And I like the Solder signing, I do. We needed it. But here's the problem:
The problem with this signing is that it is a two year fix. We don't need a two year fix unless you are under the impression that we have a two year window to compete for a SB. I am not under that impression. I'm in the camp of we are in a two year rebuild, and if done right we can be competing with the best of them.
But between Solder's age, wear and tear and low dead cap hit in 2020, I don't see how he is playing for the Giants for more than 2018 and 2019.
At that point (hopefully) a new young QB is at the helm and then we are back to square one with needing a starting LT again.
Unless of course we can draft one in the 2020 draft. Which, as we know, is extremely tough.
|
|
|
Post by JoeBigBlue on Jun 6, 2018 9:58:34 GMT -5
I don't think there was any alternative at this point. Yes, it's not a long term fix. Maybe in next year's draft they'll get someone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2018 10:52:12 GMT -5
I don't think there was any alternative at this point. Yes, it's not a long term fix. Maybe in next year's draft they'll get someone. I agree. But the signing seems incongruent with where we are as a team. Not to mention I see many posters saying that our OLT problem is "fixed." When I think the proper term is "temporarily fixed" which of course is just putting off the inevitable: trying to find an OLT that will be here for many years.
|
|
|
Post by jimmieray on Jun 6, 2018 11:06:32 GMT -5
I don't think there was any alternative at this point. Yes, it's not a long term fix. Maybe in next year's draft they'll get someone. I agree. But the signing seems incongruent with where we are as a team. Not to mention I see many posters saying that our OLT problem is "fixed." When I think the proper term is "temporarily fixed" which of course is just putting off the inevitable: trying to find an OLT that will be here for many years. I don't typically go the "it's Reeses' fault" route, but this is a perfect example of what he was doing wrong. It seems pretty basic, to understand you should build a team from the lines, and add skill players as that solidifies. But he did not, but the team is still "stuck" with some of his choices and needs to show something with them on the roster.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2018 11:09:05 GMT -5
I agree. But the signing seems incongruent with where we are as a team. Not to mention I see many posters saying that our OLT problem is "fixed." When I think the proper term is "temporarily fixed" which of course is just putting off the inevitable: trying to find an OLT that will be here for many years. I don't typically go the "it's Reeses' fault" route, but this is a perfect example of what he was doing wrong. It seems pretty basic, to understand you should build a team from the lines, and add skill players as that solidifies. But he did not, but the team is still "stuck" with some of his choices and needs to show something with them on the roster. I agree with everything you said there. Reese's fingerprints are still all over this team (roster). Just because he's gone doesn't mean his impact(s) left with him. I had this discussion with another member on the GMB and they were adamant in saying, "it's time to move on from Reese, you realize he was fired, right?" To which I would retort, "sure, he's gone but his roster moves (and lack thereof) aren't."
|
|
Merc
Special Teams
Posts: 1,683
|
Post by Merc on Jun 6, 2018 11:21:16 GMT -5
Nate is a very good LT, but even more important a good mentor. His work with Flowers after practice is a plus. If we do draft a replacement, I hope he gets to mentor him.
|
|
|
Post by BigBlueDog42 on Jun 6, 2018 11:25:21 GMT -5
I would not doubt if they draft a tackle high in one of the next two drafts,I think under the new regime they will be drafting OL and DL every year and if the right ones are there early too.
|
|
gumby
Special Teams
Posts: 1,048
|
Post by gumby on Jun 6, 2018 11:53:53 GMT -5
This is in line with why I'm not a fan of the Barkley pick as well.
RBs don't typically last long in the league.
I don't think we're a SB contender either. We need to build for the future. I don't think i wouldn't have been thrilled with any pick, but Nelson at 2 would have been my choice.
|
|
|
Post by DonnieYen on Jun 6, 2018 12:57:03 GMT -5
First off: I really like Nate Solder as a player and a person. I've seen most every home NCAAF games of his career and have always been psyched to see him succeed in the NFL (it's not that common for my alma mater alum). And I like the Solder signing, I do. We needed it. But here's the problem: The problem with this signing is that it is a two year fix. We don't need a two year fix unless you are under the impression that we have a two year window to compete for a SB. I am not under that impression. I'm in the camp of we are in a two year rebuild, and if done right we can be competing with the best of them. But between Solder's age, wear and tear and low dead cap hit in 2020, I don't see how he is playing for the Giants for more than 2018 and 2019. At that point (hopefully) a new young QB is at the helm and then we are back to square one with needing a starting LT again. Unless of course we can draft one in the 2020 draft. Which, as we know, is extremely tough. Well we also got Patrick Omameh and In the Draft we got Hernandez and A few promising Undrafted Free Agents Offensive Linemen. Were also moving Flowers to Right Guard he was horrible at Left Guard so the thinking Is he will do much better at Right Guard. Hopefully our offensive line will be much improved.
|
|
|
Post by DonnieYen on Jun 6, 2018 13:03:40 GMT -5
This is in line with why I'm not a fan of the Barkley pick as well. RBs don't typically last long in the league. I don't think we're a SB contender either. We need to build for the future. I don't think i wouldn't have been thrilled with any pick, but Nelson at 2 would have been my choice. Typically you could have a good RB about 8 years maybe slightly more if your Lucky that's enough time for a Dynasty I saw a Statistic I forget where I saw It where teams that get Top Running Backs in the draft make the Playoffs the next year and most of the times the teams with the top draft picks were really bad the year before and weren't playoff teams the year before hence why they are drafting in the top 5 or so. .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2018 14:05:31 GMT -5
I am not sure what build for the future means in the NFL. This isn't exactly the MLB or NBA. The team should obviously be addressing weaknesses and replacing dead weight every year. That's the nature of the NFL. GMs aren't looking 5 years ahead and wondering who the LT will be. They are looking to improve every year. They aren't caught up with this "build for the future" or "we're trying to contend in 3-5 years."
Sure it would make sense in the NBA, the Sixers are a great example. But can you provide me with a similar example in the NFL? The Browns have been the NFL version of the 76ers and look at how that's working out?
NFL teams aren't using a generic 3-5 year building plan. They are piecing together an NFL roster improving in areas that were weaknesses the previous year. That is what DG has done with the RB and LT position.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2018 14:31:32 GMT -5
This is in line with why I'm not a fan of the Barkley pick as well. RBs don't typically last long in the league. I don't think we're a SB contender either. We need to build for the future. I don't think i wouldn't have been thrilled with any pick, but Nelson at 2 would have been my choice. Typically you could have a good RB about 8 years maybe slightly more if your Lucky that's enough time for a Dynasty I saw a Statistic I forget where I saw It where teams that get Top Running Backs in the draft make the Playoffs the next year and most of the times the teams with the top draft picks were really bad the year before and weren't playoff teams the year before hence why they are drafting in the top 5 or so. . edit. quoted wrong post again
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2018 14:32:28 GMT -5
First off: I really like Nate Solder as a player and a person. I've seen most every home NCAAF games of his career and have always been psyched to see him succeed in the NFL (it's not that common for my alma mater alum). And I like the Solder signing, I do. We needed it. But here's the problem: The problem with this signing is that it is a two year fix. We don't need a two year fix unless you are under the impression that we have a two year window to compete for a SB. I am not under that impression. I'm in the camp of we are in a two year rebuild, and if done right we can be competing with the best of them. But between Solder's age, wear and tear and low dead cap hit in 2020, I don't see how he is playing for the Giants for more than 2018 and 2019. At that point (hopefully) a new young QB is at the helm and then we are back to square one with needing a starting LT again. Unless of course we can draft one in the 2020 draft. Which, as we know, is extremely tough. Well we also got Patrick Omameh and In the Draft we got Hernandez and A few promising Undrafted Free Agents Offensive Linemen. Were also moving Flowers to Right Guard he was horrible at Left Guard so the thinking Is he will do much better at Right Guard. Hopefully our offensive line will be much improved. I assume you mean Flowers to RT. Which is still TBD as to whether or not that position is upgraded. That said, don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning whether or not our OL got better in one off season. It's a no brainer that it did. I'm just specifically looking at the Solder signing and its impact beyond 2019.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2018 14:37:32 GMT -5
I am not sure what build for the future means in the NFL. This isn't exactly the MLB or NBA. The team should obviously be addressing weaknesses and replacing dead weight every year. That's the nature of the NFL. GMs aren't looking 5 years ahead and wondering who the LT will be. They are looking to improve every year. They aren't caught up with this "build for the future" or "we're trying to contend in 3-5 years." Sure it would make sense in the NBA, the Sixers are a great example. But can you provide me with a similar example in the NFL? The Browns have been the NFL version of the 76ers and look at how that's working out? NFL teams aren't using a generic 3-5 year building plan. They are piecing together an NFL roster improving in areas that were weaknesses the previous year. That is what DG has done with the RB and LT position. The key to building successful rosters is AAV. The more players on your team that are starting and performing at a high level, who also happen to be on their rookie contracts, the better off your roster is. Since rookie contracts are typically 4yrs + option then you're hopefully looking at 3-5 year windows with your roster management. Given the depletion our roster has seen over the course of the past 7 years, I believe we are truly looking at a 2-3 year replenishment. Call it whatever you want. And if you are going to make an OLT the highest paid OL in the NFL I'd prefer it to be for a guy who is 26/27 years old and that has more than two years left in the tank.
|
|
|
Post by Waybackfan on Jun 6, 2018 15:12:25 GMT -5
"The future is now." -- George Allen
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2018 15:20:27 GMT -5
I am not sure what build for the future means in the NFL. This isn't exactly the MLB or NBA. The team should obviously be addressing weaknesses and replacing dead weight every year. That's the nature of the NFL. GMs aren't looking 5 years ahead and wondering who the LT will be. They are looking to improve every year. They aren't caught up with this "build for the future" or "we're trying to contend in 3-5 years." Sure it would make sense in the NBA, the Sixers are a great example. But can you provide me with a similar example in the NFL? The Browns have been the NFL version of the 76ers and look at how that's working out? NFL teams aren't using a generic 3-5 year building plan. They are piecing together an NFL roster improving in areas that were weaknesses the previous year. That is what DG has done with the RB and LT position. The key to building successful rosters is AAV. The more players on your team that are starting and performing at a high level, who also happen to be on their rookie contracts, the better off your roster is. Since rookie contracts are typically 4yrs + option then you're hopefully looking at 3-5 year windows with your roster management. Given the depletion our roster has seen over the course of the past 7 years, I believe we are truly looking at a 2-3 year replenishment. Call it whatever you want. And if you are going to make an OLT the highest paid OL in the NFL I'd prefer it to be for a guy who is 26/27 years old and that has more than two years left in the tank. The Giants had some money to spend and spent it on a position that was one of the weakest links on the team the past couple of years. If there was a 26 year old LT entering his prime in FA, I am sure DG would have pursued considering he paid Solder.
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasman on Jun 6, 2018 15:26:05 GMT -5
The key to building successful rosters is AAV. The more players on your team that are starting and performing at a high level, who also happen to be on their rookie contracts, the better off your roster is. Since rookie contracts are typically 4yrs + option then you're hopefully looking at 3-5 year windows with your roster management. Given the depletion our roster has seen over the course of the past 7 years, I believe we are truly looking at a 2-3 year replenishment. Call it whatever you want. And if you are going to make an OLT the highest paid OL in the NFL I'd prefer it to be for a guy who is 26/27 years old and that has more than two years left in the tank. I agree although I'm not sure it's incongruent with the team's philosophy. There seems to be a regrettable (in my mind) view of quick fix/win now with some of the moves made. I view the Barkley pick as evidence of that. So, perhaps DG figured I'd keep the old QB, shore up the o-line and then keep rebuilding the team. I don't think there's a legitimate run in this team, only a return to respectability which means that the rebuilding will likely go longer than 2 -3 years. I'd have preferred to take the pain immediately and get it over with. It now feels like a return to respectability (in a parity league...BFD) for two to three years while rebuilding, then a search for a QB while rebuilding, and hopefully a return to being a top team in three to five years. It's definitely not the way I wanted the team to go but it is what it is.
|
|
Speedman
Starter
Posts: 3,139
Member is Online
|
Post by Speedman on Jun 6, 2018 16:00:54 GMT -5
The key to building successful rosters is AAV. The more players on your team that are starting and performing at a high level, who also happen to be on their rookie contracts, the better off your roster is. Since rookie contracts are typically 4yrs + option then you're hopefully looking at 3-5 year windows with your roster management. Given the depletion our roster has seen over the course of the past 7 years, I believe we are truly looking at a 2-3 year replenishment. Call it whatever you want. And if you are going to make an OLT the highest paid OL in the NFL I'd prefer it to be for a guy who is 26/27 years old and that has more than two years left in the tank. I agree although I'm not sure it's incongruent with the team's philosophy. There seems to be a regrettable (in my mind) view of quick fix/win now with some of the moves made. I view the Barkley pick as evidence of that. So, perhaps DG figured I'd keep the old QB, shore up the o-line and then keep rebuilding the team. I don't think there's a legitimate run in this team, only a return to respectability which means that the rebuilding will likely go longer than 2 -3 years. I'd have preferred to take the pain immediately and get it over with. It now feels like a return to respectability (in a parity league...BFD) for two to three years while rebuilding, then a search for a QB while rebuilding, and hopefully a return to being a top team in three to five years. It's definitely not the way I wanted the team to go but it is what it is. How would you have liked them to do it?
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasman on Jun 6, 2018 16:07:25 GMT -5
How would you have liked them to do it? I would have preferred that the team start with the QB and build for the future from there. I'm not saying that's the right answer, it's just my opinion. In my view, we will need a QB soon based on Manning's age so drafting the future QB and allowing him to learn from Manning while they build out the rest of the team - again, in my view there are many holes to fill - would position us best for the future. edit: I wanted the Giants to draft Rosen. I am not of the belief that any QB panning out means the Giants made a mistake. That's a bs argument. We have Barkley, if he is a generational talent, imo you can't just knock the pick because he isn't a QB.
|
|
Speedman
Starter
Posts: 3,139
Member is Online
|
Post by Speedman on Jun 6, 2018 16:12:52 GMT -5
How would you have liked them to do it? I would have preferred that the team start with the QB and build for the future from there. I'm not saying that's the right answer, it's just my opinion. In my view, we will need a QB soon based on Manning's age so drafting the future QB and allowing him to learn from Manning while they build out the rest of the team - again, in my view there are many holes to fill - would position us best for the future. Interesting thoughts, but I liked the way they went about it better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2018 16:12:52 GMT -5
The key to building successful rosters is AAV. The more players on your team that are starting and performing at a high level, who also happen to be on their rookie contracts, the better off your roster is. Since rookie contracts are typically 4yrs + option then you're hopefully looking at 3-5 year windows with your roster management. Given the depletion our roster has seen over the course of the past 7 years, I believe we are truly looking at a 2-3 year replenishment. Call it whatever you want. And if you are going to make an OLT the highest paid OL in the NFL I'd prefer it to be for a guy who is 26/27 years old and that has more than two years left in the tank. I agree although I'm not sure it's incongruent with the team's philosophy. There seems to be a regrettable (in my mind) view of quick fix/win now with some of the moves made. I view the Barkley pick as evidence of that. So, perhaps DG figured I'd keep the old QB, shore up the o-line and then keep rebuilding the team. I don't think there's a legitimate run in this team, only a return to respectability which means that the rebuilding will likely go longer than 2 -3 years. I'd have preferred to take the pain immediately and get it over with. It now feels like a return to respectability (in a parity league...BFD) for two to three years while rebuilding, then a search for a QB while rebuilding, and hopefully a return to being a top team in three to five years. It's definitely not the way I wanted the team to go but it is what it is. Ah, yes... you are correct. Not incongruent with the team philosophy but my personal one with regards to where this team currently sits. The rest of your post I agree with also.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2018 16:14:11 GMT -5
The problem with this signing is that it is a two year fix. We don't need a two year fix unless you are under the impression that we have a two year window to compete for a SB. I am not under that impression. I'm in the camp of we are in a two year rebuild, and if done right we can be competing with the best of them. What are you talking about? Saquon Barkley's going to run for 2,000 yards and we're going to the Super Bowl, baby!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2018 16:18:23 GMT -5
I agree. But the signing seems incongruent with where we are as a team. Not to mention I see many posters saying that our OLT problem is "fixed." When I think the proper term is "temporarily fixed" which of course is just putting off the inevitable: trying to find an OLT that will be here for many years. I don't typically go the "it's Reeses' fault" route, but this is a perfect example of what he was doing wrong. It seems pretty basic, to understand you should build a team from the lines, and add skill players as that solidifies. But he did not, but the team is still "stuck" with some of his choices and needs to show something with them on the roster. The Dallas Cowboys have one of the best offensive lines in football. They went 9-7 last year. Skill players are important, too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2018 16:25:37 GMT -5
GMs aren't looking 5 years ahead and wondering who the LT will be. They are looking to improve every year. They aren't caught up with this "build for the future" or "we're trying to contend in 3-5 years." So, how do you explain Belichick's philosophy of releasing guys 1-2 years before their inevitable downward slide? I mean...if you were only focused on next year, then wouldn't you keep them until the downward slide actually started? Bill Belichick understands that releasing guys that are near-done frees up salary for guys that will help his team down the road. Probably why he has five rings. Just sayin'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2018 16:26:31 GMT -5
I don't typically go the "it's Reeses' fault" route, but this is a perfect example of what he was doing wrong. It seems pretty basic, to understand you should build a team from the lines, and add skill players as that solidifies. But he did not, but the team is still "stuck" with some of his choices and needs to show something with them on the roster. The Dallas Cowboys have one of the best offensive lines in football. They went 9-7 last year. Skill players are important, too. The Eagles have one of the best OLs in football and they won the SB. With a back up QB.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2018 16:27:06 GMT -5
GMs aren't looking 5 years ahead and wondering who the LT will be. They are looking to improve every year. They aren't caught up with this "build for the future" or "we're trying to contend in 3-5 years." So, how do you explain Belichick's philosophy of releasing guys 1-2 years before their inevitable downward slide? I mean...if you were only focused on next year, then wouldn't you keep them until the downward slide actually started? Bill Belichick understands that releasing guys that are near-done frees up salary for guys that will help his team down the road. Probably why he has five rings. Just sayin'. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuyRich on Jun 6, 2018 16:37:30 GMT -5
Nate Solder was a great pick up even if he was overpaid. Are we forgetting the trials and tribulation of the O line ? Especially the LT position. Flowers has a much better chance of success at RT than LT. That experiment failed. This one signing just might solidify both positions. Plus the 2 new Guards ? It could really be improved.
Temporary fix you say ? What FA signing isn't ? 2 years from now teams are so different, who really knows where were going to be by then. Who knows how the final 2 years workout on Solders contract ? Maybe reworked, maybe not but it will be taken care of. If he's good we make it work if not we make it work also one way or another. There's 2 years to worry about this if then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2018 16:38:13 GMT -5
I agree although I'm not sure it's incongruent with the team's philosophy. There seems to be a regrettable (in my mind) view of quick fix/win now with some of the moves made. I view the Barkley pick as evidence of that. So, perhaps DG figured I'd keep the old QB, shore up the o-line and then keep rebuilding the team. I don't think there's a legitimate run in this team, only a return to respectability which means that the rebuilding will likely go longer than 2 -3 years. I'd have preferred to take the pain immediately and get it over with. It now feels like a return to respectability (in a parity league...BFD) for two to three years while rebuilding, then a search for a QB while rebuilding, and hopefully a return to being a top team in three to five years. It's definitely not the way I wanted the team to go but it is what it is. How would you have liked them to do it? I know you asked saracasman but I'll chime (whether you like it or not ) I'm of the philosophy that you build in the trenches first. Given the disastrous state of our OL for the past few years I would have liked to have traded back (easier said than done, I know) and spent the first two picks on OL. Then would have gone DL with one of the acquired picks as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2018 16:38:17 GMT -5
The Dallas Cowboys have one of the best offensive lines in football. They went 9-7 last year. Skill players are important, too. The Eagles have one of the best OLs in football and they won the SB. With a back up QB. They had a lot of help from their young franchise quarterback, but...point taken.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2018 16:43:33 GMT -5
Nate Solder was a great pick up even if he was overpaid. Are we forgetting the trials and tribulation of the O line ? Especially the LT position. Flowers has a much better chance of success at RT than LT. That experiment failed. This one signing just might solidify both positions. Plus the 2 new Guards ? It could really be improved. I've asked this plenty of times: Why does Flowers have a much better chance of success at RT than LT? He's fundamentally flawed in his technique. Whether you line up on the left or right side doesn't make a difference... only in the sense that Eli will see the pressure coming versus feeling it and getting spooked. A much younger FA who has more than two years left in his career. Don't get me wrong, I never want to build through FA but adding a stud in his prime at a certain position to fill a void certainly is not a temporary solution. Oh, I see what you're saying. Sure. But the difference here is that I firmly believe Solder only has two years left in his career. That's why the contract was structured as so. Remember, this was a guy who was contemplating retirement in December/January. And not withstanding, I think a large decision to keep playing is due to the fact he just received a huge sum of money and he's playing in the NYC area that has some of the world's best hospitals and care for his son.
|
|