|
|
Post by IrishMike on Mar 29, 2020 14:15:42 GMT -5
Good article here. Hopefully we bring Golden back. No matter what anyone thinks of him its hard to say he would hurt this defense.
"Funny enough, the main reason Golden remains unsigned isn’t actually his injury history (he tore his ACL in 2017), but rather many over-analyzing how he got his 10 sacks to a comically uninformed degree."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2020 16:18:59 GMT -5
Translation : article agrees with my chocolate bunnies theory  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2020 16:24:23 GMT -5
Translation : article agrees with my chocolate bunnies theory So you post articles that disagree with your opinion all the time?  If I do, I then don't say "good article", the point of my replied posting ...and I do indeed post articles that I disagree with, all the time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2020 16:38:44 GMT -5
I do indeed post articles that I disagree with, all the time.LOL....................................... Point them out Red, and see if I ever said "good article"...I'm usually accused of posting too many PFF stats...latest opinion post disagreeing my my opinion on signing a player, Clowney, ravaged by PFF in opinion off stats Wait, take a QB before a running back pre draft as a factually based analytical fact (PFF knocking), even Rosen > Barkley before the draft due to value..opinions with mocks of, Barkley to the Giants (of course twisted in the clouds of war to a silly trade Barkley now for Rosen) I posted an article of opinion, suggesting Blake Martinez was a good coverage linebacker, after we signed him. I said he was brutal, this last year... BUT, had a good 2018 grade. I posted quite a few opinions on taking a OT at 4, but posted MANY drafts that had WR of all things... Posted nice Simmons articles suggesting he is indeed a great player Combine opinions suggesting players I liked were, not too good Still, not a single opinion of anybody posting an article of opinion I agreed with would get more then possible a reply of a sarcastic..."interesting"...but I usually do stats, and then offer my opinion. Last opinion I posted, that I agreed with...PFF suggesting the free agents were POOR signings. I did not say translation : GOOD article. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2020 17:03:27 GMT -5
gmenhq.com/2020/03/28/ny-giants-golden-undervalued/This is a total fluff article, and suggested as good...and I'll say it again, it's only a good article because it agrees with the original posters opinion of getting Golden back...at 15 million per year. Nothing more and nothing less. From the "article"... It's ONLY 10 sacks, a 3 minute YouTube video...a video out there...yet he bases his entire argument of all those criticizing the sacks as being wrong? WTF? Talk about a major discrepancy ...and I too would not mind signing him back on the cheap, but at least invest 3 freaking minutes watching the scheme and QB holding onto the ball for 5 seconds of sacks...Josh Allen and Winston in particular. Talk about having an opinion locked away.... Now, is it possible the Giants believe the new scheme they will be running will not allow for those 10 scheme and hustle sacks to be worth what he is asking? It certainly seems that way. I've been chided for wanting Clowney, and now have heard the haha winds suggest the see, I told you...Clowney is not that good cause not a team has signed him, only to hear crickets regarding the same aspect of Golden. He, the writer of this article, also suggests 4 years and some fair, to me, amount of $. I seriously doubt that 4 years as a good investment in any scheme, even if Bettcher was still here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2020 17:06:01 GMT -5
Point them out Red, and see if I ever said "good article" LOL, spin away . Translation : article agrees with my chocolate bunnies theory If I do, I then don't say "good article", the point of my replied posting ...and I do indeed post articles that I disagree with, all the time.LOL, nope that would be your job. post   Many years ago, a giant baby was born |
|
robl
Special Teams
Posts: 1,408
|
Post by robl on Mar 29, 2020 17:33:32 GMT -5
Highlights here
|
|
|
|
Post by IrishMike on Mar 29, 2020 17:48:38 GMT -5
So you post articles that disagree with your opinion all the time? LMAO @ people getting upset because they don't agree with an article. All I see is "This Post Hidden" but I can guess who it is. Also I can guess said person posted nothing on the topic at hand and instead tried to simply insult anyone he disagrees with. The article brought up some good points, which I'm sure were not even discussed by "This Post Hidden" lol. Correct me if I am wrong, I won't be though.
Anyone out there that thinks Golden would make this team worse is fooling themselves. I have high hopes for Fackrell but even if he gets back to 10 sacks that is simply keeping us on pace for last year, which wasn't good. It would be good to ADD to the pass rush from last year by keeping our top sack artist. Also would be good to have some leadership on a defense with 1 guy over 27.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2020 17:49:27 GMT -5
If he doesn’t get sacks ie Williams he Sucks. If he gets double digit sacks ie Golden then it was only because of scheme AND He sucks
No Love for anyone
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2020 17:51:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by IrishMike on Mar 29, 2020 17:51:53 GMT -5
If he doesn’t get sacks ie Williams he Sucks. If he gets double digit sacks ie Golden then it was only because of scheme AND He sucks No Love for anyone Not true. You forgot if he gets only 3 sacks ie Clowney, sacks are overrated. 
Maybe 3 sacks is the sweet spot like Goldielocks. 10 is too many, .5 is too few, 3 is juuuuuusst right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2020 17:56:41 GMT -5
If he doesn’t get sacks ie Williams he Sucks. If he gets double digit sacks ie Golden then it was only because of scheme AND He sucks No Love for anyone I don't like either player, Williams because too much money...would not mind Golden but not close to 15 million per as was the original amount of the original poster. I wonder, if we got an edge that took 2 blockers most every pass down, such as a Clowney, at a better deal then he wants...or a edge that gets as many double teams on passing downs, a Chase Young type...would that not make LW more effective as a 3 tech?... and get some actual sacks to go with all his pressures? All about creating a system, and I can sort of see where this front 7 is headed....and the more you think about it, the Mose you can see Simmons as the pick. If it wasn't that pesky OT, franchise QB situation |
|
|
|
Post by IrishMike on Mar 29, 2020 18:00:39 GMT -5
Also of interesting note in the article is suggesting we get Golden for 4/$30m with $20m guaranteed. $7.5m a year for this player would be a great deal imo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2020 18:01:57 GMT -5
If he doesn’t get sacks ie Williams he Sucks. If he gets double digit sacks ie Golden then it was only because of scheme AND He sucks No Love for anyone Not true. You forgot if he gets only 3 sacks ie Clowney, sacks are overrated.
Maybe 3 sacks is the sweet spot like Goldielocks. 10 is too many, .5 is too few, 3 is juuuuuusst right.
Still drawing that line in the sand at the sack stat and buying stock in it all being equal?  I thought you would have evolved by now ... pressures. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2020 18:05:56 GMT -5
Also of interesting note in the article is suggesting we get Golden for 4/$30m with $20m guaranteed. $7.5m a year for this player would be a great deal imo. Yeah, another interesting note in the opinion is, he admitted he never watched any of his sacks. Hopefully, the Giants front office is at the very least looking at a 10 minute YouTube video before making any GM decisions and contract offers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2020 18:23:54 GMT -5
So you post articles that disagree with your opinion all the time? LMAO @ people getting upset because they don't agree with an article. All I see is "This Post Hidden" but I can guess who it is. Also I can guess said person posted nothing on the topic at hand and instead tried to simply insult anyone he disagrees with. The article brought up some good points, which I'm sure were not even discussed by "This Post Hidden" lol. Correct me if I am wrong, I won't be though.
Anyone out there that thinks Golden would make this team worse is fooling themselves. I have high hopes for Fackrell but even if he gets back to 10 sacks that is simply keeping us on pace for last year, which wasn't good. It would be good to ADD to the pass rush from last year by keeping our top sack artist. Also would be good to have some leadership on a defense with 1 guy over 27.
 |
|
|
|
Post by McCherry on Mar 29, 2020 18:33:21 GMT -5
This article fails to establish anything about Goldens' sacks above what everyone else been saying. I wouldn't give him that contract either. This story doesn't offer me anything on this situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by IrishMike on Mar 29, 2020 20:12:04 GMT -5
This article fails to establish anything about Goldens' sacks above what everyone else been saying. I wouldn't give him that contract either. This story doesn't offer me anything on this situation. What contract would you not give him? 4/$30m? This story is the first time I have heard numbers that low for Golden, so that is something new. Who do we have that is going to rush the passer this year though is the real problem.
As for Golden being a guy who got luck/got schemed open/just hustled for sacks or what ever else you want to say about his sacks, hes the first Giants LB since LT to get 10 sacks, so I hope to got the rest of these LBs can get lucky/scheme/hustle sacks because we need it. We keep shipping off (or blowing up) our sack leader and are surprised we haven't improved in sacks, it's mind boggling.
|
|
|
|
Post by McCherry on Mar 30, 2020 0:39:43 GMT -5
This article fails to establish anything about Goldens' sacks above what everyone else been saying. I wouldn't give him that contract either. This story doesn't offer me anything on this situation. What contract would you not give him? 4/$30m? This story is the first time I have heard numbers that low for Golden, so that is something new. Who do we have that is going to rush the passer this year though is the real problem.
As for Golden being a guy who got luck/got schemed open/just hustled for sacks or what ever else you want to say about his sacks, hes the first Giants LB since LT to get 10 sacks, so I hope to got the rest of these LBs can get lucky/scheme/hustle sacks because we need it. We keep shipping off (or blowing up) our sack leader and are surprised we haven't improved in sacks, it's mind boggling. Who did we have last year? That's my problem with Golden. As far as the contract, I don't want a 28 year-old with a bad knee on a long term back loaded deal, hell no. |
|
|
|
Post by IrishMike on Mar 30, 2020 5:31:19 GMT -5
What contract would you not give him? 4/$30m? This story is the first time I have heard numbers that low for Golden, so that is something new. Who do we have that is going to rush the passer this year though is the real problem.
As for Golden being a guy who got luck/got schemed open/just hustled for sacks or what ever else you want to say about his sacks, hes the first Giants LB since LT to get 10 sacks, so I hope to got the rest of these LBs can get lucky/scheme/hustle sacks because we need it. We keep shipping off (or blowing up) our sack leader and are surprised we haven't improved in sacks, it's mind boggling. Who did we have last year? That's my problem with Golden. As far as the contract, I don't want a 28 year-old with a bad knee on a long term back loaded deal, hell no. Golden and what ever X and Carter could contribute and we were pretty bad. So if we replace Golden with Fackrell that leaves us back in the same exact spot (maybe) as last year. I agree 100% about his knee and the deal ect which is why he hasn't been signed yet IMO. But I also think that getting him for $7.5m per year is a steal. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2020 5:58:34 GMT -5
Who did we have last year? That's my problem with Golden. As far as the contract, I don't want a 28 year-old with a bad knee on a long term back loaded deal, hell no. Golden and what ever X and Carter could contribute and we were pretty bad. So if we replace Golden with Fackrell that leaves us back in the same exact spot (maybe) as last year. I agree 100% about his knee and the deal ect which is why he hasn't been signed yet IMO. But I also think that getting him for $7.5m per year is a steal. Please go back to the original article ....the writer suggested that deal, not the NY Giants. You wrote 15 per in your article...amusing me.  It's also a year too long, maybe even 2 years, too long....you and the original article poster who have not watched any tape and are stuck with the big 10 in you as the only stat you believe in, 4 is TOO many years. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2020 7:29:44 GMT -5
LOL, spin away . LOL, nope that would be your job. post Many years ago, a giant baby was born This will be what I see when Big Red posts from now on.. Priceless!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2020 7:37:59 GMT -5
Who did we have last year? That's my problem with Golden. As far as the contract, I don't want a 28 year-old with a bad knee on a long term back loaded deal, hell no. Golden and what ever X and Carter could contribute and we were pretty bad. So if we replace Golden with Fackrell that leaves us back in the same exact spot (maybe) as last year. I agree 100% about his knee and the deal ect which is why he hasn't been signed yet IMO. But I also think that getting him for $7.5m per year is a steal. It's the 20 million that makes me not want to do this contract. Like you said he wasn't good enough to make them better then "pretty bad" so why invest more money for the same? Unless Young drops this isn't the year they get a dominate pass rusher.. Can't fix all the holes that have been created on this team in one off season.. |
|
|
|
Post by Fletch842 on Mar 30, 2020 7:46:27 GMT -5
Golden and what ever X and Carter could contribute and we were pretty bad. So if we replace Golden with Fackrell that leaves us back in the same exact spot (maybe) as last year. I agree 100% about his knee and the deal ect which is why he hasn't been signed yet IMO. But I also think that getting him for $7.5m per year is a steal. It's the 20 million that makes me not want to do this contract. Like you said he wasn't good enough to make them better then "pretty bad" so why invest more money for the same? Unless Young drops this isn't the year they get a dominate pass rusher.. Can't fix all the holes that have been created on this team in one off season.. I'm hoping/praying that the new defensive staff will correct the brutal lack of communication that has plagued our secondary for a few years. That alone will be a huge boost to the defense. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2020 7:48:50 GMT -5
It's the 20 million that makes me not want to do this contract. Like you said he wasn't good enough to make them better then "pretty bad" so why invest more money for the same? Unless Young drops this isn't the year they get a dominate pass rusher.. Can't fix all the holes that have been created on this team in one off season.. I'm hoping/praying that the new defensive staff will correct the brutal lack of communication that has plagued our secondary for a few years. That alone will be a huge boost to the defense. Between the Oline not being able to pick up a stunt and the secondary being out of sync I really hope these things get corrected with this group of coaches.. |
|
|
|
Post by GameTime on Mar 30, 2020 7:51:10 GMT -5
But what edge rusher could you not say the same about? I’ve yet to do the complete film work on all 10 sacks, but I’ve already isolated four sacks that were one-on-one beatdowns by the edge rusher. Not to mention, criticizing a player for getting a ‘hustle sack’ is so foolish it’s almost beyond reproach. If anything, a ‘hustle sack’ seems to be the most repeatable type of sack.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roswell on Mar 30, 2020 7:56:50 GMT -5
Hard to see a scenario where the Giants sign Golden before the draft.
What if Young is there? It’s not like teams are beating down his door.
|
|
|
|
Post by TCHOF on Mar 30, 2020 8:15:41 GMT -5
But what edge rusher could you not say the same about? I’ve yet to do the complete film work on all 10 sacks, but I’ve already isolated four sacks that were one-on-one beatdowns by the edge rusher. Not to mention, criticizing a player for getting a ‘hustle sack’ is so foolish it’s almost beyond reproach. If anything, a ‘hustle sack’ seems to be the most repeatable type of sack. My favorite quote from the article is "I've yet to do the complete film work on all 10 sacks". lol … what? You couldn't bother to watch all ten plays before writing this article? Absolutely absurd. |
|
|
|
Post by GameTime on Mar 30, 2020 8:25:23 GMT -5
But what edge rusher could you not say the same about? I’ve yet to do the complete film work on all 10 sacks, but I’ve already isolated four sacks that were one-on-one beatdowns by the edge rusher. Not to mention, criticizing a player for getting a ‘hustle sack’ is so foolish it’s almost beyond reproach. If anything, a ‘hustle sack’ seems to be the most repeatable type of sack. My favorite quote from the article is "I've yet to do the complete film work on all 10 sacks". lol … what? You couldn't bother to watch all ten plays before writing this article? Absolutely absurd. yep.... but for me the bare bones is 10 sacks is not an empty stat as some may think. Golden is not some sack master but he is a good/very good player overall. Would certainly like to see him back on the NYGs for the right deal. |
|
|
|
Post by TCHOF on Mar 30, 2020 8:41:20 GMT -5
My favorite quote from the article is "I've yet to do the complete film work on all 10 sacks". lol … what? You couldn't bother to watch all ten plays before writing this article? Absolutely absurd. yep.... but for me the bare bones is 10 sacks is not an empty stat as some may think. Golden is not some sack master but he is a good/very good player overall. Would certainly like to see him back on the NYGs for the right deal. I agree … 10 sacks is 10 sacks. There is value in a 10 sack player, no matter how the sacks were accomplished |
|
