Accumulating draft capital is always good in my mind as the so-called quality at the top often does not correlate to NFL success. Love the more bites at the apple strategy.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Show posts MenuQuote from: MightyGiants on April 18, 2024, 11:59:15 AMTake Eli Manning:
Here are Manning's stats by year. Consider two years. In 2014, the Giants added OBJ, and in 2018, the Giants added Barkley. Look at Eli's QB rating, and QBR jumps from the two additions. The addition of OBJ had a much greater impact on Eli's production than the addition of Barkley. Be mindful that early in his career, Barkley was a much bigger weapon in the passing game.
Quote from: Jclayton92 on April 18, 2024, 10:02:25 AMSo then we haven't been wasting Slayton, and we didn't waste Hyatts rookie year?
Any other team and Slayton is a 1000 yard wr every year and a solid #2. Any other team and Hyatt has a productive rookie year.
Yes a little has to do with the oline but if the qb refuses to go downfield then there's really nothing anyone else can do. Because Slayton and Hyatt ran open a lot last season because teams knew we wouldn't go deep.
Quote from: uconnjack8 on April 18, 2024, 10:35:06 AMSlayton is a solid stretch the defense guy. He is not a #1 or X or however you want to state it. As the Giants leading receiver in 4 of the last 5 years, he is being covered by guys that cover #1s and has still been productive on a team that hasnt had good pass protection or consistent QB play. I think he is trade bait at some point, be it during the draft or afterwards.
There are some teams with good QBs who are currently lacking WR talent and if they get their #1 in the draft, he could be an excellent complement. Or if they lose out on a 3rd rounder they coveted.
At the same time I dont think the Giants should give him a multi-year deal with 50% or more guaranteed.
Quote from: AZGiantFan on April 17, 2024, 06:55:13 PMReported to be 9-7/8".
Quote from: Stringer Bell on April 17, 2024, 05:58:42 PMNo, I think the D was bad all on their own.
Yes, the offense was awful. But this is what I've been saying for months. This team from top to bottom stinks - offense, defense, specials.
It's why trading draft picks isn't wise. It's why thinking that a 21-year-old QB is going to make a difference is illogical. And it's why we can't repeat the fallacy of 2022 that this is a multi-year rebuild.
That's why they should avoid drafting QB4. Ideally, they would trade down with Minn or LV, draft a WR, RT, and CB with 3 top 50 picks. Hope to get lucky with a RB and OG in the 3rd and 4th. And focus on development and progress this year.
After this season, move on from DJ, add 3 more starters from next year's draft class, and now you have the makings of a competitive team.
I'd rather roll the dice with a Geno-type QB in 2025 with extra starters and a competitive roster than take a chance on a rookie QB with a crap roster.
Quote from: AZGiantFan on April 17, 2024, 04:04:53 PMI don't buy that excuse either because there was no great disparity in TOP. 29.26 on offense and 30.34 on defense. And the Giants offense did not give up an inordinate number of turnovers, 12th fewest in the league.
It's easy to say ignore stats and go by the eye test, but stats impose a discipline on the eye test. They confirm or challenge what you think the eye test is showing you.
I think the offense was so bad that by comparison the defense LOOKED better than it actually was. Then you have to come up with 'eye test' reasons why the defense was better than it was, but when those eye test reasons are assessed by the discipline of stats they aren't born out.
My conclusion is that the defense was bad. Not as horrifically bad as the offense, but bad nonetheless. And that they were bad because they were bad, not because the offense was bad. The offense managed to hold the ball half the time, so the defense wasn't (or shouldn't have been) exhausted. The offense gave up fewer than average turnovers. As for the '3&out" argument, the offense was just below average in average # of plays, so that doesn't wash either.
Just to clarify, this is in response both you and @philosopher.