News:

Moderation Team: Vette, babywhales, Bob In PA, gregf, bighitterdalama, beaugestus, T200

Owner: MightyGiants

Link To Live Chat

Mastodon

Main Menu
Menu

Show posts

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 Menu

Messages - ViewFromSection129

#1
Defensive zone play in the 3rd was atrocious, but considering they are down three defensemen, likely not a shock that things might be catching up with them and Igor's ability to always bail them out.  That they keep finding ways to win though is huge.  As is the walking wounded coming back soon to fortify the defense.
#2
This rule change will be a major victory for the receiving team in terms of starting position, but will likely cut down on long returns.

First of all, a kicker that puts it into the end zone will almost certainly be downed no matter what.  Even if it is an inch in the end zone, as it goes to the 35.  With the kicking team starting at the 40, why would you ever return a kick.

Secondly, a return man will almost certainly get to the 25 or so before even having a tackle attempted on him.  He will be quicker than most of the kicking team, so if a kicker is reasonably accurate and gets it to the 5, the midpoint would be around the 22 yard line, but that is assuming the kicking players are just as fast (only a few will be) and that there are no blockers, both of which aren't true.

Third, most guys can cover a kick and go 40 yards in an average of what, say 4.5 or so seconds?  So under the old rules, you would be around the opponent 25 before the ball is caught (assuming 4-5 seconds of hang time for the kick), and have a full head of steam.  Now they will be at the 40 and stationary.  So again, big advantage for the receiving team.

This all said, because players aren't scattered all over the field under the old rules, it seems to me that long returns will be harder to make, but starting position will be better.

I also want to see how squib kicks are handled.  No real way to do that and slow down a returner, or to kick it to a slower guy and prevent a return, under the new rules.
#3
Quote from: babywhales on March 19, 2024, 10:27:45 AMCould be as simple as lacking the mental discipline for the NFL, he abandons his technique when under duress.

Or it could be poor coaching, Bobby Johnson was horrible and has been horrible for the majority of his career.

Or it could be the scheme, I have read Daboll asks Olineman to use a mix of zone and man:man blocking that can be very hard for certain players to implement.

Either way the guy is a mess on the field more than not
 

I'm hoping it is scheme or coaching.  Which is what I have questioned about the Giants for awhile.  We blame the draft for a lot, and rightly so, but I feel like we are not getting the most out of our players.  But I have not done an analysis on this, it is just more of an opinion than based on hard facts.
#4
I trust the Giants QB evaluations.  The problem with QB is that I really doubt the Giants see all four QB's being talked about at the top of round 1 to be interchangeable.  So, if they want a QB, they almost certainly need to try and move up.  You can't wait and hope your guy drops, as the opportunity cost is so high on QB.  So if we stay at six, I have to assume that they want another position other than QB, or are hoping one falls and they can trade out and pick up more picks.  Playing chicken when you want a QB isn't the right move.

This all said, I don't see JJ as a top six pick.  I would not be thrilled with picking him.
#5
I have no idea why Schoen would say that.  Jones has not shown enough to have that degree of confidence.  While not a blatantly open competition, at least give guys a chance to compete.  Hell, Fields should have been considered too.

All this said, I would now be surprised if the Giants went QB.  I know this all could be a smokescreen, and sure, a new draft pick could easily replace Tommy Cutlets, but I don't get the idea of signing a young vet to come here, even on a short contract, if we are going QB in the draft.
#6
I don't get Neal at all.  He was considered as close to a sure thing as there was.  Not necessarily to be a superstar, but to at least be a very good tackle.  And he came from a top school.  Something is amiss here.
#7
Big Blue Huddle / Re: The "Buffalo" Model
March 19, 2024, 10:14:51 AM
Quote from: WheresDayne on March 19, 2024, 09:50:50 AMThe Pats model was have Brady, be in a terrible division and build a great defense.  Guaranteed 5-6 wins in division, go 5-5 versus the rest of the league and you instantly have 10-11 wins and a shot at home field and a bye.  Worked for 10 years.  I think Buffalo could do the same thing.

This is a great take and very underreported. In the Tom Brady years, the Pats won 76% of their games, while every other team in the AFC East was under .500, with an average of 44%.  The Patriots had 18 years of double digit wins (95% of the time), and more than 10 wins in every year since 2003, while no other team had more than 5 years of double digit wins (all other teams on average had double digit wins 19% of the time). The Bills were below 10 wins in all years other than 10 wins in Brady's last Patriots year. So, while not trying to denigrate Belichick or Brady, The Patriots benefited quite significantly from a very weak division.
#8
Big Blue Huddle / Re: Restricted free agent update
March 13, 2024, 02:25:02 PM
Amazing that this team has sucked for a decade, but every year, we are up against the cap.
#9
Big Blue Huddle / Re: Rate the Brian Burns trade
March 13, 2024, 11:10:19 AM
I rated it a 4.  I don't love that contract, mostly because how long will it be before the Giants are legitimate contenders?  Before the massive step back last year, I thought that if Jones, etc kept progressing off of two years ago, maybe the Giants could make some noise this year. Now, forget that.  So, will Burns be 30 before we can legitimately compete?  Will he even be on the team by then, or be a cap casualty?

We are essentially rebuilding, so I would much rather draft than spend big bucks on FA's. 
#10
Big Blue Huddle / Re: The Rebuild Finally Begins
March 11, 2024, 04:40:14 PM
  If this is truly a rebuild, then we really should draft a QB.  Assuming that they like one of the top ones.  This all said, sounds like at least three will go before we pick.  I would rather go for one of the top WRs anyway.  Or maybe trade down if someone offers a lot.  We really need to start to accumulate picks and build this team.  Again. 

  Wow this franchise has really fallen a long way.  We have pretty much been a bad franchise for over thirty years now except for a few random years, as well as the early to mid Eli years.  We literally have had losing seasons 50% of the time since SB 25. Not acceptable.
#11
Big Blue Huddle / Re: Barkley to the Iggles
March 11, 2024, 04:35:59 PM
I'm surprised people are so pissed at Saquon.  I really don't care about this one way or another.  By the time the Giants are good again, Barkley would be at least 30.  So his timeline doesn't match the Giants.  I do agree with the post above about why didn't we trade him at the deadline last season then.  Schoen had to know that he was not likely to retain him this season, so why keep him in a bad year?

To another post above about Schoen, I do agree that the plan that he and Daboll have is coming into massive question. We lost the best offensive weapon we have and are left with a damaged QB that isn't worth half his contract.  Schoen better start executing a plan and fast.
#12
I don't want just another WR... I want an impact WR.  If the Giants think Harrison, Nabers, or Odunze are that stud WR, they would be foolish to pass him up.  If they think that they can get that in round 2 or 3, then go another direction in round 1, even trading down if they don't like the QBs.

I keep hearing how deep WR is, and that is fine, but if the top guys are legitimately thought of like Jefferson, Chase, or equivalent, then why wouldn't we draft one there, no matter what our QB situation is?  I want the Giants to identify talent and go for it, whether the position is deep in the draft or not.
#13
Big Blue Huddle / Re: NGT - Jason Kelce Retires
March 04, 2024, 04:26:37 PM
  I hate the Eagles, but really hard to not like him after seeing him with no shirt on partying during the one playoff game and enjoying time with fans.  Seems like a good guy.

  I will be interested to see how effective the Brotherly Shove is going forward without him.  He was a big part of the success of that play, along with the massive quads of Hurts of course.
#14
I think his board sets up perfectly for us.  My personal preference is one of the WRs, as I am honestly not sure what to make of the QBs and how good they are.  But in the end, one of those 6 should be the pick.  I like Bowers, but I think six is too high and not our biggest issue.  And I don't want to draft an OT and move to RT.  We tried that already.  We can get a RT later in the draft, as the OT depth I think is pretty good for the first three rounds or so.
#15
Big Blue Huddle / Re: DJ's top 50 1.0
January 31, 2024, 02:14:47 PM
  This doesn't change my view that we need to go QB or WR at pick 6.  It is where the value is.  I don't want to take an OT and try to switch him to RT (if they wanted to move Neal inside).  I think six is a bit too high for Bowers and not nearly our biggest problem.  If one of the QBs or Harrison, Odunze, or Nabers were the pick, I would be more than happy with that.