Addressed the offensive line?
To me this feels like past off-seasons where we were all so thirsty for a functional OL that we got excited over middling signings.
I think most of those signings were depth, and that we still need Day 1 & day 2 OL.
#tradedown
#weneedmorepicks
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I understand why you feel that way. There has been so many attempts at fixing the OL over the last decade that its hard for me to think it will really get better until I actually see it.
I will say the two 1st day signings both had good grades for their pass blocking. I think that there is even a theme of what they are targeting is a plus. Further, both have successful starting experience.
Then there is the coaching change. Hopefully the new coaches are the right guys for the role as well.
My answer is once again the Giants "addressed" it, but I don't think they fixed it. And that is why I would like to see our round 1 pick used on the O-line.
Hope springs eternal. At this time of the year, that's really all we have.
We can't say Schoen hasn't addressed it. We can't say Daboll hasn't addressed it from a coaching staff standpoint. It's up to the coaches to do their part in teaching and the players have to learn and execute.
I am definitely hopeful. The issue has not been ignored. Even though most of the new offensive linemen aren't flashy or top 10 signings, I care more about how they function as a unit. It's time for the rubber to meet the road.
Quote from: andrew_nyGiants on March 27, 2024, 12:33:43 PMAddressed the offensive line?
To me this feels like past off-seasons where we were all so thirsty for a functional OL that we got excited over middling signings.
I think most of those signings were depth, and that we still need Day 1 & day 2 OL.
#tradedown
#weneedmorepicks
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
andrew: No one knows, but I believe the two guards we just got in free-agency are better than the last time they signed free-agent guards. I don't know for sure if the one guy will play guard or if he'll have to take over for Neal, because IMO Neal is still a wild card. Bob
The Giants won't be addressing the Oline on day one of the draft unless they trade down. The reason to trade down would be if there were higher value players that were not of need when they picked at 6. They technically don't have a pressing need but they could use an upgrade at QB and WR. The top two WR talent is better than all the QBs but they have a shorter shelf life than the QB position, so that has to be weighed.
So, what you're proposing with consistency and conviction is to draft for need or rather for Team Building. Some prescribe that approach. Some look to draft for BPA in a position of need (Insert Todge's picture here). The true purists propose drafting strictly the Best Player Available, period. (Accorsi, "You can't have too many pass rushers")
I believe Schoen is of the second group. So, Andrew, I'll ask you this... Do you believe that Alt is close enough to the talent of the top three-Four QBs and the top three WRs to drop down a few slots, pick Alt, and get another 2nd and 3rd? There is the value of getting two more picks, so if your answer is yes, then you're spot on. If no, then you give up on a potential Franchise QB or a Generational WR., but you make the overall team stronger. I wouldn't disagree. It may not be my choice, but I wouldn't disagree.
To answer your question, no. They aren't finished yet. One more day 1-2 player. I wouldn't go past the second round.
Ed, my answer to your question is YES.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Ed,
Great post. My problem with drafting an OT that early ( I don't think its a bad idea) is that if they can get adequate OL play from the current group, then adding a true #1 WR gives a better bang for the buck IMO.
The problem is we really cannot say that they will get adequate play. Having outstanding bookend tackles is definitely a positive and would improve the team. Just think having adequate line play with the benefit of a star WR today gives the team the bigger boost.
One of my issues with my line of thinking is that I feel there are some WRs that will be around on day 2 that could turn into a true #1. And WRs these days tend to be easier to find than OTs. At the same time it's a really deep OT class. :hmm:
Quote from: andrew_nyGiants on March 27, 2024, 12:33:43 PMAddressed the offensive line?
To me this feels like past off-seasons where we were all so thirsty for a functional OL that we got excited over middling signings.
I think most of those signings were depth, and that we still need Day 1 & day 2 OL.
#tradedown
#weneedmorepicks
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I am at a point where I will believe that the O-line is fixed when I SEE it is fixed. As for throwing more draft resources, they already have 2 high first-rounders, a 2nd rounder, a 3 rounder, a 5th rounder, and a bunch of just-signed free agents. I am not sure if throwing yet more resources will actually fix the problem.
That said, it wouldn't shock me to see one of the 6 picks being an offensive lineman (I would be surprised if it's in round one, but any other round). Likely that would be a guard or a lineman with guard/tackle flexibility
Quote from: MightyGiants on March 27, 2024, 02:38:55 PMI am at a point where I will believe that the O-line is fixed when I SEE it is fixed. As for throwing more draft resources, they already have 2 high first-rounders, a 2nd rounder, a 3 rounder, a 5th rounder, and a bunch of just-signed free agents. I am not sure if throwing yet more resources will actually fix the problem.
That said, it wouldn't shock me to see one of the 6 picks being an offensive lineman (I would be surprised if it's in round one, but any other round). Likely that would be a guard or a lineman with guard/tackle flexibility
I like what Ed had to say above; however, I'm tempering my expectations along the lines of not quite the "prove it to me it's fixed" mantra. Instead, it really is going to depend on how Daboll's offense integrates Carmen Bricillo's coaching capabilities into the overall offensive philosophy and, the flip side of that, how Bricillo adapts his coaching skillset to make his players more effective, individually and collectively, as an integrated function of a seamless offensive attack. It's one thing to say you don't have the players, another to say the players don't have the necessary skillsets, and yet another to say you don't have a coach who can both get the players to function as a working subsystem and integrated into the higher order system that is the offense. Further, it is the really good coaches who can get the best out of their players yet protect their vulnerabilities in the heat of the battle.
Nobody is asking Bricillo to be a Miracle Worker; however, he has to be able to make a cohesive unit which is capable of doing the job they're supposed to do. He's been given professionals from other teams who have a solid reputation and one whom he coached in his previous assignment. He has individual talent he is inheriting which vary from an All Pro-level Left Tackle, a young Center with great potential and a golden opportunity to make a name for himself in a reclamation project of a #7 draft pick who has greatly disappointed, lacks confidence and is at the crossroads. If I'm Bricillo, or any Offensive Line coach who believes in his methods, this is a golden opportunity to make a name for himself in the NFL. If he can resurrect this offensive line, he'll be in high demand for the rest of his career; that is his incentive lying in front of him.
It's not just the picks, the FA acquisitions or whether or not adding this or that player deems the project "fixed." Bricillo has the job to "fix" it as does Daboll in understanding the personnel, what they have, what they can and cannot do with them and formulating a strategy and season plan to utilize them in a manner that will be part of every game plan in 2024, and likely beyond.
My chips are on Bricillo and Daboll, especially.
Peace!
Eluemunor ranked 36/81 tackles last year
Runyan 21/63 guards
They are both solid NFL starters at those positions (and Eluemunor is at G also) and ranked far higher than those they might replace. The eye test of watching their film agrees. Solid guys. Importantly both are genuinely excited to be here. They will give us 100%.
Neither are elite but good O lines need five competent guys playing as a cohesive unit. We have a legitimate star in Thomas (but his injury impacted season ranked 18/81). If JMS can play closer to his draft we have 4 solid guys.
Then we have Neal, Ezeudu, McKethan, Stinnie, Schlottman, Nelson and assorted other leftovers to find a functional starting G/RT depending on where Eluemunor slots. We could certainly throw another day 3 pick into the mix and even a camp cut to boost depth if the 3 2022 draftees do not raise their game.
So, fixed? No. Significantly better? Probably.
I think they think they addressed it in FA. Focus is elsewhere.
We've been burned so many times I won't say the offensive line is fixed until they prove it on the field. I feel much better about our coaching and our starting five now than I did back in August, but I still don't know if JMS is going to be a quality NFL center and what Neal really is and at what position. An offense line with three good starters and two bad ones is still a bad offensive line.
I don't know what more we could have done to this point in FA. I guess we could have not done the trade for Burns and spent more on free agents, but I think it's hard to say we haven't addressed the O line when we haven't even seen the draft yet. We have thrown more than $15mm AAV a year at it already, we got what appears to be a material upgrade at the O line coaching position, and if we grab a couple more O line picks I'd say not only have we addressed it, but we have significantly addressed it. Whether it all works out is another story.
According to some folks here though our line wasn't even that bad last year EXCEPT when Jones was playing. Apparently they played decently well for the other two QBs. So maybe it's not as big of a problem as we think and Jones was just unlucky that they played really badly for only him.
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on March 27, 2024, 05:57:00 PMI don't know what more we could have done to this point in FA. I guess we could have not done the trade for Burns and spent more on free agents, but I think it's hard to say we haven't addressed the O line when we haven't even seen the draft yet. We have thrown more than $15mm AAV a year at it already, we got what appears to be a material upgrade at the O line coaching position, and if we grab a couple more O line picks I'd say not only have we addressed it, but we have significantly addressed it. Whether it all works out is another story.
According to some folks here though our line wasn't even that bad last year EXCEPT when Jones was playing. Apparently they played decently well for the other two QBs. So maybe it's not as big of a problem as we think and Jones was just unlucky that they played really badly for only him.
The Burns trade had the secondary effect of costing us a high second round draft pick that could have been used on a guard or swing tackle who would be expected to start. I'm fine with the move because we can't spend all our capital on one position, but I could see why some people weren't happy with the deal.
Gents,
To be clear. I'm not saying it hasn't been addressed (I am hopeful) but a bit skeptical.
What I'm asking is, was the FA haul the fix or the beginning of an overhaul topped off by strong draft picks?
I'm leaning toward the latter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Quote from: madbadger on March 27, 2024, 06:16:43 PMThe Burns trade had the secondary effect of costing us a high second round draft pick that could have been used on a guard or swing tackle who would be expected to start. I'm fine with the move because we can't spend all our capital on one position, but I could see why some people weren't happy with the deal.
We still have the other 2nd round pick though and will be able to get a quality IOL with that pick if we want to. I get that it's easier if we have both 39 and 47, but it's not like we relinquished our opportunity to use a 2nd rounder (a location where you should be able to get an upper echelon guard) on O line. Even pick number 70 can be used on O line, and you'd have a pretty decent chance of getting someone who can potentially start in that draft spot. I know everyone has a bad taste in their mouths from Ezeudu, but early third round is not a bad spot for IOL.
If we use our second or third round pick on a guard, and then perhaps find someone in the 5th or 6th round we like, I would view the offseason in its totality as having solidly addressed the O line. Whether it all works out is another question entirely.
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on March 27, 2024, 06:37:07 PMWe still have the other 2nd round pick though and will be able to get a quality IOL with that pick if we want to. I get that it's easier if we have both 39 and 47, but it's not like we relinquished our opportunity to use a 2nd rounder (a location where you should be able to get an upper echelon guard) on O line. Even pick number 70 can be used on O line, and you'd have a pretty decent chance of getting someone who can potentially start in that draft spot. I know everyone has a bad taste in their mouths from Ezeudu, but early third round is not a bad spot for IOL.
If we use our second or third round pick on a guard, and then perhaps find someone in the 5th or 6th round we like, I would view the offseason in its totality as having solidly addressed the O line. Whether it all works out is another question entirely.
I was coming at it from the point of view that with a second round pick you are expecting to get a starter and most of us feel like we need to come out of this draft with a receiver and a quarterback. Without that second pick in the second round the odds of landing all three successfully went down when we sent one to the Panthers to get Burns. Like I said I'm fine with it but could see people not liking it as much.
Quote from: madbadger on March 27, 2024, 06:59:08 PMI was coming at it from the point of view that with a second round pick you are expecting to get a starter and most of us feel like we need to come out of this draft with a receiver and a quarterback. Without that second pick in the second round the odds of landing all three successfully went down when we sent one to the Panthers to get Burns. Like I said I'm fine with it but could see people not liking it as much.
I could see that too. But I'd also say you're going to have a substantial contingent of disappointed fans at the end of April no matter what we do in the draft. We have way more holes than we can possibly plug up with quality players.
He o-line needs to figure it out. There's no way that this team dumps more resources into this line in rounds 1/2. Maybe you see something in round 3 but...
No, but that's beside the point. We've tried o-line first, QB second (or not at all) for several years now hoping DJ could hack it. He can't. I really don't need to spell out the definition of insanity here, do I?
Time to try it the other way around. Real quarterback on Day 1, offensive line afterwards.
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on March 27, 2024, 07:09:16 PMI could see that too. But I'd also say you're going to have a substantial contingent of disappointed fans at the end of April no matter what we do in the draft. We have way more holes than we can possibly plug up with quality players.
Yes but we got a good proven pass rusher for that 2nd. Solved one need.
Great discussion. I highly recommend everyone read this entire thread, not just post your view. Bob
The Raiders RT pickup in FA is the solution at RT unless Neals performs. We have insurance.