Big Blue Huddle

I'm no football savant by any means, but I think big players hate facing short guys as they don't line up well. Probably the best DT in the last decade was said to be "too short" to succeed at the next level...his name? Aaron Donald (6'05", 280 lbs)

Not that this guy is another Aaron Donald, but one should concentrate more on the size of the heart, than the size of the body. Last year, analysts said that LB Ivan Pace Jr. was the "best linebacker" in the draft, but he was "too short" and didn't fit the ideal NFL size. Pace didn't even get drafted. The Vikings picked him up as an UDFA, and he went on to win 1st Team NFL Rookie and other awards throughout and after the season https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/ivan-pace-jr-an-emerging-superstar/ar-AA1kUCcp

History is littered with examples, and there is an enormous amount of NFL duds and washouts who possessed the "ideal NFL body for a position"

Flott has had 3 years to add muscle and weight. Yet, he is still being judged by his 19-year-old college body. That's the one thing that never gets fixed on the internet...they stick with the last documented weight, speed, strength, etc., which usually comes from the combine or the player's pro-day. Virtually none of the guys at 25/26 could duplicate the numbers they put up in a combine (except strength). Three years in the NFL changes a player in every way imaginable. And speed doesn't get better; however, ability to anticipate and read what is unfolding during a play gets much better

Flott has good instincts and has a football mind. Give him a chance to prove himself before relying on college data that no longer applies. Pretty much dittos with every player in the NFL. Hence the reason so many players who get drafted fail in the NFL...they didn't prepare themselves physically, mentally, and possess the personal drive for taking the next step in their athletic career...and it's a damn big step

The Giants seemed to have gone the longest without one

Quote from: Trench on May 12, 2024, 12:55:25 PMI will clarify as u are correct - Jones AND the other QBs. Certainly don't wanna upset the jones or bust club

Being factually correct and not unfairly bashing the Giants' starting quarterback would be enough incentive, but okay. 

Quote from: Jclayton92 on May 12, 2024, 01:16:26 PM"So, perhaps unfairly, he lands here, capped, in a way, by the lingering uncertainty around what Daniel Jones will bring to the table."

Where in that is there hate? You automatically assume he is speaking to Jones play when he could simply be speaking about his health. So without knowing the context it is beyond ridiculous to assume the guy is slamming Jones.

The author brings up major players for every team that the player is going to. They bring up A Rodgers on the Hassan Reddick trade, all the Titans offensive weapons when discussing the Sneed trade, and so on. Jones was not singled out or treated any different than anyone else in the article.

Lingering uncertainty to what Jones brings to the table is more than likely referring to his health.

I saw both you and @DaveBrown74 bring up injuries.  That seems to be an invention to let the author off the hook, though, as the author never suggested he had injury concerns.  He said "limitations," which implies talent, rather than "uncertainty," which one might claim is an injury issue (even if the author never mentioned injury concerns

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on May 12, 2024, 11:20:04 AMMy original point was that you had people on this forum saying the Giants were going to be "something special" in 2023 based on their observations over the summer through the preseason, and that the eventual reality on the ground was in stark contrast to that. I further noted that that disconnect has occurred plenty of times in the past, both with us and with other fan bases around the league. I specifically noted the disconnect between the intense optimism seen here and the woefully poor performance in week one, which is generally the most reflective week of how well prepared the team was over the various stages of camp and the preseason.

You seemed to disagree with (and want to discredit) my observation by pointing out that Waller, who played the whole game and for another 7 weeks after that, wasn't 100% perfectly healthy and that Andrew Thomas missed some of the game. I personally don't agree that those two issues are why we lost 40-0 or that had every relevant member of the team been 100% healthy (an extreme rarity for any NFL team in any game), that things would have been dramatically different in that game.

To me that game illustrated a lack of preparation of the team and also the team's lack of overall talent and depth. To isolate one or two injuries, even to starters, simply does not debunk the above.

Andrew Thomas did more than just "miss part of the game", he got on the FG attempt that ended the first drive.  Why understate the magnitude of Thomas' injury and its impact on the game?

Quote from: Philosophers on May 12, 2024, 01:22:39 PMGuys - almost all of the pressure in the Dallas game came from the right side of the OL.  Thomas and Waller would not have mattered.  Neal got destroyed by 9 tech edges and 5-7 tech twists.

That is true.  Although once Thomas was injured, the Giants could no longer afford to send the O-line help to Neal and leave Thomas on an island

Quote from: CVA14 on May 12, 2024, 01:15:03 PMMighty your first para  suggests that except for his height he has the raw material to become a pass rusher, doesn't it

He's a bit of a longshot, but he might eventually prove to be a rotational pass rusher

Quote from: MightyGiants on May 12, 2024, 11:11:35 AMI am not sure what the point of that extreme binary question is.   Are you suggesting the offense wouldn't have looked significantly better with their two most important players healthy?

Guys - almost all of the pressure in the Dallas game came from the right side of the OL.  Thomas and Waller would not have mattered.  Neal got destroyed by 9 tech edges and 5-7 tech twists.