Mike Sando of the Athletic is well-connected among NFL brass. He just released an article with comments from NFL execs about what teams did in free agency. Here are the quotes (if you subscribe you can go to the posted link for the rest)
Quote"I actually like the stuff that they did," an exec said. "Saquon is a good back, but you are talking about a running back. (Devin) Singletary is going to produce as much as Saquon did for them at a fraction of the cost. They may get a better version of Brian Burns than Carolina was getting, because there is a human element to it. You don't like where you are playing, you are not having success, it affects you."
Whether Burns finds team success with the Giants could depend on what happens at quarterback.
"The narrative there can't be that their defense took a step back without Wink (Martindale), because if that happens, the media is going to say, 'See, the head coach is unable to do this, that and the other,'" an exec said. "I see Brian Burns giving the new coordinator a chance at having a better defense than Wink had, which I think matters there, given where they are at and all that has happened."
https://theathletic.com/5382676/2024/04/03/nfl-free-agency-best-worst-insiders-reactions/
That's a Grand Canyon-sized leap, IMO.
I mean, which acquisitions are attributed to the GM and which are attributed to the HC? It's the GM's job to acquire talent for the coach to use to get wins on the field.
I have a hard time believing Schoen and Daboll are making moves because of the Ghost of Wink, or what the media might say.
Quote from: T200 on April 03, 2024, 11:34:53 AMThat's a Grand Canyon-sized leap, IMO.
I mean, which acquisitions are attributed to the GM and which are attributed to the HC? It's the GM's job to acquire talent for the coach to use to get wins on the field.
I have a hard time believing Schoen and Daboll are making moves because of the Ghost of Wink, or what the media might say.
I agree. Isn't it far more likely they acquired Burns because, as we saw last year, this is a team that's currently built to win with defense rather than offense because they don't have a QB worth a crap so therefor let's make this defense as great as it possibly can be so they can win a few more games while Jones screws around again or they draft a rookie QB who has some growing pains of his own?
Doesn't that seem far more reasonable of an explanation than some sort of conspiracy theory about trying to make sure the media doesn't take Wink's side in the divorce?
I agree with Tim - a wild "" guess that's really out there
Here's my take FWIW...teams were no longer asking about Burns after the Panthers turned down two 1st round picks, and a 2nd rd pick last year. The rest of the league knew the offer and said, "forget that..."
The Giants were just doing their due diligence and inquiring. I'm sure initially, the cost was too high for the Giants, but they were only team sniffing around this year as the Panthers were looking to go in a new direction. After the Giants walked away from the first proposal, the Panthers came running back to the bargaining table, and now the Giants had the upper hand. They haggled and finally came up with a 2nd round pick and next year's 5th rd pick, for Burns. I suspect that pissed off every team in the NFL for not inquiring about Burns' availability...lol
My guess is that there is not a single team that wouldn't have made that deal in a heartbeat...and I would also bet the ranch that the Panthers wish they had taken the Rams offer that was on the table last year
Bottom line: Giants were at the right place at the right time and they were smart enough to pull the trigger
For the record, I have heard at least five teams approached the Panthers about acquiring Brian Burns.
As to the question- I don't know. I mean, it is just speculation, but in light of the ham-handed smear campaign the Giants ran after Wink's departure, it seems readily apparent the Giants are very image-conscious when it comes to the whole situation. I could see NYG being concerned about a drop in the defense, especially as they traded away Leo and let McKinney and Jackson walk. Plus the change at DC could mean some of the current players will be less than ideal for the new scheme.
Quote from: MightyGiants on April 03, 2024, 12:07:41 PMFor the record, I have heard at least five teams approached the Panthers about acquiring Brian Burns.
As to the question- I don't know. I mean, it is just speculation, but in light of the ham-handed smear campaign the Giants ran after Wink's departure, it seems readily apparent the Giants are very image-conscious when it comes to the whole situation. I could see NYG being concerned about a drop in the defense, especially as they traded away Leo and let McKinney and Jackson walk. Plus the change at DC could mean some of the current players will be less than ideal for the new scheme.
As well they should be. And I don't disagree with that take.
My contention is with the title of the thread, that it could be a way to 'protect' Daboll.
Quote from: MightyGiants on April 03, 2024, 12:07:41 PMFor the record, I have heard at least five teams approached the Panthers about acquiring Brian Burns.
As to the question- I don't know. I mean, it is just speculation, but in light of the ham-handed smear campaign the Giants ran after Wink's departure, it seems readily apparent the Giants are very image-conscious when it comes to the whole situation. I could see NYG being concerned about a drop in the defense, especially as they traded away Leo and let McKinney and Jackson walk. Plus the change at DC could mean some of the current players will be less than ideal for the new scheme.
I would like to know what those other five teams were offering. I believe the Panthers could have gotten a whole lot more than a 2nd, and next year's 5th. Especially after turning down a package of two 1sts and a 2nd :-??
Quote from: Jolly Blue Giant on April 03, 2024, 12:30:52 PMI would like to know what those other five teams were offering. I believe the Panthers could have gotten a whole lot more than a 2nd, and next year's 5th. Especially after turning down a package of two 1sts and a 2nd :-??
I heard it said the draft compensation for Burns is more of a "toll" than a "trade" since the team acquiring Burns would have to sign him to a big-ticket contract. If you view it in those teams, I think the Giants were pretty generous with their offer.
Seems a bit silly to me to say improving the roster is somehow maneuvering to protect Daboll? Ostensibly the offense also needs to play better given how bad it was--does adding players to that side of the roster mean the Giants are trying to keep Daboll from being fired as well? Plenty to be critical of with this team. This is kind of meaningless nothing to me.
This is the lying season. Maybe it's the silly season also
No they acquired him to win games like all trades and draft picks are intended to do.
Quote from: MightyGiants on April 03, 2024, 10:40:37 AMMike Sando of the Athletic is well-connected among NFL brass. He just released an article with comments from NFL execs about what teams did in free agency. Here are the quotes (if you subscribe you can go to the posted link for the rest)
https://theathletic.com/5382676/2024/04/03/nfl-free-agency-best-worst-insiders-reactions/
It's as if none of these guys has actually looked at the numbers and noticed how absolutely horrific "Wink's defense" was at defending the run. If the new DC can make improvement there (and while Burns is not noted as a run defender we have other guys - how can we have such a good interior line and be so poor at run defense?) the overall defense will improve significantly. You can't have a good defense if you can't stop the run, and in 2023 only one team gave up more YPC than the Giants. They were not a good defense in any sustainable way, so I say good riddance to Wink.
IMO Wink's defense looked better than it was on the strength of the +12 turover stat, which even if he stayed would have almost certainly regressed towards the mean. For comparison, the year before they were something like +2. High turnover ratio is not a sustainable basis for building a defense.
As to the quoted exec near the end, execs shouldn't be buying into narratives. Neither should we.
I appreciate that I am in a small minority because I was not a fan of the Brian Burns trade. I appreciate that, in a vacuum, the trade looks pretty good for the Giants. However, the trade isn't in a vacuum and has to be evaluated based on the conditions of the current Giants team.
I think the Giants trade would have been great if I believed this season was the start of the Giants Super Bowl run. However, I believe the Giants are still in the building/rebuilding phase. In that phase, you acquire more picks and try to save cap space rather than give away picks and pick up expensive contracts.
So, from my vantage point, I could see the theory put forth possibly being valid.
Quote from: MightyGiants on April 03, 2024, 01:23:52 PMI appreciate that I am in a small minority because I was not a fan of the Brian Burns trade. I appreciate that, in a vacuum, the trade looks pretty good for the Giants. However, the trade isn't in a vacuum and has to be evaluated based on the conditions of the current Giants team.
I think the Giants trade would have been great if I believed this season was the start of the Giants Super Bowl run. However, I believe the Giants are still in the building/rebuilding phase. In that phase, you acquire more picks and try to save cap space rather than give away picks and pick up expensive contracts.
So, from my vantage point, I could see the theory put forth possibly being valid.
With competent QB play, and that's a huge caveat I know, I think the Giants are closer to a playoff team than they are to the top 5. So if they can get Jones to just not be truly terrible or draft a rookie that provides even average play at QB, I think the Giants are starting to open their window. If they don't draft a QB and they let Jones continue to stink it up for another 3 years then absolutely this trade is stupid. I just don't think they plan on doing that.
Everybody's flavour of the month Texans maybe show us there is more than one path to competitiveness.
They first got competent on D but were held back by sub-standard QB and O playmakers bar one stud WR drafted and a FA RB. Then they got the QB. Now they are building out the pass catchers and pass rush. I suspect they will try to add one or two more DB playmakers in draft.
That is why I want Giants to invest on DT and DB on day 2 and 3 in this draft. Field a solid D first. If a QB we like is there R1 take him. If not, take the stud WR. Accumulate good players and use every option like the Texans did over three FA/draft (incl. this year) cycles.
Quote from: Gmo11 on April 03, 2024, 01:37:50 PMWith competent QB play, and that's a huge caveat I know, I think the Giants are closer to a playoff team than they are to the top 5. So if they can get Jones to just not be truly terrible or draft a rookie that provides even average play at QB, I think the Giants are starting to open their window. If they don't draft a QB and they let Jones continue to stink it up for another 3 years then absolutely this trade is stupid. I just don't think they plan on doing that.
I am not optimistic that the Giants will be able to land a franchise QB, nor am I optimistic that Daniel Jones can stay healthy for a full season.
I also don't think the Giants have enough blue-chip (top 5) and red-chip (top 10) to be a Super Bowl contender
I think the Burns move was to try and match personnel with the new DC.
Its amazing the Giants finished last year at +12 in turnover margin (tied for 1st in the NFL with the Ravens) and still were a bottom feeder. 31 takeaways (most by the defense not STs) is probably the best stat the defense had, sure hope they can come close to replicating that in 2024. Would be a huge boost to even a mediocre offense if they can improve it that much.
Quote from: londonblue on April 03, 2024, 02:03:21 PMEverybody's flavour of the month Texans maybe show us there is more than one path to competitiveness.
They first got competent on D but were held back by sub-standard QB and O playmakers bar one stud WR drafted and a FA RB. Then they got the QB. Now they are building out the pass catchers and pass rush. I suspect they will try to add one or two more DB playmakers in draft.
That is why I want Giants to invest on DT and DB on day 2 and 3 in this draft. Field a solid D first. If a QB we like is there R1 take him. If not, take the stud WR. Accumulate good players and use every option like the Texans did over three FA/draft (incl. this year) cycles.
The other thing the Texans did (and seems common among contenders) is they had a draft for the ages last season:
TIER 1: TEAMS THAT WON THE LOTTERY
1. Houston Texans
Total rookie snaps: 4,208
Notable rookies
• QB C.J. Stroud (80.2 passing grade, 4,770 yards, 26 big-time throws, 26 touchdowns, 8.1 yards per attempt)
• Edge Will Anderson Jr. (76.6 pass-rush grade, 17.0% pressure rate)
• WR Tank Dell (2.32 yards per route run, 83.3 receiving grade)
• C Jarrett Patterson (53.7 pass-block grade, 62.9 run-block grade)
• G Juice Scruggs (48.9 pass-block grade, 50.8 run-block grade)
Had the Texans drafted only C.J. Stroud, they would still probably lead this list. With Tank Dell and Will Anderson Jr. also enjoying good seasons, there is no doubt that they must be put first — and in their own tier — on this ranking.
https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-ranking-the-nfls-most-productive-2023-rookie-draft-classes-from-1-to-32
Quote from: MightyGiants on April 03, 2024, 01:23:52 PMI appreciate that I am in a small minority because I was not a fan of the Brian Burns trade. I appreciate that, in a vacuum, the trade looks pretty good for the Giants. However, the trade isn't in a vacuum and has to be evaluated based on the conditions of the current Giants team.
I think the Giants trade would have been great if I believed this season was the start of the Giants Super Bowl run. However, I believe the Giants are still in the building/rebuilding phase. In that phase, you acquire more picks and try to save cap space rather than give away picks and pick up expensive contracts.
So, from my vantage point, I could see the theory put forth possibly being valid.
You've also made it very clear where you place the blame in the Daboll-Wink situation so it's hard not to think that this doesn't greatly influence your vantage point. It's one thing to say you disagree with the Burns acquisition. It's quite another to ascribe to the notion that the motive for the acquisition was to protect Daboll vis a vis the Wink defense.
Quote from: AZGiantFan on April 03, 2024, 04:03:58 PMYou've also made it very clear where you place the blame in the Daboll-Wink situation so it's hard not to think that this doesn't greatly influence your vantage point. It's one thing to say you disagree with the Burns acquisition. It's quite another to ascribe to the notion that the motive for the acquisition was to protect Daboll vis a vis the Wink defense.
It was an NFL executive that suggested it, I just think it's plausible
I am glad Wink is gone. There is obviously a ton of things for Daboll to improve on but when all is said and done your boss is your boss and Wink had trouble with that. His boundary pushing got handled one way in Baltimore by a very strong, established and respected GM-HC pairing on a perennial winning team. It was more disruptive and difficult for a relatively new HC on a team having a let down season. Time to let go of the past and get behind the present.
Quote from: T200 on April 03, 2024, 11:34:53 AMThat's a Grand Canyon-sized leap, IMO.
I mean, which acquisitions are attributed to the GM and which are attributed to the HC? It's the GM's job to acquire talent for the coach to use to get wins on the field.
I have a hard time believing Schoen and Daboll are making moves because of the Ghost of Wink, or what the media might say.
I have to agree with T200. If Martindale was still here, does Schoen not make this deal? Secondly, they have not yet played a game without Martindale, so how do we know the defense took a step back? New D Coordinator may be better than Martindale. I think this was a case of an exec maybe "thinking out loud" or spitballing/brainstorming to himself and the reporter went with it.
Lots of unsubstantiated reaching from the article and the thread.
But it's a slow time of year.
The Giants traded for Burns because they believe he will help win them games.
Call it, cockadoodle or horse bleep, whatever you wish, but that stuff about Burns and Daboll is nonsense which, like most such, has achieved the only real goal for which it was intended. Had he not brought up the issue of Wink's Bottom 5 Giants Defense, it might have gotten at least some traction.
Cheers!
Rich: IMO the Giants acquired Brian Burns because he's the type of free agent you want to acquire and who generally is near-impossible to acquire (coming off rookie contract after being a top, or near-top player in the league). It's just that simple. Bob
Quote from: Painter on April 04, 2024, 02:29:41 PMCall it, cockadoodle or horse bleep, whatever you wish, but that stuff about Burns and Daboll is nonsense which, like most such, has achieved the only real goal for which it was intended. Had he not brought up the issue of Wink's Bottom 5 Giants Defense, it might have gotten at least some traction.
Cheers!
It IS a little remarkable to have the best turnover ratio in the league and still have a bottom 5 defense. I, for one, won't miss Wink.
Quote from: AZGiantFan on April 04, 2024, 05:04:31 PMIt IS a little remarkable to have the best turnover ratio in the league and still have a bottom 5 defense. I, for one, won't miss Wink.
And, IIRC, wasn't it Daboll who prompted/suggested Wink play less man and more zone that resulted in the increased turnovers?
I find it more remarkable that they got all those turnovers and had one of the worst offenses in the NFL.