Big Blue Huddle

Do the players go home at night or do they all stay together at a hotel for the duration?

Thanks for the opportunity.

Q:  does John Mara understand that a portion of the fan base is increasingly seeing him as a big part of the team's problem?

Quote from: Bob In PA on May 02, 2017, 12:41:17 PM
We have pretty well worn out discussion of the first round of the draft, and maybe you've grown tired of talking about the draft as a whole, but if not.....

There's been a lot in the media and on this site about the importance and results in the second round.

Assume the Giants' choice in the 2nd round was between replacing Big Hank and bolstering the offensive line. 

Did they make the right decision, considering the players who were there at the time of the pick?

Bob

PS. My answer: They made the correct choice, both in the abstract and considering the players who they could have chosen. I liked both Tomlinson and Dawkins (as a tackle or guard) a lot, so that consideration was a "tie" IMO  The deciding factors were (a) defense wins championships; (b) stopping the run is a top-three objective in every game plan; and (c) I don't believe any offensive lineman who remained on the board, as a first year player, would have helped the team more than experienced players (no matter what you think of them) Hart, Flowers and Fluker.

I would add one other factor in DT's favor, likelihood of fitting the need.  Dawkins may turn out to be a tackle, and maybe even a left tackle, but there are certainly serious questions about that and he may end up as a guard.  He could end up a successful NFL player but be a bad fit, since we have lots of guards.  He would still help the team but not as much as he would if he was able to play tackle.  So there is some positional downside risk with Dawkins.

While we may have questions about what kind of DT DT becomes, if he is a successful NFL player then we know exactly what he will play and it is a position of absolute need.  There is no positional risk with DT whatsover.  If anything there is some positional upside, since there is at least a possibility that he can be more of a 3-tech than Hank was, which would help the already excellent pass rush.

Good points.  Drafting for need doesn't avoid the high failure rate the draft embodies. 

Or maybe the Giants learned, from past years, and are using disinformation to avoid having someone they really want snatched away by someone trading up ahead of them.

Hey, a guy can dream.

Quote from: jerseyguy on March 19, 2017, 10:44:22 AM
I have always felt that drafting BPA is a good rule for teams that are stacked with talent, but a hard rule to follow for teams with specific needs. Passing on a player who might be able to help your team at a position of need to take one who is rated higher at a position you already have a few good players might not be the way to go for a team like the Giants who have very specific needs...

The notion of BPA, though, is that it is the best thing for the team over time.  Teams that are constantly reaching to fill a need in the early rounds may think they are helping their team, but a) the team's needs can change very quickly, and b) the better players you passed up to fill that need will be the stars that you don't have.  And the next thing you know you are the Cleveland Browns.  There is also the fact that trying to fill a need with  a guy who has at least a 50% failure rate means you have a decent chance of not ending up with the best  player and STILL having that unmet need.

Quote from: jerseyguy on March 17, 2017, 04:26:18 PM
I know the talent is not what we would like to see in round 1 but we cannot forget the need on the O line at OT, if we don't fix the poor blocking we are set to play at the same level as last season, disastrous..

I think I am with you if either of the top 2 OTs is there at 23.  If not, BPA without excluding any positions.

Quote from: MightyGiants on March 15, 2017, 12:17:49 PM
I think this part explains the Giants reluctance to move Flowers and why Flowers would be a bad fit at Guard

That quote would support a point you have made in the past, to wit, the reduction in practice time under the CBA has played a role in overall oline play declining across the league.

The value of draft picks increased significantly with the addition of the rookie cap.  Parcell's comment made sense then, but not so much now. 

Quote from: Painter on March 13, 2017, 07:24:30 PM
I would say yes if my team was anything close to what the Patriots have been and apparently still are which is a top tier contender. But it could be risky to draw broad conclusions based on what the Pats have done in that regard as there are many more reasons why they are a dynasty if not the GOAT.

I agree with Ed that the player's age and costs would be factors while the perhaps greater certainty with a proven starter would be an incentive for a team which see itself with a "win-now" opportunity. For most teams, the question is are you rebuilding, reloading, or relying?   

Cheers!

It also depends on available CAP space.  That starter is going to hit your CAP a lot harder than a second, or even first, round pick.

Does the acquisition of Marshall lean us a little more on the blocking side for a TE?

The mantra used to be that you never have too many pass rushers.  As the league evolves, and as the spread, well, spreads, and we see more and more 4 and 5 receiver sets, maybe the new mantra should be you never have too many pass coverage guys.

Quote from: nflscouting on May 04, 2016, 07:16:34 AM
The same held true for Jackson III - both he & Hargreaves seemed to be "allergic" when it came to run support. That is one thing that Giants fans will see in Apple - he has no fear coming up to give chase in run force. I know the team is looking for a slot corner, but at the least, he can fill that role to start. Often at OSU, it was him & Bell playing safety when they went 5 DBs

What do you think of the notion of having Apple being the 3rd corner but moving him outside and sliding DRC into the slot on the nickel package?

Quote from: todge on April 12, 2016, 05:54:06 PM
Dave - several of your colleagues Brugler and Nawrocki have some concerns about Lee's body build and overall strength.  Nolan specifically said that he looks "maxed out" ... "looks small and plays small".  The Scout that Nawrocki employs states he is a "safety" and his value lies in the 2nd Round. Brugler stated that he gets easily engulfed by blocking linemen in running plays.  What is your reply to those reports?

The Giants were one of the worst teams last year defending the run. So why would they bring in a guy who may be an excellent pass protector but gets washed out of running plays far too often?  Although many here have disagreed with me - the Giants have typically wanted their LBs to be run stoppers first and foremost.  So if they took Lee, that would represent a change in philosophy.  Wouldn't he be a better fit for a team who want their LBs to be speedy cover types first?

Perhaps the signing of Snacks indicates that they are changing their philosophy.

Here is an example if just how great this board is.  Look at this request for information and the response.  And more importantly look at the time lag between the question and the answer:

QuoteQuote from: MightyGiants on Today at 03:24:40 PM

QuoteQuote from: CAGiantFan on Today at 03:23:39 PM
Wow, I am way behind the curve on this.  What was his injury?

He has been out for a little over a week with a hamstring injury.

That was one second over MightyGiants usual response time.  LOL