Big Blue Huddle

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.