Big Blue Huddle

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.