Big Blue Huddle

I'm not ready to crucify him just yet - it's only 2 games.

Quote from: Doc16LT56 on September 16, 2024, 11:06:04 AMLet me know when the Giants turn a 2nd round pick into a star player. I'd rather take a chance on a known player like Burns than another JMS, Wandale, etc. Those guys don't move the needle at all.

Exactly! I have zero faith in this regime to draft anybody worthy with the 2nd rd pick so better to get a known commodity. This GM/scouting department is just as bad as the last 3.

Quote from: MightyGiants on September 16, 2024, 08:23:33 AMI was among the very small minority who didn't like the Jones trade.

The Giants gave up a high 2nd round pick and a 5th-round pick.   The Giants gave him a $30 million-dollar-a-year contract (a salary that could have signed a major free agent).

So the Giants gave up two major assets (a big contract and a high 2nd-round pick) and a 5th rounder for a player who has made zero impact in two games.

This is not how you build a winning football team.

I don't think there was a "small minority" who weren't jn favor of the trade.

I believed, and I saw plenty of people post - and heard many talking heads state - that it didn't make sense for a rebuilding team to trade assets and make a huge financial commitment to someone like Burns as if he was the "final piece".

It always smacked of a desperate move by the current regime to put some type of passable product on the field in order to protect their jobs.

What it didn't smack of is a longer term plan.

Quote from: Doc16LT56 on September 16, 2024, 11:06:04 AMLet me know when the Giants turn a 2nd round pick into a star player. I'd rather take a chance on a known player like Burns than another JMS, Wandale, etc. Those guys don't move the needle at all.

Quote from: sooners56 on September 16, 2024, 11:22:07 AMExactly! I have zero faith in this regime to draft anybody worthy with the 2nd rd pick so better to get a known commodity. This GM/scouting department is just as bad as the last 3.

So it was a good trade because Schoen is such a bad GM (combined with poor coaching development) they are incapable of drafting and developing a good player in round 2 


That doesn't fill me with a warm fuzzy feeling about this team and its chances for the future.

Quote from: Stringer Bell on September 16, 2024, 11:32:39 AMI don't think there was a "small minority" who weren't jn favor of the trade.

I believed, and I saw plenty of people post - and heard many talking heads state - that it didn't make sense for a rebuilding team to trade assets and make a huge financial commitment to someone like Burns as if he was the "final piece".

It always smacked of a desperate move by the current regime to put some type of passable product on the field in order to protect their jobs.

What it didn't smack of is a longer term plan.

Here is the BBH poll about the trade.  There were literally only 2 people who gave the trade one of the two (out of 5) lowest scores and one of those was me

https://giantsfans.net/message_board/index.php?topic=69362.msg945204#msg945204

Quote from: MightyGiants on September 16, 2024, 08:23:33 AMI was among the very small minority who didn't like the Jones trade.

The Giants gave up a high 2nd round pick and a 5th-round pick.   The Giants gave him a $30 million-dollar-a-year contract (a salary that could have signed a major free agent).

So the Giants gave up two major assets (a big contract and a high 2nd-round pick) and a 5th rounder for a player who has made zero impact in two games.

This is not how you build a winning football team.

Rich: The problem with this thesis is... the team might not agree with you about how far along the Giants currently are in the re-building process. Bob

Burns had a sack negated by the terrible Dru Phillips holding penalty. Not enough of an impact for what he's being paid? Sure, I can agree with that (and we should hold all players to that standard). But he wasn't completely invisible yesterday like week 1.

I have a wild idea: I'm going to give Burns at least a third game before I declare him dead. Hell, maybe even four or five!

Quote from: H-Town G-Fan on September 16, 2024, 11:55:10 AMBurns had a sack negated by the terrible Dru Phillips holding penalty. Not enough of an impact for what he's being paid? Sure, I can agree with that (and we should hold all players to that standard). But he wasn't completely invisible yesterday like week 1.

I have a wild idea: I'm going to give Burns at least a third game before I declare him dead. Hell, maybe even four or five!

I have a wild idea myself.  If you are acquired with serious draft capital and given a major contract you help the team avoid an 0-2 start that leaves them with just a 6% chance of making the playoffs

Quote from: MightyGiants on September 16, 2024, 08:23:33 AMI was among the very small minority who didn't like the Jones trade.

The Giants gave up a high 2nd round pick and a 5th-round pick.   The Giants gave him a $30 million-dollar-a-year contract (a salary that could have signed a major free agent).

So the Giants gave up two major assets (a big contract and a high 2nd-round pick) and a 5th rounder for a player who has made zero impact in two games.

This is not how you build a winning football team.

 Burns WAS a major Free Agent.

Two games. Not much of a sample to declare a player a bust or a trade a disaster, even running on a New York clock. Burns is a Giant. Let us hope he turns this around and we look back on his early games as a settling in period. No matter who is GM, HC and QB next year this team is not doing anything if Burns does not perform.

Quote from: MightyGiants on September 16, 2024, 11:57:27 AMI have a wild idea myself.  If you are acquired with serious draft capital and given a major contract you help the team avoid an 0-2 start that leaves them with just a 6% chance of making the playoffs

I guess Burns should have helped the Giants score more than 6 points in the Vikings game and keep them from going 0-2? You don't win games when your offense hands over more points than it scores and nothing Burns could do would change that. But sure, the Giants terrible start is solely his responsibility.

I say give him 58 more games and 5 losing seasons before we declare him toast.

Quote from: H-Town G-Fan on September 16, 2024, 12:02:03 PMI guess Burns should have helped the Giants score more than 6 points in the Vikings game and keep them from going 0-2? You don't win games when your offense hands over more points than it scores and nothing Burns could do would change that. But sure, the Giants terrible start is solely his responsibility.

I say give him 58 more games and 5 losing seasons before we declare him toast.

So you are defending a highly-paid player who cost the team major draft capital by pointing to other problems.  Sorry, I can't give him the free pass you are willing to hand out.

Quote from: MightyGiants on September 16, 2024, 12:18:03 PMSo you are defending a highly-paid player who cost the team major draft capital by pointing to other problems.  Sorry, I can't give him the free pass you are willing to hand out.

What free pass? Read what I said. Has he had an impact commensurate with what he's being paid? Nope. I just won't blame him for the Giants bad start and say with finality that after just two games it was a bad trade, bad contract, and he's not worth it.

Quote from: H-Town G-Fan on September 16, 2024, 12:22:44 PMWhat free pass? Read what I said. Has he had an impact commensurate with what he's being paid? Nope. I just won't blame him for the Giants bad start and say with finality that after just two games it was a bad trade, bad contract, and he's not worth it.

You employed whataboutism to defend Burns' complete lack of impact over the last two defeats.

Quote from: MightyGiants on September 16, 2024, 12:29:12 PMYou employed whataboutism to defend Burns' complete lack of impact over the last two defeats.

Accusing me of "employing" tactics is getting tired--its the second time in recent memory you've done so in a pejorative manner and I would appreciate you not making ad hominem attacks.

I'll lay it out simply so there's no confusion: your frustration around his lack of impact in two games is understandable and I (actually) share in it. (Though, apparently, I don't share in it enough to satisfy you). I, however, find it wild to declare (or imply) that he is not worth the trade, a bad or non-impactful player after just two games. I find this inconsistent with the way others on the team are treated so I don't understand why Burns wouldn't get the same indulgence.