fishgutmartyr

I like Gilly. And he's right about injuries, an offensive line that was a sieve, and rotating "C" players in key spots. But heck, my granddaughter had his offensive schemes figured out before she started kindergarten.

 

How many times I screamed for him to go to a no-huddle. How many times I yelled at the TV for not having a viable tactic to bust down the red zone...and renaming it the "green zone" is NOT a tactic, but an admission he hasn't figured it out.

 

Regardless - his time was done. He had some great years and has a couple of rings many coordinators would kill for. Time for him smoke a 50.00 celebration cigar, take up drinking, and watch the games on TV while bragging to his grandkids about his glory days.

Glad your granddaughter figured them out--wish Reuben Randle could have done the same...

Well, to be fair, I can't blame him for speaking out. Mara and Reese have done a pretty thorough job running his name through the mud. And it's not like Jernigan hasn't gotten playing time before the last couple of games.

Gilbride may/may not have been part of the problem, but everything else he said has been discussed all off season. There is truth to it.

Love the '70s LED watch numbers.

 

 

Rivers left?

He's an UFA. Doubt he gets re-signed.

Even assuming we sign Beason, we're down linebackers with Rivers going.

It all depends on how he can restructure.

 

If you can get him down to a vet minimum type contract, and get some of that remaining 7 million off the cap somehow, I'm all for it. But I'm pretty sure that 7 mil stays there no matter what... even if he retires.

 

Now, here's the thing. If he's really ineffective, then you have to cut him before the season starts and get someone in there that will be able to play. I know that "if you cut Snee, you only save 4 million and have to eat 7" but what good is a player who can't play, no matter what you're paying him or saving? At least that 4 million could go to a one-year deal for a guy that might be servicable.

 

If you can do a vet minimum type deal, and also have 4 mil to bring in a Grey Rugamer type on a one-year plan for insurance, I think it should happen. If he wants his pay cut from 4 to 3 million on top of the seven or something similar, I think we have to wave goodbye to him.

If we flat-out cut him, we save close to 7 million. He's 4.5 in dead money.

http://overthecap.com/teamcap.php?Team=Giants&Year=2014

If it were the other way around, I wouldn't have started this thread. 8-9 million tied up on a back up player with severe limitations is way too much. The team would have to at least get a degree of starter potential out of that. You'd almost be forced to get another Boothe-type player. As it is, keeping Snee would have it's risks if we get hit with injuries again, especially early-on.

Oh, and not a bad thought, Herc. All that knowledge, and none of the additional cap hit.

 

Rolle, like Diehl, has value in his versatility to play CB and both S spots. Granted, he's not lights out at any, but he's certainly above average at S in my opinion. And again, he filled the leadership void that was left when Strahan left (that Tuck avoided like the plague - or so it seemed). So I think he's been far more valuable than you've given him credit for, but I'm okay disagreeing with you.

Rolle takes a lot of crap, considering he's spent as much time out of position as he has in position while on this team. This year he finally got to play where he was hired to play, and was arguably a pro-bowler.

Not sure where the depth is, though. Will Hill is really good, but kind of an idiot that might just flush away his career. Cooper Taylor might be good, but hasn't shown that much yet, Ryan Mundy isn't in Rolle's league, and Stevie Brown is coming back from a knee injury--assuming he's re-signed.

I'd definitely extend Rolle.

A large part of me realizes the guy is pretty much done. His days as a 16 game starter are over. And I have to admit, part of my indecision on this would be sentimentality--the guy sacrificed his health for this team, and is willing to give up even more for it. I'm glad it's not my call.

Snee has already stated that he is willing to take a pay cut, and mentor someone who beats him out for the starting guard position. He's a wraith of himself at this point, but he was a top offensive lineman in this league for years; and he would be passing on a lot of experience to whoever we draft. If we go FA with youth, it wouldn't hurt that player to get some of his input, either.

So, how much is it worth to have a guy on your roster that might give you a couple of games, but would be invaluable as far as passing along experience to one, possibly two draft picks coming in? We need new players for sure, but we also need to maintain some of the 2008 offensive line culture, and he's the last member. It would help the transition in that sense.

If we get 3-4 games out of him, that might be enough to get a rookie into playing shape, if necessary.

We're in the hole with him for about 4mil whether we keep him or not. I'm not going to count that money--because it's spent no matter what. If he signs on for one year at 1 or 2 million, is it worth it? We'd still be saving at least 5 million; and that might be the price for a hoary old backup anyway.

I'm really not sure about this one--wondering what you guys think. I honestly thought that Snee would just retire.

No matter what your opinion, please maintain a level of respect for a player who has given us years of high-quality play and has shown a dedication to this team. Hate on the body, not the man. He has already stated that he either plays for the Giants, or his career is over. Thanks.

i agree harbaugh is a lot worse but TC is definitely embarrassing on the sidelines. he looks like he's about to have a heart attack any time the ball is spotted half a yard incorrectly

The important word in that sentence is "incorrectly." How many games, Giants or otherwise, have we seen blown calls even after review? With the state of officiating in the league over the last few seasons, a coach has to do a degree of complaining. He just doesn't have to act like a preschooler that isn't going to Dairy Queen.

Oh yeah, I'm not giving up on Manning yet either. But neither would I extend him right now. He's lead the league in picks the past two seasons and has a new OC. I know the popular position now is to kick the can down the road in regards to his cap hit, but I think you pay him now and see what you have moving forward after this season.

 

I hear all the Joseph love and honestly, I just don't see it. I don't think he's a bad player but he's not a top 5 DT, but that's what he's expected to be paid like. I have a hard time remembering his big plays during his Giants tenure... and we had to bring in Jenkins, Patterson, and Rogers to improve the run D even when he was a starter. He's not bad but I wouldn't give him more than 4 million per season... that money can be better spent elsewhere.

Ok--I follow you. Knowing now that the cap might go up this year, it doesn't make as much sense to extend him as it did for me. We get some of that money off the cap going forward AND his cap percentage goes down. That's a win-win for us.

Joseph is one of those guys that you can put in position and not worry about. He's not a game-changer, and he needs help on the line. Keep him if possible? Absolutely, but not pay him top five.

Honestly, I'm not sure you can find seven. On offense, I'd say Pugh and Cruz are the only two. Everyone else is either coming off a subpar season (Eli, Beatty) already out the door (Nicks), or too injured.

 

On defense, I think we need to lock Prince up. He may not be a top-5 corner but he's definitely top ten. Rolle is young enough that we can build short term with him. Will Hill if he keeps his head out of his ass, and Jon Beason.

 

JPP? He's had one and a half good seasons out of four. This is a "show me" year for him.

I kind of agree--although I'm not ready to give up on Manning.

I'd love to say Joseph and Beason--but they aren't signed. And Beason, while still really good, isn't exactly an infusion of youth. I think of him more as a Sam Madison type--experience to surround with youth so that they learn. I know he's 29, but with the injuries, he's an old 29; wouldn't make a 5-year plan with him.

Hankins would be nice, but he hasn't shown too much yet. Will Hill has a ton of growing up to do, if he ever does.

We're in an odd place--we're either too old, or very young in most positions. It's really hard to tell who is going to be a "building block."

Fair enough. But if I had to fill out an article with "In honor of Presidents’ Day, the current Giant most likely to run for office someday is Justin Tuck," I would probably not write it.

http://www.giants.com/news-and-blogs/article-1/Fact-or-Fiction-Offensive-Line-Changes/7412cacd-c393-463e-9060-396e12dc6279

 

The Giants will have more new offensive linemen than linebackers in 2014.

• Click Here for more Fact or Fiction JOHN SCHMEELK: Fact - Since I expect Jon Beason to be back in the fold, I wouldn’t expect the Giants to have more than two new linebackers on the roster next year. The team, on the other hand, could have as many as three new starting offensive linemen. If Jon Beason is not retained, this answer could change. The offensive line, more so than anything else last year, doomed the Giants' season. I would expect a number of big changes in that department.
  
• DAN SALOMONE: Fact - The Giants lose one starting offensive lineman right off the bat with the retirement of David Diehl. Three more are coming off season-ending injuries, so it’s clear the position needs to be bolstered just from a numbers standpoint. Performance is another thing, and 2013 speaks for itself.

The NFL is the toughest professional league to repeat as champion.

• JOHN SCHMEELK: Fact - It is closer to baseball than you think, since injuries to a pitching staff in major league baseball can completely change the dynamic of a team. But football wins out because of how the salary cap forces teams to turn over so much season to season, and how health or the lack thereof can completely change a team from year to year.
  
• DAN SALOMONE: Fiction - I’ll refer you to ESPN.com senior baseball writer Jayson Stark, who has a statistical breakdown of why the NFL doesn’t have as much parity as we think. In fact, baseball has more turnover in terms of playoff appearances and champions. Over the past five years, eight NFL teams have failed to make the postseason, six of which never had a winning record. In the same stretch, 28 of 30 MLB organizations have posted winning seasons.

The Giants need more help on the offensive side of the ball than defense.

• JOHN SCHMEELK: Fact - The offense consistently struggled last season, and there could be as many as six new starters on offense next year when all is said and done. On defense, it is more about keeping guys on the team (Tuck, Beason, Joseph) than having huge needs you have to fill elsewhere. If the Giants bring back more or less the same defense they had last year, they will be more than adequate on that side of the ball.
  
• DAN SALOMONE: Fact - Aside from the offensive line, you have holes and question marks at all of the skill positions that must be addressed in the upcoming draft and free agency period. Meanwhile, the defense really took over the identity of the Giants following the 0-6 start, and it yielded a 7-3 finish.

In honor of Presidents’ Day, the current Giant most likely to run for office someday is Justin Tuck.

• JOHN SCHMEELK: Fiction - Can you say Markus Kuhn for Chancellor of Germany? In all seriousness, this is an interesting and tough question. For some reason I could see Mathias Kiwanuka get into politics someday. Zak DeOssie went to Brown, and an Ivy League education is often a prerequisite for things like that. I guess by those rules, Kevin Boothe could be thrown into the mix as well. I don’t think Tuck would have a lot of patience for all the nonsense that goes along with having to run for public office.
  
• DAN SALOMONE: Fact - I spent some time going down the roster trying to find other players, but none made a better fit than Tuck. The guy has a head on his shoulders, he has his priorities in order, and he’s not afraid to be honest and candid. I’d vote for him.

Golly, they're going to look for offensive linemen? How can these guys be so certain?

 

Well, when you put it like that, Coughlin either goes to the Super Bowl or his team hovers around mediocrity or gets blown out playoff games.

If you can compare that to a new system jump to low mediocrity followed by 2 years of steep decline, sure.

 

I don't love Fewell, but when you take the 31st-ranked defense to the 8th in a year, you've probably bought yourself another season... especially with an offense that was a turnover and 3-and-out machine.

Like I said, Seph, I understand that.

But on the other hand, who was running things when we sunk down to 31st? I'm looking at the cumulative results of his time here, not season by season. We improved to 17th in 2010, 25th in 2011.

To put it kindly, his time here has been...erratic.

I think our defensive turn around this season had more to do with the qbs we played then the actual play of our defense.

 

Fewell should have lost his job with glibride. We pride ourselves on pass rush and our team is loaded with pass rushers but yet we were at the bottom of the league in sacks.

Well, the qbs we played put us in the top ten in defense. That wouldn't have happened in a normal season--but there was improvement.

I agree that he should have lost his job, though. Not for this season, but for the previous seasons. Seems incredibly short-sighted to keep him on. Especially when we are going to see turnover on this D very shortly--Osi gone, Tuck with one foot out the door...unless JPP recovers, we don't really have a pass rushing line anymore.

Considering Webster's play in 2012, he did us a favor.

 

You're probably right.

 

I think Belichick is a very rare coach, and as good of a head coach as he is, he was downright brilliant defensively. Two of the biggest "coaching" wins in Super Bowl history are a direct result of his ability to understand how to counter his opponent. The Buffalo Bills were loaded in 1990.....the Giants were an aging but smart team at that point. And against the St Louis Rams, the Patriots were totally outgunned.

 

Also, I don't think Reese values smart players as much as athletic players....I just think that's his bias.

 

To be fair, Belichick didn't exactly coach without talent--we're a far, far cry from the 1990 defense. It's a bit easier when you have arguably the best defender in history on the field, and excellent players in front and beside him. And that Patriots team didn't exactly lack quality on the defense, either.

I'm not defending Fewell--I think we should be getting more out of the players we have--but comparing our bunch with squads that had players like Taylor et al., Bruschi, and Law isn't really fair, either.

I'm not sure how complex Spag's defense was, either. Other than pulling DE's into coverage on certain blitzes (which was retarded anyway), I don't see how it was that complex.

My thinking was versatility. Beatty is a tackle this year, as is Pugh. But if we can get Martin playing guard while learning OT, that's in our favor: regular season experience without the pressure of playing tackle. Naturally, if he outplays Pugh, then reverse the two. Then let it sort out the following season. That way, we don't have to panic if we draft a couple of guards and one of them doesn't pan out.

That would be the paper theory, anyway. And pretty typical of what the team has tried to do over the past 10 years. Granted, with some mixed results.

The one wildcard is if both outplay Beatty. Kind of a good problem to have, until we look at contracts.

I don't pretend to know much about college football, but based on this writeup and what I know of what the Giants look for on the oline, I wouldn't be shocked if we drafted Zack Martin.

It may have been that Fewell's system is heavily dependent on a good, dependable MLB. Or at the very least, a reliable field general there. You have to wonder if the return of Blackburn in 2011, and the acquisition of Beason this past year coinciding with defensive turnarounds is more than sheer chance.

If that's the case, then either the front office better get its shit together, or Fewell needs to adjust. Neither one is happening far too often.

 

 

By Jordan Raanan/NJ.com

Follow on Twitter

on February 05, 2014 at 10:46 AM, updated February 05, 2014 at 1:31 PM

Nas, I understand when it was written--the timing of writing it on 2/5 is odd to me.

I bet the center begs the coaches to reconsider when they call a QB sneak.

If "sneak" is a word you can use to describe that play with Lorenzen. "Lumber" or "Felling" might make more sense.

I was being serious--this is an odd article for this past season.

As far as I'm concerned, Fewell should be gone: but even I have to admit that the defense was the only redeeming factor on this team last season. (I am so happy that I can say last season.)

Where was this article in 2012? Or 2010? Or during the regular season in 2011?

This past season?