fishgutmartyr

are you guys serious? this signing does nothing but help the giants.

 

1. He could potentially fight for a starting position

2. This means we arent getting Lavar Arrington (hopefully).

3. We will prolly now draft a LB

4. Short provides excellent depth at linebacker at the very least

1. He's slb.

2. We still don't have anyone at wlb.

3. He wasn't a standout when he was here.

4. He hasn't done much while he was gone.

5. Griesen would have made more sense. (and he isn't that great, either)

6. If he's fighting for a starting job, we are seriously fucked.

Pray for an amazing draft. :explode:

Thanks for the thought out response.

Happy to oblige.

Injuries are going to happen: If Carter winds up playing, he's going down. Fine, so long as Plax and Toomer don't go down as well. I'll be ecstatic if we don't get hit with the injury bug this year. I'll be happy if the injuries are at least spread out enough that our backups aren't overwhelmed.

You made a good point about us getting injured players lately.

There was no complaint at all.

 

If you remember the 2002 season I believe, many would say we had a great chance to make the Superbowl until the debachle against the 49ers. The special teams fiasco that ensued seemed to trigger a tailspin into darkness for a while, but we were definitely expected to do better than we did.

I wouldn't have. We got in as a wildcard by winning our final game in OT at home, and having another team (I forget who, although I think it was the Saints) lose. That doesn't smack of a Superbowl team to me, but your mileage may vary. And that wildcard game was an exposure of a mediocre at best defense, that completely fell apart in the second half of that game.

In 2003, we lost Whittle and Rosenthal, and went with rookies at those positions. Then Seubert went down. Pettigout played injured, because there really wasn't anyone to replace him. Then we had receivers go down, along with Shockey. Finally, Collins went down. There was no offense, and the team flat out quit.

In 2004, we got killed with injuries again, among other things. I thought we played over our head at the beginning of the season, and got lucky with a rash of turnovers. Then the wheels fell off of our defense: both starting DEs out for the season, Green IR'd, both Shawn Williams and Gibril Wilson gone, and we had guys like Hand and Emmons in and out of the lineup all season. Between that and the QB situation, 6-10 wasn't really that surprising.

This year, aside from Manning wearing down near the end (and I have a feeling the coaches saw it coming, but didn't expect it to be as bad--look how little Tiki was running at the beginning of the season compared to the end of the season), the whole story was in the utter decimation of the LB core. Not one of the starters that were anticipated preseason was on the field against Carolina. In fact, only Greisen was on the field from our second string.

The pattern? Our backups haven't been very good until last year. And we have had a rash of injuries like I've never seen: not so much the number of injuries (although 2003-2004 were really high) but in the fact that they seem to be concentrated at one or two positions each year (2003:O-line and WR/TE; 2004:safties and D-line; and last year LB).

Hopefully this year, we break the pattern.

Chris is as average as his father

I'm going to assume that you are just trying to get under people's skin with that comment.

I mean, that Phil was considered a very good quarterback during a career which overlapped the careers of Fouts, Montana, Elway, and Marino wouldn't mean much, would it? Not to mention such slackers as Staubach, Bradshaw, Kelly, Young and Aikman.

I'm not even going into who he was throwing to. You can't be serious.

You are exactly right. What the hell is the big deal about resigning this waste of space??? He does one thing, get hurt very easily. In fact, he will have some sort of ailment two weeks into camp. Get the trainer's table ready, Mr. Injury will return!!!!

I'm just worried that if we find a rookie WR with some potential but not ready for prime time somewhere in the draft or as an UDFA, that they get rid of him for this stiff. Carter had what? Three concussions in 2003? How many more before he has to call it a career? I don't see ANY upside for this guy long-term, and the best-case scenario short-term is that he finally shows something (other than "he's fast") on our dime, then turns around and leaves us with a hole two years from now.

Cheap contract or not, I see this as stagnation. And I'd much rather see the roster spot used for someone to develop. Maybe Taylor's knee is healed from the botched operation his senior year.

Am I missing something? How many games has this guy played for us? If he's not on the field, any contract is too much. He played 15 games or so last season, but before then, the only speed he's shown is getting to the IR.

This would be strength vs. strength, weakness vs. weakness. Assuming the Giants had more starters in the back seven than subs, I would think our defense would have less trouble with their offense than their defense would with our offense, because our weaknesses were farther apart in ability than our strengths.

This would have been a game all about turnovers and special teams. While we were ranked high in both categories, I wouldn't like to depend on that to predict one game.

is also a buyer of cheap goods in the NFL free agency market. His signees are either old, injured or inept - Good going EA - this year is ranking right up there with the Ron Dayne campaign!

 

Maybe, the Giants should hire a GM that knows something about football talent, instead of "Blue Light Special" Accorsi!

Only a fool goes to Nordstrom's to buy scotch tape.

I forgot about Seawright...OUR DT SITUATION IS SOLVED!

Once I finish this Canadian Mist and ginger, it's going to seem like an even BETTER idea.

I started a thread a couple of days ago about trading up for a tackle and everyone was like "we're getting a LB, and don't need to trade up" and I was like "we're going to draft more offense than you guys think, I bet," and then you guys killed my pretty thread talking about trading Shockey for a draft pick (my thread deserved a better death than that--Hitler died with more dignity). Well, suddenly we're debating WRs. So maybe my scenario isn't so far from the realm of possibilities, is it?

But unless we sign a LB in FA, this is moot. Probably a DT as well, although a part of me wants to see if all the hoarding of Allen, Duckett, and Seawright was worth the time. Call me a masochist.

What I want to know is why did we not see more of Eric Moore??

He was drafted as a DE. If I remember correctly (and there's no garrentee of that), he only started learning LB mid-season. That's a lot to ask from a 6th round draft pick.

I think ol' Erns is going to draft more offense than you guys think. I'm thinking how last year we were heavy on offense in FA, heavy on defense in the draft. This year we're heavy on D in FA...

Again, this isn't what I hope he does, I'm just trying to figure out his strategy.

If he trades up to get a LB, I'll be more than happy to join you guys in the unruly mob that would be sure to follow. I'll bring my own pitchfork.

One of the few statements from you that I've actually agreed with.

 

(1) Our glaring lack of depth at the LB position that was exposed big time last year and

I don't know about that one. We lost how many LBs last year in a span of how many weeks? The only thing we really could have done differently was IR Green earlier in the season.

Is it so hard to understand? FA is there to fill your holes. Draft is there to get young talented players for the future, not to fill your holes.

That depends entirely on what stage your team is in. If you don't have a decent core, or your players are aging and high-priced, you don't fill holes via free agency. You draft and take your lumps, let your kids get the experience, since you're going nowhere anyway. Please see what is happening in Tennessee.

In our case, I see your point.

The point of this thread was to speculate if EA would do something like that, not to voice a wish.

Personally, I wouldn't mind the 1st going to a LB (or trade down for more picks), draft one or two more, AND look at LBs in UDFAs. We have no one at WILL, I'm not all that crazy about Torbor/Emmons, and Blackburn could use some competition.

But with Pierce running things back there, I'm not as worried about a quality rookie starting as some seem to be.

I'm not saying that I disagree with your POV, Money. I'm just looking back at some other EA drafts and thinking that we might be seeing something like the trade-up for Shockey again. Just a gut feeling that could very probably be wrong.

I'd be more than happy to forego Arrington and get a LB in the first. But I'm not Ernie.

I'm not going by anything but a hunch, but considering the number of players we're getting in the backfield, and how hard we seem to be trying to get Arrington, it looks like EA is trying to fill most of our holes in FA, rather than some in FA and the rest in the draft.

Again, I'm just speculating, but I wouldn't be surprised (if we get Arrington and someone like Pickett) if EA trades up in the 1st to get an OLT.

What do you guys think?

This might actually be a good thing, because EA can't do the easy thing and stay Status Quo.

PITA? Sure, but Clancy isn't exactly irreplaceable. He had 2-3 good games, but on the whole, he wasn't out of the ordinary.

We'll see what happens.

Tonight, I will cry for you.

If that's true, we got a great deal.

With that bonus, he's cuttable relatively early in the contract, and if he makes the interceptions, he's worth the raise.

I would like to see them pick up either Ernie Sims or Antonio Cromartie in the first round, which ever is available. Sims first if they are both there. In FA i want them to pick up an experienced DB like Madison and even Hope from the steelers. And what you said martyr pick up a solid DT if robbins comes in out of shape again.

I'm not going to kid you and say I know who to draft--I don't follow the college game. But I'd like to see Carpenter on the team because:

1) I've read good things about him

2) I've seen his dad play RB--and if he's like his dad personality-wise, he has the right attitude for LB

3) I'm a sentimental old fool.

I don't like drafting secondary in the first round. It just seems a better investment to me to draft front seven in that round. YMMV.

signing Sam Madison is no different than retaining Will Allen, in fact, it puts the overall D back do to the fact that Sam (if we do sign him) needs to learn an entirely new system, and is on the downfold of his career...

 

why would we want to sign an aging CB even though he has experience ?? i dont understand the logic...this money should be put to PROPER use and securing a VET DT to supplant William Joseph...

Don't confuse my liking the signing with any particular dislike of Allen. I thought he was a good tackler, and could cover well. But he had lapses, and it was frustrating to watch him drop sure interceptions.

Madison had to go through coaching changes in Miami, and did OK. And given a choice of having 3/4 young CBs learning under Allen or a multi-year pro-bowler, I'm going to pick the pro-bowler every time--even taking a marginal hit on one position's play.

If the Newsday article is correct, the money sounds reasonable (basically Barrett Green's money), so I like it.

If it makes you feel better, I agree on DT, but would rather get rid of Robbins who seems to be developing into a well-paid bench warmer.

I still don't think this is the kind of guy we need here. I'd rather get a mid-level young guy and draft LB in the first. I mean, if we're going to get a player who's going to blow assignments, let's at least get a rookie that will hopefully grow out of it.

Spend the money on a safety and maybe a DT(replacing Robbins--if he shows up out of shape again).

Youth and experience has to be in balance. We've got experience at LB, youth in secondary.

If it happens, I think it's a good signing.

At this point in his career, Madison may not match up as a huge upgrade in a player/player comparison with Allen. But what he does bring to the secondary is tons of pro-bowl level experience--and since he is slowing down a little, he is going to have to rely on that technique and positioning more than in previous years: something that Webster and DeLoatch get to watch while on the field. IMHO that is where the value lies.

That's why I'm not a big fan of drafting two CBs from the same year: you don't get that sort of apprenticeship. I think that's one of the reasons Allen, and to some degree Peterson, never developed beyond a certain level.

I think with this signing you'll see an overall improvement in CB play.

BIGBLUE is right. It was jaw-dropping to watch him play his first season. You would sit there watching this guy get behind the LOS, and chase down the running back, who was running away from him, for a loss. And it wasn't a highlight because he would do it repeatedly.

I honestly can't think of any player, especially on defense, that had such an impact on any given game. And I don't think I ever will.

The draft wasn't as much of a big deal back then, as it is now. I remember reading about him making a splash in training camp, but that's about it.