gmenroc

Let's just take the ST out of the game entirely, remove all the defenders, and just let's just see whose offense can score the quickest....sounds like a fantastic way to RUIN football How about doing more research into the helmets, experimenting with different materials, etc. How about enforcing the players to actually wear ALL the pads that many of them take out...thinking the thigh/knee pads in particular? Changing some of the rules on blocks would be fine and moving the kickoff from 35 to 30 would be fine...but making such drastic changes to the game could make it unwatchable.

If he's not on the field in 2012 and struggles AT ALL in 2013...I have to beleve his career then, will be like his knee now...completely fucked.

I'm moving away from the TE position too as draft day approaches. Fleener has been given a 1st round grade for a reason, and I don't believe it's only because he's the best TE in the class. He's a quality player in a pro system there at Stanford, who had a good QB throwing him the ball. That said, you have to discount his stats and his accomplishments slightly because of the QB, system, and coach. I still think Fleener is an end of round 1, top of round 2 grade. And I still wouldn't be upset at the pick, given Bennett and Ballard are only signed through 2012...and having a developing rookie would allow for more flexibility NEXT offseason at the TE position. That said, RB and OT are both becoming more appealing to me given our running game struggles. We have not replaced Brandon Jacobs at all and seemingly were not interested in doing so via free agency. I think the front office is far more convinced on Ware than most fans are. But I think there are real concerns here..because Bradshaw, as good and as tough as he is...is constantly dinged, hurt, injured, not practicing...etc. Adding more of him into the offense, will only increase the likeliness of injury. Scott showed he is fast in his rookie year...but again, he's largely unproven. So I have to believe that the Giants will select a RB at some point...but where they select one will depend heavily upon (1) where they want to insert a rookie in the depth chart and (2) which RBs are available when they're selecting. As for OT, again, we have an unproven Brewer, an injured Beatty, an aging Diehl, a FA signing in Locklear to man the two OT positions. That's a little sketchy, but that being so, I don't see an end-of-round-1 rookie doing all that much better, regardless of who might fall to that spot. There's a depth issue there and it needs to be addressed in the draft. But unless a Jonathon Martin falls or even a Mike Adams falls to us at 32, I don't know that anyone's going to be available. DE, as others have brought up, I would be fine with it if Chandler Jones is available. If we do select him, expect Osi to be royally pissed and possibly even hold out. If we do select Chandler Jones, I'd open Osi up to trade talks immediately. He's easily worth a 1st rounder given his production just last year. I'd be completely fine if that first rounder was this year OR next....again, so long as we picked a DE at #32 this year. And yeah, I'd want Osi traded out of the division....he's a VERY good DE, but his desires to be THE DE on the team as opposed to a rotational player that the Giants want him to be...could be a cause for trading him. I would get a sense of Osi's trade value prior to selecting Jones.

That's before he gets injured in week 6, right?

OT's Glen, Martin, Adams...would be fine with TE Fleener...would be fine with RB Martin...would be fine with

In all likelihood, Ballard won't play this year...at all...and is a free agent at the end of the season. Beckum sucks. Pascoe is a backup. Bennett was only signed for a year. While we might not favor drafting a TE, especially early, we should address it, again, if for no other reason, than to provide flexibility NEXT year. Whatever production we'd get out of the draft pick this year, would be bonus. Mike Adams may very well be available and would be worth the #32 in my opinion. I like Bobbie Massie too, but probably not until our 2nd round pick...thought admittedly, that'd be a stretch for him to make it that long. I'd be okay using our normal 4th rounder, to move up in the 2nd, to get Massie should we miss out on Adams in the first. RBs in general are having less of an importance in an ever-more passing friendly league. Richardson is definitely the cream of the crop this year, but there are definitely a few out there that I wouldn't mind having. I like Bernard Pierce in the 3rd, but would not complain about Doug Martin in the first if he's still there. I think Goff is as good as gone given the trade for Rivers. I think with LB, the young guys will only get better. Boley, Kiwi, Rivers, Williams...that's not a bad lineup...with Herzlich, Jones, Sintim in reserve. I'd still want a draft pick on LB though, because I have to believe that Osi is going to bolt next year when his contract is up. Someone's going to pay him handsomely, and I don't see that being us. So, moving Kiwi back to DE, might happen this year some, but would probably happen moreso next year. Filling that hole before it's truly a hole...my kind of proactive move (as opposed to being reactive and filling it when we have to).

I wouldn't check off TE depth quite that easily...Ballard, Bennett...both FA after 2012...drafting a TE could ease that. OT - Brewer is unproven, Locklear isn't necessarily a walk-in-and-start kind of guy. Diehl is starting to show some age. Beatty, I'm not nearly as sold on him as others are..and he's coming off eye surgery. So, I could easily see us addressing the depth issue here as well. But you're right, we have made some moves that have afforded us greater flexibility. We don't need to find a TE to start this year and could draft one who'd be ready to start next year. We could find an OT that could start a few years down the road. We could easily go DE again too, to leverage against the Osi negotiations that are upcoming.

Pretty much on the same page here. OT/TE/RB2/LB/WR3 are all questionable.

Yeah, from the Bengals point of view, Rivers was a luxury given the players they had AND he had an over 2 million cap hit. So it benefited the Bengals to move him. It benefited us from picking him up on the cheap. Both sides won in this trade, which is probably why it happened. I'm not overly optimistic about the move like the articles that reference his high draft status would like me to be, but I also don't hate it and think that the low risk/high potential aspect of the trade, to attempt to secure a position at which we've shown a weakness is a good thing. The ripples of the trade could be noticeable too. Osi's a free agent next year. If Rivers pans out, Kiwi could move back to DE and we then have the leverage in the Osi contract dealings. If Rivers does not pan out, then we blew a 5th, damn near 6th rounder on a guy who was a lower risk than any draft pick we were going to get at that spot. I'm completely okay with that.

Yeah, we're fairly good at interior OLine. There are depth issues elsewhere...like OT, like RB, like TE and maybe even WR depending how Barden and Jernigan fair this season. LB, we've got a lot of youth there already...so adding to that might not be the best idea. Williams, Jones, Herzlich...all really young guys who have shown some flashes here and there, but anyhow...there should be another season to allow them to develop. I wouldn't mind a S either in the draft. With the salary cap projected to maintain its current level, providing some depth at S would allow us to cut Rolle's salary down the road a bit.

I, too, would like to see Chase back, but I'll be honest...without the thread title, you could have been talking about Jacobs. With Rivers coming in and the youth we have at the position, I can't see Blackburn coming back.

With the spacing there, I thought you were going to start rhyming all poetry style... moves yesterday were classic Giants moves. We didn't give up much for any of them and I'll wait until I see details on what they'll get paid, but all in all, I was pleased to see us bringing in an OT and a LB. Not overly certain what to think of the Molden signing. I realize we lost Ross, and that someone would fulfill that spot (Prince), but I thought we had enough internally to cover Ross' departure. That said, it still creates competition for the 4th CB spot and almost guarantees that Rolle will get to play S full time now. The moves definitely create flexibility come draft day. I wouldn't be surprised if we still took a T or TE....especially the TE. Ballard was restricted FA this year, but I believe will be unrestricted FA next year. I know Bennett was only signed for a year. So if we don't find someone in the draft, we're going to have a glaring need there next year. In the same way the Giants created flexibility on draft day by the moves made yesterday, they can create flexibility next year by drafting a TE this year.

Yep...I can appreciate what Parcells brought to both our team and football in general. We were fortunate to have him when we did, and from the sounds of things, his leaving the Giants was not necessarily as self-serving as many paint it out to be. Again, I was just getting into football at that time, so I'm no Parcell's expert. But his going to the Jets, Patriots, Cowboys...I see as his desire to be part of the game. I think he had a desire to remain challenged, to remain a part of the game he loved. Once he got those teams back to a competitive level, the challenge kinda went away. Now, he's done with the challenges. He's proved himself to be more than capable, he's produced a coaching tree that rivals the Walsh coaching tree, and he can sit back on ESPN as a commentator and be proud of what he was able to accomplish. I have no problem with Parcells...none. I only wish ESPN had him on more often so I could hear how he views the game/players/etc. His insight is far superior to many others that get regular spots.

With only two weeks remaining, I'm getting rather excited to see how the draft actually shakes out.

Reading up on this Locklear guy, reminds me a lot of Diehl...the value is in his flexibilty across the line. Jack of all trades, master of none type of guy. I'm all for the competition though.

Ballard, I believe, will be a FA after this season. I could be wrong on that, but I thought that to be the case and don't have the time to look it up right now. I like him too, but Steve Smith, a far more athletic, lighter, player, couldn't seem to come back from it. I don't share in your confidence that he'll be back.

OT only if Mike Adams or those ranked above him are still there. I believe Adams to be the last of the 1st round graded OTs. Given the news that Ballard had microfracture surgery and it's not just an ACL, I think it creates a need for a TE on draft day. I'm not hard up on Fleener, but at 32, one could argue he'll be the BPA and represent value. One could also argue that despite Bennett's signing, he could fill a need (this year OR next, when Bennett's gone).

I was thinking this at the time, moreso now. My first thought was that he tried it before the trainers had a chance to get to him, but that's not the case.

I don't see the Giants reaching for a TE in the first. Bennett, Pascoe, Beckum (supposed to be healthy by start of season). I definitely think we'll get a TE in the draft, but again, I don't think we reach for one. If Fleener is there at 32, sure I think he could be the guy. By the way, what's this have to do with Rivers?

Microfacture surgery seems to shelf a guy for a minimum of a year...without any football activity. Don't want to hurry back from it ala Steve Smith when he went off to the Eagles. In today's NFL, players tend to be forgotten pretty easily since it's more and more a what-have-you-done-for-me-lately league. In the case of Ballard, a lesser known guy who was more a role player than a star...it could easily be the end for him. PUP...then IR, or so it seems that's his fate at this point in time for 2012

When on the field that is...heard he's been an injury concern for a few years now.

Goff was visiting the Dolphins today or yesterday. Haven't heard if there was an offer or not.

I was all of 10 years old in 1990, but I remember the dropoff from Parcells to Handley. I can't say that I remember, or would remember, how Parcells left our team. That said, the Giants don't strike me as a franchise that would let a departing coach name his successor. Seems that'd be a decision that'd come from management/front office folk...today, and in the past.

I agree with this premise, that each QB has to be evaluated on his own...and over the course of time. However, Brady has shown that with a defender in his face, or after getting hit a few times...he can lose his poise pretty significantly. I think poise is vastly underrated, due in part to its immeasurability. Comparing stats isn't the be all and end all, though it's important just the same. Brady puts up better numbers than Eli, but he also gets to face the Dolphins twice and Bills twice each year. Not to mention, the offense in New England is vastly different than the offense we have. Granted, we've moved more towards a passing offense over the past few years, but we're still not the dink and dunk offense that is New England. I think in comparing QBs, one of the fairest ways to go about it, is to project what each would do on the other's team, all other factors equal. I think Eli would put up Brady-like numbers running New England's offense. I do not think, that Brady would do the same in our offense. I think Brady wins the accuracy battle between the two, though that gap has closed significantly ever since Plax shot himself. Again, I think Eli wins the poise battle. Neither can run for shit. Arm strength is about equal, or at least no sizeable or recognizable difference. In the 4th quarter, I think Eli is about as clutch a QB as I've seen. That is more of a recent development for me and I'm still pissed/depressed when there's 2 minutes left, we're losing by 5, and Eli has the ball...this, because I'm thinking it's not going to happen for us. But Eli pulled us out more than he didn't this season, or so it seemed. Point is, it's close between the two of them and depending upon which attribute you emphasize, one may lead the other. But for me, I'll take Eli by a thread...

Nor I