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.

Kenny Phillips recovered from micro fracture surgery and came back. He was an elite athlete before, it took him I think 2 years before he was anything like he was... and he probably isn't quite as good as he would've been had he not had that injury.

 

Ballard will not play at all in 2012, and if he does, it will be stupid on his part. And even if he's retained, which is not likely, IMO, 2013 doesn't look good either in terms of him getting all the way back to how he was before the injury.

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.

Barden is going to have 3,000 yards and 32 TDs this year.

 

You heard it here first.

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

I agree and I think the Giants would grab Fleeny if he was still on the board (which I doubt). I don't think any other TE is worth a first rounder. The other TE's in the draft rated as high or higher than Fleeny (depending on what source you read) are all 6'3", give or take an inch. Which in my opinion, is just another undersized tweener like Beckum that can't get it done when called to block.

 

Should OT's Cordy Glen or Jonathan Martin fall to the 32nd pick, I think we'd be nuts not to grab either of them.

 

Should be a very intersesting draft.

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

TE Fleener...would be fine with

RB Martin...would be fine with

I agree to some extent, but a few things:

 

-Based on Reese's draft history, he doesn't like drafting TE's (I think Shiancoe was still Ernie Arcosi, correct? so he's only drafted Beckum) - and this may be the case this year, especially given that he signed Bennett already, has Pascoe, Beckum (who I know is sub par), and Ballard should he come back healthy.

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.

-OT to me seemed like the logical first round choice, my problem is when I got through to the #32 pick, there were no players available worthy of the pick. Same thing when I got to pick #64. All capable players were picked prior to those, based on what I've seen in other mock drafts

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.

-RB - Outside of Trend Richardson, it's generally only an average class out there, and many of the backs are similar to what we already have, Bradshaw. I'd love for a guy like Doug Martin (another Boise St) guy to drop to us, or to pick up someone like Cyrus Gray in the middle rounds. Nevertheless, again I still believe the priority is OL first, and RB's will follow - There's no reason Ware can't compliment Bradshaw, and supplement with Scott (remember Tiki had fumbalidus before his career took off). I think Reese will go RB, possibly high in the draft as well, but in my estimation, we should focus on OL (and we all know I'm more qualified than Reese, haha).

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.

-My LB only being picked in the middle rounds assumes Goff comes back healthy, Rivers is in the mix, and Sintim comes back healthy. When you look at it, we have a fair amount of depth + young players on the team currently: Boley, Goff, Kiwi, Rivers, Sintim, Jaquan Williams (I think he's very talented) and the two rookie FAs.

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 think Reese is just getting the team in position so that on draft day he has a lot of options and will go for the BPA. The one wild day of trading and picking up FA's makes one forget he already picked up Bennett. Depth at TE - check. Depth at LB - check. Depth on right side of the o-line - check. Depth at CB - check.

 

It's better to go into the draft after the team has been massaged and filled with veteran fillers than to go into it with glaring holes. And Rivers could pan out to be much better than a filler. I suspect Reese and TC will be looking at the RB and WR position early in the draft. Of course, the Giants have been anything other than conventional when they draft - specially first round. There should be at least one gem left on the board that falls through the cracks.

 

I'm cranked for draft day!

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.

At the end of the day we'll probably go "best player available," and I would LOVE to have a mauling, road-grading G or C in the mix. I don't think we've drafted one in the first round since Brian Williams, but I think we have some other needs that are more pressing. We have no idea who our backup RB or TE is going to be, and while you can feel a little better about our LB depth it's not like that's a strength.

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

i think you have to keep in mind it's the Bongles.

 

They have a good LB core as it is, this guy hasn't panned out and is set to be a free agent soon. They weren't going to resign him so they went out and got something for him.

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.

I never got the Parcells hate. He brought two titles to the Giants. As a fan, isn't that what you want?

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.

He'll be back, but not this coming season. The microfracture surgery is probably a moot point in the grand scheme of things. He was going to lose a year anyway with the torn ACL. I love this kid and look forward to when he's back. Hopefully Bennett can step into his place for the year so we don't lose much.

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.

I see us going OT in the first... however the Giants have a way of surprising everyone. Bennet's signing is a mere insurance for 2012 and in case Fleener isn't there at 32 in my opinion.

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 love the heart Jake showed trying to get back on the field during the SB, but WHAT THE FUCK WERE THE TRAINERS & DOCTORS THINKING?!

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.

with Ballard possibly out for the season, I am guessing we are looking at Fleener, maybe we will trade up to insure we get him.

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?

Is it just me or does microfracture surgery end everyone's career?

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

pretty sure that was his rookie year, he's played well since then.

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

http://www.nfl.com/n..._headline_stack

 

 

 

If this happens does that mean Goff or Blackburn are out the door?

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.

Sorry, but QB "duels" are a load of shit and a poor way to compare players. They're not playing the same D and have little to no influence on the other guy. Eli's never been "toe-to-toe" with Brady. Brady puts up better stats and is more consistant than Eli.

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...

I still dont understand all the hate towards Tuna.

Nor I