BleedinBlue Posted May 18, 2009 Author Share Posted May 18, 2009 Why do people always think that whatever rookie TE we draft will drastically change the offense? How did the "Shockshank Redemption" turn out? Shockey had great impact for awhile. Between his insatiable ego and propensity to injury (as well as injured feelings), he ended up becoming more of a burden than an asset. If his head was on straight and could stay healthy, he could've been one of the greatest TE's to ever play the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedinBlue Posted May 18, 2009 Author Share Posted May 18, 2009 If Beckum becomes effective than anytime he goes on the field he becomes dangerous because the opposing D has to account for him. Whether the play is designed for him or not he in essence can be used as a decoy once it proves out giving other players great opportunties. Having a player that can move around anywhere on the field in combination with a power back in Jacobs could be extremely hard on defenses. On one hand you have to "stay home" and key in on Jacobs but you have to watch Beckum and where he lines up also. The Linebackers are gonna have fits and ultimately something gives. The wild cat that parcels brought back is only a non stardard play from center to RB. The Giants can use Beckum in a non standard formation as a TE. As always you still have to execute these plays whether standard formation or non-standard. I am very excited about what the Giants are trying to do on offense and defense. Gonna be real fun to watch all this talent hit the field in July !!! Very well stated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Money Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Vacchiano misses the point. Again. If anything is clear about Coughlin's offense, it's that no change will be dramatic. Beckum projects as a situational player this year at best, and the Wildcat projects as something the Giants would never, ever use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Why do people always think that whatever rookie TE we draft will drastically change the offense? How did the "Shockshank Redemption" turn out? Great Movie !! The idea here is to give opposed D's something to think about aside from Jacobs getting the ball. Even if they dont get the ball to Beckum the linebackers have to account for him. Putting this out in the media is a good tactic. As far as will it change the offense drastically I dont think so but it could open up more opportunities for WR's ! We shall see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Money Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Do any of you REALLY expect Travis Beckum to become a regular contributor as a rookie? The 100th player selected in the draft to single-handedly revamp our offense? Really?? It will be a battle for him to beat out Darcy Johnson for the third TE spot. And unless he finds a role on special teams, it's no guarantee that he'll be active on gamedays. On top of that, considering his weaknesses as a blocker, it's hard to imagine many scenarios where he displaces Matthews or Hedgecock. Add it all up, and you're looking at someone that will have a limited role in his first season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boohyah Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Do any of you REALLY expect Travis Beckum to become a regular contributor as a rookie? The 100th player selected in the draft to single-handedly revamp our offense? Really?? It will be a battle for him to beat out Darcy Johnson for the third TE spot. And unless he finds a role on special teams, it's no guarantee that he'll be active on gamedays. On top of that, considering his weaknesses as a blocker, it's hard to imagine many scenarios where he displaces Matthews or Hedgecock. Add it all up, and you're looking at someone that will have a limited role in his first season. Revamp our offense, no. The offense doesn't need to be revamped, it needs tweaking in areas but not revamped. But what has the fact he was the 100th player selected have to do as to whether or not he's a regular contributor or not?. In the last 2 years, our rookies have had impact. 2 years ago, Boss/Ross/Bradshaw/Johnson/Smith all played significant roles, last year Philips/Thomas did well. And I think he'll take Johnson's spot, because I think Mike Matthews is going to stick around because of his blocking ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herc Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 stop being such a killjoy money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boohyah Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 stop being such a killjoy money When is he scheduled to join us again?. July 17th I heard. Has money ever started a thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herc Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 When is he scheduled to join us again?. July 17th I heard. Has money ever started a thread? the thread he made about jimmyhoffa was a classic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boohyah Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 the thread he made about jimmyhoffa was a classic I don't remember it, I'm very old you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. P Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 on madden(i know it doesnt mean anything but its fun) i put him at fullback on plays where the fullback runs a pass pattern and he gets some nice plays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Vacchiano misses the point. Again. If anything is clear about Coughlin's offense, it's that no change will be dramatic. Beckum projects as a situational player this year at best, and the Wildcat projects as something the Giants would never, ever use. Now, since it was you that said that, no one will talk shit to you. :worshippy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 HEy, no need for names there boy! If he took a snap at QB, it would be to pull a Vick/McNabb type run. The article clearly states that he could be used in a variety of offensive plays EXCEPT quarterback. With a few WR's lined up, plus Jacobs and/or Bradshaw, plus Hedgecock, etc., it would cause a lot of trouble for defenses if Beckum is also in there. If they key on Beckum, it opens the door for the other guys who end up in single coverage or no coverage at all. If used correctly, it could be a nightmare for defenses. No matter how well your offense plays in traditional roles, the element of surprise as well as one more thing to worry about is how defenses get screwed over. Lastly, if Reese, Coughlin, and the rest of the coaches are "excited" about Beckum and were "ecstatic" on draft day upon the opportunity to grab him and couldn't wipe the smile off their faces while clearly saying they want to use him in a variety of offensive slots......I really believe you have to give them a little bit of credit for knowing what they are doing. You may disagree with some things they do as a "next day-armchair-expert", but they've proven they know just a little bit about football and picking players in the draft. The Giants staff who worked the draft are not exactly idiots and they aren't Oakland grabbing at straws. They are savvy as hell and can find diamonds in the coal mine. And oh yeah...from the original article: "...he'd be used at almost every offensive skill position except quarterback". Yes, I know its says this. He also speculates: "And with the rising popularity of the Wildcat formation, you never know. He could see a snap or two at QB as well." Which is horribly off base and would be a tragedy if we attempted to put into the offense. Every team tries to create mismatches with their tight end...when did this become news? And when did moving a tight end into the backfield become such a drastic change? We've been doing exactly what he's saying for years. What he's trying to imply is that we are going to install gadget plays around Travis Beckum, which is incredibly moronic. I'm sorry if you think I'm dissing your contribution to the Giants board, but, in reality, I'm dissing Vacciano for being a dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMFP Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Do any of you REALLY expect Travis Beckum to become a regular contributor as a rookie? The 100th player selected in the draft to single-handedly revamp our offense? Really?? It will be a battle for him to beat out Darcy Johnson for the third TE spot. And unless he finds a role on special teams, it's no guarantee that he'll be active on gamedays. On top of that, considering his weaknesses as a blocker, it's hard to imagine many scenarios where he displaces Matthews or Hedgecock. Add it all up, and you're looking at someone that will have a limited role in his first season. Beckum will make the roster, and if that means Darcy's out, then Darcy's out. I don't know what "limited role" means.... Jerry Reese has a good track record of finding rookies that contribute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Beckum will make the roster, and if that means Darcy's out, then Darcy's out. I don't know what "limited role" means.... Jerry Reese has a good track record of finding rookies that contribute. Third string tight ends don't really see the field all that much, I'm pretty sure that's what he means... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMFP Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Third string tight ends don't really see the field all that much, I'm pretty sure that's what he means... "Limited" is a negative term; "contributor" is more apt, especially for a rookie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 "Limited" is a negative term; "contributor" is more apt, especially for a rookie. Well, he'll contribute in limited playing time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMFP Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Well, he'll contribute in limited playing time... That's better. But if this kid is as fast as they are making out, he could turn some heads this season. I like the Boss Man, but I'm not opposed to having Beckum steal some playing time if he's that good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishgutmartyr Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 I think it just means we have another TE besides Boss that can actually catch the ball. If Beckum can actually learn to block, either he or Boss could come out in two TE formations. Who knows? Maybe they put in a set up where he, Boss, and Barden go out, giving Manning THREE large targets in the end zone--Boss isn't exactly tiny at 6'6". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Money Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 He was a good but not great college player. I liked him at Wisconsin. He has a long way to go before he's deployed in regular packages because of his one-dimensionality and the players in front of him (Boss, Matthews, Hedgecock). The premise that he can revolutionize our offense is laughable, and I really don't think it's a lock for him to beat out Darcy, who has a lot of ability and is two years removed from ACL surgery. Maybe we keep 4 TEs. Anyway, the clearest avenue for Beckum to be a contributor is special teams and possibly goal line packages. Otherwise, he along with Barden and Beatty are loooking at red-shirt rookie seasons. This isn't meant to say they aren't good; it's a reflection of the depth of our existing roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Money Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Has money ever started a thread? How soon we forget that I used to author 20-page offseason plan and mock draft threads in my youth. I actually have a lot of them saved on my computer. But now if I want to start a football thread, I usually just do it on BBI because there's more members there. Besides, I've kinda refocused my literary output to comedy instead of sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fringe Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 There was a time when I thought Bleed was a very smart guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Because its that time of year where logic is not welcomed and every draft pick is that steal of the draft. That undrafted player goes to the pro bowl and your team was smart enough to bring him in. I heard something great on The Audible podcast today. Somebody wrote in and asked, "Ramses Barden and Marques Colston both came from small schools. Could Barden have a 'Colston-like' effect in the Giants offense in his rookie year?" The answer? "Ramses Barden could have a BIGGER impact, because he's bigger with more speed." I shit you not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedinBlue Posted May 18, 2009 Author Share Posted May 18, 2009 There was a time when I thought Bleed was a very smart guy. Thanks blu....that's possibly the nicest thing anyone has ever said about me on this board! :worshippy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now