(10-31-2018, 07:21 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (10-30-2018, 10:42 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]The lack of running game wouldn't be as big of a problem if you have a QB. Take the vikings for example.
We are a running team (supposedly). We aren't paying big money to a QB, that is not the plan.
The plan should be to have an effective passing game AND be able to run the ball when you want. That's what the best teams have.
We aren't paying big money to a QB because we don't have one worth it.
(10-31-2018, 12:16 PM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ]Coughlin will have the ultimate say on the next QB, so it really doesn't matter how much trust we have in Caldwell.
Toms already failed in his first test of addressing the QB spot. Can he rebound? We shall see.
Drafting a QB is a complete crapshoot.
How many GMs or coaches do you actually trust? Everyone has had their fair share of misses at QB.
(10-31-2018, 12:50 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ] (10-31-2018, 12:16 PM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ]Coughlin will have the ultimate say on the next QB, so it really doesn't matter how much trust we have in Caldwell.
Toms already failed in his first test of addressing the QB spot. Can he rebound? We shall see.
There's a few ways to look at this.
They clearly weighed their options last year upon TC's arrival and decided upon building something defensive and run-centric that could win with a guy like Bortles under center.
Well, they kinda
didn't fail at that in year one. They went to the AFCCG and damn near won it. Would you put that loss on Blake Bortles? I'd give him maybe a 30% share of the blame, if that.
This year: Slightly different story, but not by much. The first eight games of last season featured a similar amount of Good Blake vs Bad Blake as what we've seen this season. He was very hot and cold then as well, yet they were winning enough to stay in the hunt. The difference right now seems to be the o-line play and inuries there as well as all over the roster.
God knows I'm no big Blake advocate, I didn't want a RB picked that high, and I'm not even all that high on Coughlin really, but they
were making that formula work pretty well there for a while.
Clearly it's not sustainable - and having a QB that requires so many A+ elements around him for success is hopefully not the plan moving forward - but the approach (even if I didn't like it) wasn't really a failure until the injury bug came to town.
(10-31-2018, 01:06 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Drafting a QB is a complete crapshoot.
How many GMs or coaches do you actually trust? Everyone has had their fair share of misses at QB.
If drafting is a crapshoot, shouldn't GM's technically keep their jobs forever? What is the threshold of accountability?
(10-31-2018, 01:10 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-31-2018, 01:06 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Drafting a QB is a complete crapshoot.
How many GMs or coaches do you actually trust? Everyone has had their fair share of misses at QB.
If drafting is a crapshoot, shouldn't GM's technically keep their jobs forever? What is the threshold of accountability?
I didn't saying drafting every position is a crapshoot (although it kind of is sometimes) but just the QB position.
Just go back and look at so many QBs drafted in the 1st round. RG3 was drafted #2 but some thought he would be better than Luck. Was it a bad choice to draft him or did it just not work out? A lot of people had Gabbert over Newton. He clearly didn't work out but could things have been different had he been drafted else where?
Drafting a QB has so many factors into it that's incredibly hard to quantify. Parcells tried to do it but at one point his surefire QB in a draft was Landry Jones. If Brady had no been drafted by the Pats, would anyone even know who he is?
GMs are almost always tied to their QB (whether that's fair or not) and drafting a QB seems impossible sometimes.
(10-31-2018, 01:18 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (10-31-2018, 01:10 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]If drafting is a crapshoot, shouldn't GM's technically keep their jobs forever? What is the threshold of accountability?
I didn't saying drafting every position is a crapshoot (although it kind of is sometimes) but just the QB position.
Just go back and look at so many QBs drafted in the 1st round. RG3 was drafted #2 but some thought he would be better than Luck. Was it a bad choice to draft him or did it just not work out? A lot of people had Gabbert over Newton. He clearly didn't work out but could things have been different had he been drafted else where?
Drafting a QB has so many factors into it that's incredibly hard to quantify. Parcells tried to do it but at one point his surefire QB in a draft was Landry Jones. If Brady had no been drafted by the Pats, would anyone even know who he is?
GMs are almost always tied to their QB (whether that's fair or not) and drafting a QB seems impossible sometimes.
I can agree with a lot of that, but this franchise seems to have drafted their last 2 franchise QB's based on intangibles and not so much tangibles. Bortles was even quoted saying he wasn't a natural thrower of the football. Even in year 5, Bortles still looks like his UCF tape, so I am not sure why anyone is actually surprised.
(10-31-2018, 01:23 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-31-2018, 01:18 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't saying drafting every position is a crapshoot (although it kind of is sometimes) but just the QB position.
Just go back and look at so many QBs drafted in the 1st round. RG3 was drafted #2 but some thought he would be better than Luck. Was it a bad choice to draft him or did it just not work out? A lot of people had Gabbert over Newton. He clearly didn't work out but could things have been different had he been drafted else where?
Drafting a QB has so many factors into it that's incredibly hard to quantify. Parcells tried to do it but at one point his surefire QB in a draft was Landry Jones. If Brady had no been drafted by the Pats, would anyone even know who he is?
GMs are almost always tied to their QB (whether that's fair or not) and drafting a QB seems impossible sometimes.
I can agree with a lot of that, but this franchise seems to have drafted their last 2 franchise QB's based on intangibles and not so much tangibles. Bortles was even quoted saying he wasn't a natural thrower of the football. Even in year 5, Bortles still looks like his UCF tape, so I am not sure why anyone is actually surprised.
Arians was all over Blake and he's one of the most trusted guys in the league when it comes to QBs. It's a crapshoot.
(10-31-2018, 01:33 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (10-31-2018, 01:23 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]I can agree with a lot of that, but this franchise seems to have drafted their last 2 franchise QB's based on intangibles and not so much tangibles. Bortles was even quoted saying he wasn't a natural thrower of the football. Even in year 5, Bortles still looks like his UCF tape, so I am not sure why anyone is actually surprised.
Arians was all over Blake and he's one of the most trusted guys in the league when it comes to QBs. It's a crapshoot.
If multiple trusted sources around the league are high on the guys we draft and they don't pan out, then you have to look immediately to coaching. It is the common denominator.
Anyway, dead horse has been kicked a million times here.
(10-31-2018, 01:33 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (10-31-2018, 01:23 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]I can agree with a lot of that, but this franchise seems to have drafted their last 2 franchise QB's based on intangibles and not so much tangibles. Bortles was even quoted saying he wasn't a natural thrower of the football. Even in year 5, Bortles still looks like his UCF tape, so I am not sure why anyone is actually surprised.
Arians was all over Blake and he's one of the most trusted guys in the league when it comes to QBs. It's a crapshoot.
BoB is/was big on Bortles too.
Not quite the football mind of Arians but it wasn't like no one liked the guy or knew who he was or whatever.
And who knows... as a 3rd round project for someone, maybe he develops different with a guy like Arians or perhaps an Andy Reid who seemingly makes every QB he has ever had look decent to really good.
(10-31-2018, 01:06 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Drafting a QB is a complete crapshoot.
How many GMs or coaches do you actually trust? Everyone has had their fair share of misses at QB.
I think the head coach might matter more than the QB
See; Goff
(10-31-2018, 01:10 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (10-31-2018, 12:50 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]
Toms already failed in his first test of addressing the QB spot. Can he rebound? We shall see.
There's a few ways to look at this.
They clearly weighed their options last year upon TC's arrival and decided upon building something defensive and run-centric that could win with a guy like Bortles under center.
Well, they kinda didn't fail at that in year one. They went to the AFCCG and damn near won it. Would you put that loss on Blake Bortles? I'd give him maybe a 30% share of the blame, if that.
This year: Slightly different story, but not by much. The first eight games of last season featured a similar amount of Good Blake vs Bad Blake as what we've seen this season. He was very hot and cold then as well, yet they were winning enough to stay in the hunt. The difference right now seems to be the o-line play and inuries there as well as all over the roster.
God knows I'm no big Blake advocate, I didn't want a RB picked that high, and I'm not even all that high on Coughlin really, but they were making that formula work pretty well there for a while.
Clearly it's not sustainable - and having a QB that requires so many A+ elements around him for success is hopefully not the plan moving forward - but the approach (even if I didn't like it) wasn't really a failure until the injury bug came to town.
Last year worked, absolutely. They managed to hide their QB and won with their defense and run game. Taken in a vacuum, I have no faults with that approach. The issues lies with "what comes next?".
Blake and 80% of the starting team has regressed. The injury bug bug is an issue, the line is an issue but most of all the QB spot is the biggest problem on the team right now for the simple reason is once you hit adversity you are left with a well below average QB. His mechanics are back to terrible too. Can he rebound? Perhaps but it seems pretty clear that Blake is who is he and that caps the teams ceiling.
So although 2017 was great, Coughlins job is to ensure continued and repeated success and Blake is not conducive to that. He has had multiple chances to replace him but chose to stick by him. Also, I was cautiously optimistic about Blake taking another step forward this year and putting himself in that Dalton range but it hasn't happened.
My main thing is I don't want us to force the issue. If the Giants take the #1 guy (presumably Hebert) and there is no other QB we are confident in, I don't want us to draft a guy in the first round, just because we need one. That would ultimately do more damage than good. It could set us back another 5 years. Hopefully, we will be in a position to draft a QB we really like, but if not, I'd rather wait until 2020 to draft one and find an UFA to make us at least competitive next season.
(10-31-2018, 01:57 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]My main thing is I don't want us to force the issue. If the Giants take the #1 guy (presumably Hebert) and there is no other QB we are confident in, I don't want us to draft a guy in the first round, just because we need one. That would ultimately do more damage than good. It could set us back another 5 years. Hopefully, we will be in a position to draft a QB we really like, but if not, I'd rather wait until 2020 to draft one and find an UFA to make us at least competitive next season.
In theory we could draft a QB in round 2 this year. Have him and Bortles compete.
in 2020 a 2nd round QB doesn't prevent us from getting a 1st round QB if we need one.
It may be a bit overkill to go that route but it is imperative to get an upgrade at QB while we still have the meat of our defense together
(10-31-2018, 02:54 PM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ] (10-31-2018, 01:57 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]My main thing is I don't want us to force the issue. If the Giants take the #1 guy (presumably Hebert) and there is no other QB we are confident in, I don't want us to draft a guy in the first round, just because we need one. That would ultimately do more damage than good. It could set us back another 5 years. Hopefully, we will be in a position to draft a QB we really like, but if not, I'd rather wait until 2020 to draft one and find an UFA to make us at least competitive next season.
In theory we could draft a QB in round 2 this year. Have him and Bortles compete.
in 2020 a 2nd round QB doesn't prevent us from getting a 1st round QB if we need one.
It may be a bit overkill to go that route but it is imperative to get an upgrade at QB while we still have the meat of our defense together
We could go that way, but personally I don't see a 2nd round QB that I like at all. I'd rather use that pick to upgrade one of the other areas of need whether it be O-Line, TE, DE or NT. I'm not totally against drafting a QB in the 4th or later, but the 2nd might be too early. I really see no difference between the QB's getting a 2nd round grade right now and later round grades.
(10-31-2018, 03:37 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (10-31-2018, 02:54 PM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ]In theory we could draft a QB in round 2 this year. Have him and Bortles compete.
in 2020 a 2nd round QB doesn't prevent us from getting a 1st round QB if we need one.
It may be a bit overkill to go that route but it is imperative to get an upgrade at QB while we still have the meat of our defense together
We could go that way, but personally I don't see a 2nd round QB that I like at all. I'd rather use that pick to upgrade one of the other areas of need whether it be O-Line, TE, DE or NT. I'm not totally against drafting a QB in the 4th or later, but the 2nd might be too early. I really see no difference between the QB's getting a 2nd round grade right now and later round grades.
Well depending on where you get your rankings from, some have Grier and Lock as 2nd round guys.
Walter Football has Haskins as a 2nd thru 4th.. lol... would you take him in the 2nd?
There's quite a bit of football left for these guys to rise and fall... but I think there is plenty of talent if you have the right minds to use them in place. Frankly I'm less confident this coach staff can do much with any of these guys. But we should be in solid position, likely top 10 of every round, so moves can be made to get a very good QB.
If a team or two end up worse than NYG... we could be in position to move up for Herbert, if they think he's the top QB
(10-31-2018, 03:45 PM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ] (10-31-2018, 03:37 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]We could go that way, but personally I don't see a 2nd round QB that I like at all. I'd rather use that pick to upgrade one of the other areas of need whether it be O-Line, TE, DE or NT. I'm not totally against drafting a QB in the 4th or later, but the 2nd might be too early. I really see no difference between the QB's getting a 2nd round grade right now and later round grades.
Well depending on where you get your rankings from, some have Grier and Lock as 2nd round guys.
Walter Football has Haskins as a 2nd thru 4th.. lol... would you take him in the 2nd?
There's quite a bit of football left for these guys to rise and fall... but I think there is plenty of talent if you have the right minds to use them in place. Frankly I'm less confident this coach staff can do much with any of these guys. But we should be in solid position, likely top 10 of every round, so moves can be made to get a very good QB.
If a team or two end up worse than NYG... we could be in position to move up for Herbert, if they think he's the top QB
Given the fact that Tampa Bay has apparently realized that Winston is not the future franchise QB, Miami has soured on Tannenhill, Keenum has been a huge disappointment in Denver and then you have teams with older veteran QB's like Brady, Brees and Rivers with no apparent QB heir in place and I highly doubt Grier and Lock make it to the 2nd round.
I don't see the Giants winning another game this season. Hopefully, they do and we can move ahead of them. I just think it's unlikely.
(10-31-2018, 01:06 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Drafting a QB is a complete crapshoot.
How many GMs or coaches do you actually trust? Everyone has had their fair share of misses at QB.
While it is very true that QB is the hardest position to select correctly, how many GMs miss on their first try and are given a second attempt? Very, very few.
(10-31-2018, 01:56 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]Last year worked, absolutely. They managed to hide their QB and won with their defense and run game. Taken in a vacuum, I have no faults with that approach. The issues lies with "what comes next?".
It did work, but the team should have realized that was virtually the peak of the crest for their wave outcomes. Extremely lucky health, unsustainable number of sacks/turnovers/D TDs, Bortles 18:0 red zone TD:INT ratio... There was almost zero chance that doubling down on what worked last year was going to produce the same results.
The best thing to do would be fire Dave. Bring in a new GM and let him make a decision on his coaches and QB
(10-31-2018, 08:08 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ] (10-31-2018, 01:56 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]Last year worked, absolutely. They managed to hide their QB and won with their defense and run game. Taken in a vacuum, I have no faults with that approach. The issues lies with "what comes next?".
It did work, but the team should have realized that was virtually the peak of the crest for their wave outcomes. Extremely lucky health, unsustainable number of sacks/turnovers/D TDs, Bortles 18:0 red zone TD:INT ratio... There was almost zero chance that doubling down on what worked last year was going to produce the same results.
Yeah that's what I mean by taking it in a vaccum. If it was a 1 year endeavour, they did great. Unfortunately that's not how they should be judged.